Stuff That You Wish Paizo Had Done For Pathfinder 1E?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 1,122 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

Having set spell list for each type of magic would have been better but I think we need more then 4 types of magic then what we got in 2e.

I am not sure what kind of magic you would call it for bards(dancers, artist, etc.) that use music, art, poetry, dance, story telling, etc. as a component for magic.

Also nether arcane, divine, nature, or psychic completely fits a witch's spell list so I am glad they got their own list. But making it it's type of magic would have been interesting but what would call it? Hex magic? Witchcraft? Curse magic?

I do wish that many other classes didn't get their own spell list like the bloodrager, magus, etc.

Other forms of magic that would be interesting would be Blood, Chaos, Chi/Ki, Rune, and Spirit/Soul.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Plastic Magic
Rock Magic
Scissors Magic
Paper Magic
Plasma Magic
Magic Magic

Yeah, Paizo dropped the ball on not covering some of the obvious choices.

Dark Archive

Pshaw, now I have David Bowie singing 'Dance Magic' stuck in my head!

Which is cool, actually.

Having a sort of semi-school of 'Fae Magic' that includes some select Enchantment, Illusion, Necromancy (mostly just Bestow Curse...) and Transmutation effects could be cool, or a semi-school of 'Dragon Magic' that's all about Evocation with a dash of Transmutation? Aboleth Magic would be similar to Fae Magic, with heavy focus on Enchantment and Illusion, but delve into glyphs with a bit of Abjuration and Divination, perhaps?

Jon Brazer Enterprises

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
Pshaw, now I have David Bowie singing 'Dance Magic' stuck in my head!

Dance Magic Dance.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Way back in 2nd edition AD&D I had this insane idea for a 'Craftmage' that performed some proficiency (what the kids called 'skills' back in the day) to 'prepare' their spells, and then used the product of that skill use to activate or 'cast' the spell. It was inspired by the seemingly endless 'kits' that were coming out like the Clockwork Mage or Spellweaver or Dervish that tied spell preparation to some mechanic in that way, and vainly attempted to bind them all together.

One mage might brew up their potions in the morning, and carry them around like potions, drinking them (or splashing them at foes) as necessary during the day. They weren't actually potions, and anyone else drinking one would just get a nasty taste and maybe a tummyache later.

Another might weave intricate patterns of threads, and unravel them to cast their spells. Yet another cobble together one-use clockwork gadgets that unwind or fall apart as the spell is cast, and have to be re-assembled the next day, if the spell is to be 're-memorized.' One might *appear* to be using scrolls, as they are instead using special calligraphy or some sort crafted poetry skill to create inscriptions or verses of power that burn off the page as they are read/activated/cast, but these aren't scrolls, and anyone else reading them gets just words.

I totally gave up as the costs to produce such 'spell crafts' and time spent to engage in whatever preparations were needed varied widely depending on the choice of skill. Someone who made little origami paperfolded spells, or tied complex knots, had a much cheaper set of crafting materials than the 'clockwork mage' or the gemcutter! It was a balancing nightmare.

And yet, I'd love to see someone smarter than me make a sort of 'craftsmage' like this, that used the skill system to prepare spells, either by physical craft (like clockwork, brewing, talisman/amulet-making, etc.) or something less material and more expressive (writing magical sonnets or ditties or performing magical dances.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Paper Magic

This one would've been cool, if perhaps a bit limited in scope. Read or Die! is a favorite show of mine, and from L5R First Edition the Origami Artisans are quite neat too.


Using paper as a weapon/armor/tool in general would have made some interesting class options. Examples would be Thundercats(2011), Jackie Chan Adventures, and Kubo and The Two Strings.


Dragon78 wrote:
Using paper as a weapon/armor/tool in general would have made some interesting class options. Examples would be Thundercats(2011), Jackie Chan Adventures, and Kubo and The Two Strings.

Scroll Scholar (wizard archetype)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:


More dex to damage options. Yes I know this is "controversial".

I still don't see why this is controversial? What, it causes a bump in DPR? Oh heavens no! It makes strength less necessary? Yeah welcome to 3.5/PF where magic trumps everything! Honestly, I lump Dex-to-Damage haters in with those who thought Monkey Grip was too good (still laughing at that one) and how the Vow of Poverty is super broken (yeah, ok...)

