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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, always felt that the Fighter should have had 4-6 skill points/level and Perception as a class skill. A good will save might have be little much but I wouldn't complain if they had that;)

Scavion, what kind of tactical options would you give the Fighter?


Dragon78 wrote:

Yeah, always felt that the Fighter should have had 4-6 skill points/level and Perception as a class skill. A good will save might have be little much but I wouldn't complain if they had that;)

Scavion, what kind of tactical options would you give the Fighter?

If Bravery had just applies to all will saves instead of vs fear then it might have been usable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If anything, an Unchained Fighter was needed... and almost every released archetype is better than the base Fighter.

I will applaude Paizo for the Weapon Master's Handbook, as it literally allow the Fighter to diversify.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

Yeah, always felt that the Fighter should have had 4-6 skill points/level and Perception as a class skill. A good will save might have be little much but I wouldn't complain if they had that;)

Scavion, what kind of tactical options would you give the Fighter?

Spitballing ideas that I've seen work well in 3pp, homebrew and other archetypes. I'd want something like being able to take a move action or 5ft steps as a swift action. Being able to push through some negative conditions by suppressing them temporarily. I'd want it to be a resource pool that's small but refills quickly over the course of the battle or adventuring day like Grit or Panache.

Maybe he could spent a point to boost(We'll say half character level) his next attack roll or combat maneuver check without provoking. It'd be cool if you could consider "Oh hey this guy has a pretty unique weapon, maybe I could try disarming him" without having to invest in a bunch of feats for that.

This is my personal preference, but I'd get rid of Weapon Training completely since I hate how it emphasizes using only 1 or 2 types of weapons. Being able to pick up a weapon in a dungeon and go "Hey cool! This is better than my weapon." without having the "Hey cool! This is a neat weapon and all, but I have 4 feats and a class feature that only works with Greatswords :("


Scavion wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

Yeah, always felt that the Fighter should have had 4-6 skill points/level and Perception as a class skill. A good will save might have be little much but I wouldn't complain if they had that;)

Scavion, what kind of tactical options would you give the Fighter?

Spitballing ideas that I've seen work well in 3pp, homebrew and other archetypes. I'd want something like being able to take a move action or 5ft steps as a swift action. Being able to push through some negative conditions by suppressing them temporarily. I'd want it to be a resource pool that's small but refills quickly over the course of the battle or adventuring day like Grit or Panache.

Maybe he could spent a point to boost(We'll say half character level) his next attack roll or combat maneuver check without provoking. It'd be cool if you could consider "Oh hey this guy has a pretty unique weapon, maybe I could try disarming him" without having to invest in a bunch of feats for that.

This is my personal preference, but I'd get rid of Weapon Training completely since I hate how it emphasizes using only 1 or 2 types of weapons. Being able to pick up a weapon in a dungeon and go "Hey cool! This is better than my weapon." without having the "Hey cool! This is a neat weapon and all, but I have 4 feats and a class feature that only works with Greatswords :("

I disagree on weapon training, i think specialization should be rewarded. AWT offered a number of ways to spread your feats around among other weapons. The issue is that 3.0 and pathfinder assume availability. Back in 2nd edition if you picked some obscure weapon you ran the real chance of simply not having magic versions of it show up if you were running modules.

One of the big economic breakdowns is that most weapons are so cheap you can technically find a masterwork katana in any varisan village.

A lot of what you describe benefits mostly from feat consolidation. I still think combat expertise should be +2cmb and no attacks of opportunity for performing a combat maneuver. It will absolutely blow open playing a martial if one feat lets you reposition, dirty trick, disarm, trip, and drag with a little bonus and maybe expand all the single weapon choices to be weapon group choices and things just kind of open up.


Playing with new folks regularly has taught me that a reduction in fiddly numbers is necessary. I want to reduce the extraneous +1s everywhere and boil things down to where people are deciding between what new thing(Speaking abstractly here but considering options like getting the ability to parry an attack or knocking an enemy back with a shield if they miss) they want to be able to do rather than deciding they need to squeeze out more +1s and 2s.