I'm just glad we got the Unchained Rogue when we did.


Yeah, never had a problem with dex to damage, monkey grip feat, and many other things that people complain about on this site.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Too many things in one stat while Charisma sits there uselessly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly liked the 4th edition STR or CON to Fort, Int or Dex to reflex, Wis or Cha to will saves aspect of the edition and wish it had carried over. Anything to help even the load between attributes a little bit.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Paper Magic
This one would've been cool, if perhaps a bit limited in scope. Read or Die! is a favorite show of mine, and from L5R First Edition the Origami Artisans are quite neat too.

Papyrukineticist. A Kineticist archetype in the City of 7 Seraphs setting. Check the Spheres of Power wiki for a bare bones read of it.


Ooh, Oooh, Bleed standardization.

Bleed effects don't stack
-Unless they're different types of damage
-Or specifically say so
-Or some of them stack with themselves
-But only if they're applied in the same round

Develop some standardized language and design philosophy, apply it to bleed effects, because right now you can have two bleed abilities, one that specifically states it doesn't stack, and one that specifically states it does.

Dark Archive

Gorbacz wrote:
Too many things in one stat while Charisma sits there uselessly.

Well, I did once play a Paladin 2 / Oracle (Lore) 1 / Ninja 2 that got quite a lot of mileage out of his Charisma score.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
amethal wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Too many things in one stat while Charisma sits there uselessly.
Well, I did once play a Paladin 2 / Oracle (Lore) 1 / Ninja 2 that got quite a lot of mileage out of his Charisma score.

Of course you did, because you made a specific build that ran off Charisma.

For a run the mill PC, Charisma is nothing, while Dex is initiative, Reflex, AC, ranged to hit, Some Actually Useful Skills. Too much riding on one stat to hand out Dex to damage like candy.


Gorbacz wrote:
amethal wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Too many things in one stat while Charisma sits there uselessly.
Well, I did once play a Paladin 2 / Oracle (Lore) 1 / Ninja 2 that got quite a lot of mileage out of his Charisma score.

Of course you did, because you made a specific build that ran off Charisma.

For a run the mill PC, Charisma is nothing, while Dex is initiative, Reflex, AC, ranged to hit, Some Actually Useful Skills. Too much riding on one stat to hand out Dex to damage like candy.

I've thought about moving Will to Charisma and ranged to hit to Wisdom.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
amethal wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Too many things in one stat while Charisma sits there uselessly.
Well, I did once play a Paladin 2 / Oracle (Lore) 1 / Ninja 2 that got quite a lot of mileage out of his Charisma score.

Of course you did, because you made a specific build that ran off Charisma.

For a run the mill PC, Charisma is nothing, while Dex is initiative, Reflex, AC, ranged to hit, Some Actually Useful Skills. Too much riding on one stat to hand out Dex to damage like candy.

I've thought about moving Will to Charisma and ranged to hit to Wisdom.

Careful there, Wisdom is another uber-stat, with Will save (arguably the most important save) and the biggest skill tax (Perception) keyed to it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
I've thought about moving Will to Charisma and ranged to hit to Wisdom.
Careful there, Wisdom is another uber-stat, with Will save (arguably the most important save) and the biggest skill tax (Perception) keyed to it.

Um, but I said I'd move Will away from Wisdom.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
amethal wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Too many things in one stat while Charisma sits there uselessly.
Well, I did once play a Paladin 2 / Oracle (Lore) 1 / Ninja 2 that got quite a lot of mileage out of his Charisma score.
Of course you did, because you made a specific build that ran off Charisma.

Back in the good old days, none of the stats did anything much, and you had to play with the stats you rolled. The game has changed a lot since then, but the ability scores haven't.

Nobody seems to be suggesting bringing back henchman limits tied to charisma, or having a minimum charisma requirement before you can play a paladin or (I seem to remember) a druid.

Let's just get rid of Charisma altogether.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You could do what Kirthfinder did and split Will into two savings throws, one of which is based on Charisma.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Kirthfinder is a very rich and complex system that some see as a Pathfinder "sequel."


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Charisma isn't useless, you can make characters that have no use for it but its no more useless than any other stat other than con. its a casting stat for a bunch of classes, and its tied to the best non magical narrative skills in the game, bluf diplomacy and intimidate.

It is TRIVIAL to have charisma replace another attribute somewhere on your character sheet, and its not particularly hard to have it be the only stat you need to care about.

Dark Archive

Ryan Freire wrote:
I honestly liked the 4th edition STR or CON to Fort, Int or Dex to reflex, Wis or Cha to will saves aspect of the edition and wish it had carried over. Anything to help even the load between attributes a little bit.

I played one game with a house rule that Fort saves were Con mod + 1/2 Str mod, Ref saves were Dex mod + 1/2 Int mod, and Will saves were Wis mod + 1/2 Cha mod (round down, so you'd need a 14 Cha, Int or Str to see a save bump of +1), for a game which still used some of the old 3.0 stuff that gave a lot of +1 save DC options and had a lot of 'save inflation.'

It was kind of neat in that it didn't just do the expected and make Fighters have even better Fort saves, and Sorcerers even better Will saves, but did the occasional neat thing, like give Wizards slightly better Reflex saves, under the rationalization that they were better able to minimize the amount of damage they took from area of effect / explosions by clever placement and angling of their bodies, or whatever.

IIRC, there was a feat option to reverse it, so your Cha 18, Wis 10 Sorcerer could get a +4 Will save modifier from his Cha, instead of a bit fat +0 from his Wisdom, but I don't think anyone took it...


Hexes I would have liked to have seen...

-More healing/curative based hexes.
-More status ailment based hexes.
-Hexes(major and grand) that improve prehensile hair and nails. Other hexes that improve other hexes in general.
-More elemental hexes.
-More shape changing hexes.
-Plant based entangle hex(single target) and more plant based hexes in general.
-Hex(es) that give you bite attack with grab and swallow whole like the Ginger bread witch archetype gets.
-Hex that makes a creature vulnerable to an energy type bypassing energy resistance but maybe not immunity.


A damage dealing touch spell on the Magus spell list. Considering how relatively cheap it would be to just research such a spell, I would have rather a published material just created one for the purposes of a Magus using a zero-level spell for Spellstrike.

I realize we're getting really deep into the weeds with this wish, though.


Andostre wrote:

A damage dealing touch spell on the Magus spell list. Considering how relatively cheap it would be to just research such a spell, I would have rather a published material just created one for the purposes of a Magus using a zero-level spell for Spellstrike.

I realize we're getting really deep into the weeds with this wish, though.

Arcane Mark, or grab Brand by being a hexcrafter.


Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:
Andostre wrote:

A damage dealing touch spell on the Magus spell list. Considering how relatively cheap it would be to just research such a spell, I would have rather a published material just created one for the purposes of a Magus using a zero-level spell for Spellstrike.

I realize we're getting really deep into the weeds with this wish, though.

Arcane Mark, or grab Brand by being a hexcrafter.

Yep, I know about those. Seems like a diminished-range acid splash or ray of frost would be more appropriate than thematically twisting a spell or limiting a PC to a specific archetype for this minor feature (or spending a trait to get Two-World Magic).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The thing is, Magus was never intended to have at-will spellstrike. Sadly, the designers didn't anticipate people using arcane mark that way...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
The thing is, Magus was never intended to have at-will spellstrike. Sadly, the designers didn't anticipate people using arcane mark that way...

Shame we don't have Errata or some sort of Frequently Asked Questions page to clarify or update unintended features.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scavion wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
The thing is, Magus was never intended to have at-will spellstrike. Sadly, the designers didn't anticipate people using arcane mark that way...
Shame we don't have Errata or some sort of Frequently Asked Questions page to clarify or update unintended features.

And you never will, so you either use the common sense, which tells you that a spell that writes your magical signature wasn't meant to be a combat spell, or you end up spending your life arguing that on forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To be honest i dont get why it "has" to be an available thing to do either. Magus invests literally zero resources into their "two weapon fighting" They don't even make the sacrifices brawlers and monks do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally the Magus should have had the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.


Dragon78 wrote:
Personally the Magus should have had the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.