Scavion wrote:
Playing with new folks regularly has taught me that a reduction in fiddly numbers is necessary. I want to reduce the extraneous +1s everywhere and boil things down to where people are deciding between what new thing(Speaking abstractly here but considering options like getting the ability to parry an attack or knocking an enemy back with a shield if they miss) they want to be able to do rather than deciding they need to squeeze out more +1s and 2s.

Thats trueish, but a big draw of the 1.anything version of pathfinder IS playing with the fiddly bits.

I would argue that the fiddly +1's and 2's in class features are less of a problem than the fiddly +1's and 2's in feats and spells. New players don't forget their weapon training bonus because when they level up they calculate their bonuses, add em up and write them on a sheet. I'll lay dollars to donuts that as often as that gets added up wrong, forgetting to add +1 from bard song or bless happens 10X as often.

From my perspective adding numerical bonuses isn't as big a deal as long as they're either things you don't pay significant opportunity cost for, or they come accompanied with enabling a new play option. Picking a weapon training group has an opportunity cost, but its not really the same as picking a feat. Or at least how picking a feat is envisioned but doesn't really pan out.


A grit/panache like mechanic for fighters would have been cool.

An ability for Fighters to resist(second save after failure) status ailment effects would have been cool.

Special abilities/techniques based on the weapon(or weapons) you choose to focus on with Fighters would have been awesome.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is a simply incredible number of homebrew fighter fixes out there. I think there's pretty strong agreement that something needed to be done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed part of the fun in pathfinder is messing with the numbers and abilities to achieve your goals. Whether its changing stats, little circumstance bonuses for having the right tool, or just the random "that was an awesome description, here is a +X to your check". But I will also agree that the number game can become over bearing when taken to the extreme, and that should be worked harder to control. Sadly, I can't come up with a good solution immediately.

Fighters indeed were in a bad spot at the beginning. But by the end they honestly were really good. Not only did they get many cool abilities (Ex Gloomblade & Spear Fighter), but they remained as a constant point of comparison as to how other classes should interact. Not to mention being the easiest class to learn in the game, which is great for new people to understand the basic mechanics.

Magus Spell Combat is nothing more and nothing less that applying the basic rules of Two Weapon fighting with "spell == off-hand". Heck Spell Combat can't even increase the number of attacks/spells cast as you can with Flurry or TWF. The part where things makes Magus stand out is how Spell Combat interacts with Spellstrike, which lets you get the two strike with a single weapon at a penalty. But again this in not better than a level 2 Brawler with a weapon from the "close group", but a Brawlers can get extra attacks for free.


Soemthing I... kinda fail to build using a Fighter is your typical BBEG... because the Fighter lacks anything to make the class unique on its own.

What makes the Fighter unique? Its equipment... that's it... and even then, other martial or semi-martial classes do it better with something they CAN do with their equipment.

Try making a truly intidimating recurring bad guy with that alone... The ONLY time I've seen this was with a NPC called the "Duke" back in D&D 3.5, who was a gladiator.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you want to make the Fighter unique, you should probably look at other classes that used to be generic, like the Wizard and Sorcerer. What this suggests is you need to create choose-able themes.

Whether or not you think that overlap between the themes and classes matters will probably determine how hard this is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:

If you want to make the Fighter unique, you should probably look at other classes that used to be generic, like the Wizard and Sorcerer. What this suggests is you need to create choose-able themes.

Whether or not you think that overlap between the themes and classes matters will probably determine how hard this is.

Both the Sorcerer and the Wizard have spells, familiars, bloodlines and schools, they already offer some specialisations, and just on their own, they can diversify enough to be forminable adversaries, with powers, strengths and weaknesses.

Fighters? Sunder their weapons, rust their armors, hit them with a mind-affecting spell, blast them with an evocation spell, touch them with a negative channeling touch... and they go down in no time.

Roles? A Magus, Barbarian/Bloodrager, Warpriest or Cavalier does a better a job than the Fighter.

Skills? Do I need to remind how poor the skills and skills point are for the Fighter... to the point of blind and deaf on purpose...

Powers? Anyone can wield a weapon or use a Combat Feat.

The Fighter doesn't have a single ability that would make it threathening or even feared. Even a Paladin can be feared and intimidating. Y'lknow that trope that teh Fighter is a mindless brute? That's 99.99% of every Fighter out there.


JiCi wrote:
The Fighter doesn't have a single ability that would make it threathening or even feared. Even a Paladin can be feared and intimidating. Y'lknow that trope that teh Fighter is a mindless brute? That's 99.99% of every Fighter out there.

Well, you could decide the game doesn't need the Fighter anymore.


How is the 2E fighter?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Andostre wrote:
How is the 2E fighter?

Very good. Has its niche (Barbarian is the big numbers damage dealer but not as accurate, Fighter is the crit boi and weapon special quality expert with the highest accuracy, Paladin is the tank), good saves, evasion and some absolutely stonking feats such as grounding airborne foes with your attacks or sensing invisible foes. Fixes most of the Fighter problems (crap Will save, lack of unique and awesome non-magical abilities) mentioned here and elsewhere. Of course, it's part of The Edition That Betrayed True Fans, so I'm not really expecting anybody in this thread give it a look :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That Paizo would still do a "new" 1st ed hardcover book once each 1-2 years. Even if most of these "new" books are just compilation books.

Also that the hardcover Kingmaker book still had the 1ed version as an option.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
JiCi wrote:
The Fighter doesn't have a single ability that would make it threathening or even feared. Even a Paladin can be feared and intimidating. Y'lknow that trope that teh Fighter is a mindless brute? That's 99.99% of every Fighter out there.
Well, you could decide the game doesn't need the Fighter anymore.

I know, but it's pretty jarring that one of the core classes can't be used at much as the otehrs for the most common role.


Obviously I see a lot people who wanted a alternate/unchained version of the fighter. So what other classes would you have liked a alternate/different/unchained version?

Maybe you liked a class but wished one aspect or class ability/feature that you wished was different. What aspect or ability/class feature would you change? and how would it be different and what would it do?


Dragon78 wrote:

Obviously I see a lot people who wanted a alternate/unchained version of the fighter. So what other classes would you have liked a alternate/different/unchained version?

Maybe you liked a class but wished one aspect or class ability/feature that you wished was different. What aspect or ability/class feature would you change? and how would it be different and what would it do?

Is it weird to think the fighter should eat the swashbuckler and gunslinger and make their deeds class features functions of weapon or armor training?


Ryan Freire wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

Obviously I see a lot people who wanted a alternate/unchained version of the fighter. So what other classes would you have liked a alternate/different/unchained version?

Maybe you liked a class but wished one aspect or class ability/feature that you wished was different. What aspect or ability/class feature would you change? and how would it be different and what would it do?

Is it weird to think the fighter should eat the swashbuckler and gunslinger and make their deeds class features functions of weapon or armor training?

Technically yes, and Swashbuckler and Gunslinger should have been combined and work liek the Ranger's Combat Styles: one for swordplay and the other for gunplay.

Seriously, if the Swashbuckler is supposed to be a hybrid class between the Fighter and the Gunslinger, I fail to understand why it doesn't receive firearm proficiency.


Dragon78 wrote:
So what other classes would you have liked a alternate/different/unchained version?

Ninja: Rogue doesn't inspire me, either version.

Shifter, obviously.

Witch: needs a theme progression that's not just spells, the way sorcerer bloodlines and wizards schools work.


Hybrid class doesn't mean they get everything from the original classes. Warpriest only get 6th level spells and dont get domains. Hunter doesn't get the Ranger's terrain or combat style. Bloodrager doesn't get as many bloodline powers or half the bonuses Barbarians get. Arcanist only get the spell list and minimal access outside archetypes.

The one hybrid to get the most from the base classes is probably Shaman.

The point of Hybrid classes is to create something new, the straddles the line between the two classes. Also Swashbuckler has an archetype that gets firearm proficiency.

*************************
The problem people have with Fighter is that people ignore Advanced Weapon/Armor training which brings a huge boost to Fighters. Fighters got over time 3 full lines of feat with them personally in mind: Armor, Shield, and Weapon Mastery. With Weapon and Armor Mastery being exclusive to characters with Weapon and Armor Training respectively (both are relatively rare outside of Fighter). And then Fighter is one of the most dipped classes meaning that even if its use is minimal it still serves a purpose. Item Mastery goes of Fortitude, and Fighter is the only class with an Archetype for those feat, and one of the few classes with feat space to actually use them.