Kinda hard to do so when the Magus's spell list goes to 6, shile the Sorcerer's/Wizard's goes to 9.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

2 people marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Personally the Magus should have had the Sorcerer/Wizard spell list.
Kinda hard to do so when the Magus's spell list goes to 6, shile the Sorcerer's/Wizard's goes to 9.

JiCi means in the same way the warpriest spell list goes to 6 but otherwise uses the cleric spell list.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah Dale McCoy Jr, that is exactly what I meant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
The thing is, Magus was never intended to have at-will spellstrike.

The heart wants what the heart wants.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Dragon78 wrote:
Yeah Dale McCoy Jr, that is exactly what I meant.

Whoops, I meant, "JiCi, Dragon78 means..."


Andostre wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
The thing is, Magus was never intended to have at-will spellstrike.
The heart wants what the heart wants.

From a design perspective? I'd never give at will single weapon flurry to a class with spellcasting.

I WOULD include it as a feat option for people who wanted to fight singleton tho

Grand Lodge

Eh, I get one extra attack. I don’t find it that egregious.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Eh, I get one extra attack. I don’t find it that egregious.

From a raw balance perspective nah, its not.

From a theme perspective i resent handing what amounts to a martial weapon ability to a class that gets 3/4 casting and martials don't have access to.

Itd be less annoying to me if you had some method of fighting singleton and getting a pseudo flurry with it as a class thats supposed to be focused on weaponry.

Grand Lodge

Every character can Two-Weapon Fight, doesn't require a feat. The feat just lessens the penalty. Monks can flurry with a single weapon, as can Brawlers.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Every character can Two-Weapon Fight, doesn't require a feat. The feat just lessens the penalty. Monks can flurry with a single weapon, as can Brawlers.

Cool, fighters are the supposed masters of weaponry, how does a fighter, without a chain of dips and weird third party feats flurry with say a longsword and an empty hand? (edit again: this is even more egregious since aroden, who in one way or another is significant and central to the setting, popularized fighting with speed and grace with a longsword as his fighting style)

Where did the magus, inbetween learning spellcasting, manage to become more skilled in the use of a solitary weapon and empty hand than the fighter class or the swashbuckler?

edit: thats my point, its not a numbers issue per se, its a stylistic issue, and a logical issue, but im going to take this to the 1.5 wishlist/theory/reminisce/homebrew thread.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Every character can Two-Weapon Fight, doesn't require a feat. The feat just lessens the penalty. Monks can flurry with a single weapon, as can Brawlers.
Cool, fighters are the supposed masters of weaponry,

The rules don’t emulate the expected story tropes and expectations? Color me shocked.

Next you’ll tell me the 3.5 Monk wasn’t the exemplar of unarmed combat it professed to be.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

3.5 Monk was cool, it was GMs job to make them shine! For example, to set up an elaborate running and jumping on a wall puzzle only Monk could solve while the rest of the party was fighting the Balor!

You just played with poor GMs who never understood that any rules issues can be solved by creatively coming up with situations where a 3.5 Monk could do things a Wizard could not. So sorry for you, TOZ!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Every character can Two-Weapon Fight, doesn't require a feat. The feat just lessens the penalty. Monks can flurry with a single weapon, as can Brawlers.
Cool, fighters are the supposed masters of weaponry,

The rules don’t emulate the expected story tropes and expectations? Color me shocked.

Next you’ll tell me the 3.5 Monk wasn’t the exemplar of unarmed combat it professed to be.

Its almost like we're in a thread about what you WISH was done in 1st ed. Color me shocked that people are talking about the way they wish theme and mechanics meshed in that game.

Shadow Lodge

Then don't feed the trolls if you can't handle differences of opinion?

"It's my right to complain about it here!" Well, then it's my right to complain about your comments.


Ah yes the classy

"I wish to undo that other guy's wish."

But on topic, I prefer Unchained Monk flurry and think a Fighter archetype with it would have been cool. I think 6 Skill Points per Level, a Good Will and AWP giving tactical options rather than numbers to make up for deficiencies would have been nice.

Grand Lodge

I could see running with that in my games.

Also, undoing wishes is impossible, everyone knows that.

351 to 400 of 1,122 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Stuff That You Wish Paizo Had Done For Pathfinder 1E? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.