In other words, Fighter got a ton of stuff going for them, but people want more stuff because they only see the base class and basic feat, and ignore how much stuff is available to Fighters. It doesn't help that too many people would rather dump Int and Cha instead of losing a +1 Str mod; It takes 17 points to get an 18 score using point buy, meanwhile it takes only 10 points to get a 16 score, that's an extra 7 points that can go towards a mental score.


Temperans wrote:

Hybrid class doesn't mean they get everything from the original classes. Warpriest only get 6th level spells and dont get domains. Hunter doesn't get the Ranger's terrain or combat style. Bloodrager doesn't get as many bloodline powers or half the bonuses Barbarians get. Arcanist only get the spell list and minimal access outside archetypes.

The one hybrid to get the most from the base classes is probably Shaman.

The point of Hybrid classes is to create something new, the straddles the line between the two classes. Also Swashbuckler has an archetype that gets firearm proficiency.

I don't think of "deeds" when thinking about the Gunslinger...

A Bloodrager gets rage and spells, an Investigator gets a sneak attack and alchemy, a Warpriest gets a better weapon and divine spells, a Shaman has spirits (mysteries) and hexes...

But a Gunslinger's main feature isn't the deed, it's the gun. All archetypes for the Gunslinger use the gun, except the Bolt Ace which replace the gun by the crossbow.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gunslinger's main feature is Gun Training. Deeds are mostly irrelevant, ability to use the gun can be gotten sans the class, the only reason for going Gunslinger and staying there for 5 levels (and only 5 levels) is GT.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Gunslinger's main feature is Gun Training. Deeds are mostly irrelevant, ability to use the gun can be gotten sans the class, the only reason for going Gunslinger and staying there for 5 levels (and only 5 levels) is GT.

Its the same with swashbuckler, swashbuckler for 5 levels to get improved critical 3 levels earlier than you ever could, nothing after is worth it and if you aren't rushing to have improved critical prior to character level 8 theres no reason to do more than 1 level.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Gunslinger's main feature is Gun Training. Deeds are mostly irrelevant, ability to use the gun can be gotten sans the class, the only reason for going Gunslinger and staying there for 5 levels (and only 5 levels) is GT.
Its the same with swashbuckler, swashbuckler for 5 levels to get improved critical 3 levels earlier than you ever could, nothing after is worth it and if you aren't rushing to have improved critical prior to character level 8 theres no reason to do more than 1 level.

Precise Strike scaling?

Do people not like Targeting? Swashbucklers can stagger lock enemies and can keep full attack dependent foes from doing their shtick indefinitely. I think Bleeding Wound is pretty strong too.

Lightning Reload?


Targeting is two feats,

The con damage of bleeding wound is...three? Whatever it takes to get to deadly stroke. Bleeding critical outdoes the damage of bleeding wound by virtue of stacking with itself.


Superior Feint(7th), Targeted Strike(7th), Bleeding Wound(11th), Evasive(11th), Subtle Blade(11th), Perfect Thrust(15th), and Deadly Stab(19th) are all great abilities. I got a lot of good use of Bleeding Wound in Skull and Shackles;)


Dragon78 wrote:
Superior Feint(7th), Targeted Strike(7th), Bleeding Wound(11th), Evasive(11th), Subtle Blade(11th), Perfect Thrust(15th), and Deadly Stab(19th) are all great abilities. I got a lot of good use of Bleeding Wound in Skull and Shackles;)

I'm not saying its a completely unfunctional class, but other than opportune parry and riposte, its a class that advanced armor training and advanced weapon training have the fighter surpassing in its own niche.

Bleeding wound -> Bleeding critical or deadly thrust, 4 feat package
Targeted strike-> 2 feats and you get to use it as a standard action
Evasive->ring of evasion

Its honestly just that the majority of its package can be rolled up into fighter via feat selection, hell i think if you go ustalav duelist and plan out a build that heads into targeted strike and bleeding wound you'd have 75% of a swashbuckler but also advanced weapon training.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is enough stuff on this wish list to fill a couple of hardcover books;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion, I always wanted an official dragon rider class. Drake rider is close, but its not the same. It just seems like a really basic fantasy trope.


Ooh, on that subject, more options for mounted combat specialists that don't involve binding the character to an animal companion, including ways to keep non-companion mounts alive above low levels.


blahpers wrote:
Ooh, on that subject, more options for mounted combat specialists that don't involve binding the character to an animal companion, including ways to keep non-companion mounts alive above low levels.

Don't we have feats that allow any class to get a familiar or companion?


JiCi wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Ooh, on that subject, more options for mounted combat specialists that don't involve binding the character to an animal companion, including ways to keep non-companion mounts alive above low levels.
Don't we have feats that allow any class to get a familiar or companion?

We do, and that's awesome, and I've used them quite a bit. But sometimes I'd like to play a mounted character without a dedicated pet and, well, not suck at it. Sometimes the general's horse is just a horse.


blahpers wrote:
JiCi wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Ooh, on that subject, more options for mounted combat specialists that don't involve binding the character to an animal companion, including ways to keep non-companion mounts alive above low levels.
Don't we have feats that allow any class to get a familiar or companion?
We do, and that's awesome, and I've used them quite a bit. But sometimes I'd like to play a mounted character without a dedicated pet and, well, not suck at it. Sometimes the general's horse is just a horse.

What we need is a class/archetype that empowers whatever it's riding. So they can get on any horse and it instantly gets a boost to everything. If that mount dies, you just get on another and repeat.


Hawk12192, I had the same idea on page 6 of this wish list. I agree that the drake rules just wasn't what I would have liked.


The options to choose which mental stat a monk uses for AC/Class abilities.

Int- All knowledge skills are class skills, bardic knowledge like class ability.

Wis- Heal, K(Nature), and Survival are class skills, additional bonuses on perception and sense motive checks.

Cha- Bluff, Diplomacy, and UMD are class skills, use your Cha mod instead of Wis mod on will saves.

If you keep the alignment requirement for monks then maybe base it on this choice.

Int(N, NE, NG) - Wis(LE, LG, LN) - Cha(CE, CG, CN)

Similar options for Shifter and other classes/archetypes with a monk-like AC bonus.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
blahpers wrote:
JiCi wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Ooh, on that subject, more options for mounted combat specialists that don't involve binding the character to an animal companion, including ways to keep non-companion mounts alive above low levels.
Don't we have feats that allow any class to get a familiar or companion?
We do, and that's awesome, and I've used them quite a bit. But sometimes I'd like to play a mounted character without a dedicated pet and, well, not suck at it. Sometimes the general's horse is just a horse.
What we need is a class/archetype that empowers whatever it's riding. So they can get on any horse and it instantly gets a boost to everything. If that mount dies, you just get on another and repeat.

Similar to... Ghost Rider :P ?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Anyway, more things :) !

Magic items
- A doorknob that creates a door to a Mage's Magnificient Mansion
- A club, quarterstaff or even magic staff with a permanent Shillelagh on it.
- A beast collar that can cast Polyform Familiar, but only for size change. Y'know that Tiny housecat? Yeah, it can become as big as a Large tiger :P
- A stamp that can recreate any Symbol spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Magic Items

-A small cube that changes into a type of shelter(tent, igloo, cabin, house, small keep, etc.)
-Magical yo-yos, both weapons and wondrous items.
-Magical umbrellas both weapons and wondrous items.
-Musical instruments that change into weapons(and/or vice versa).
-Magical playing cards as weapons(bladed, exploding, curse/hex inflicting, poisonous, electric, etc.)
-"Sword of Sharpness"- weapon that severs a limb on a natural 20.
-"Gauntlets of Ogre Power"- +2 to +4 size bonus to Str and maybe lets you wield a larger size weapon.
-"Cap of Knowledge"- +5 to +10 to all knowledge checks and can make them untrained.
-"Cloak of Darkness"- lets you create magical darkness and maybe grants darkvision or see in darkness.
-Magical dice that do random effects.
-Magical Jack in the Box.
-Magical bubble "wand" that creates bubbles that can capture creatures.
-Teddie Bear that transforms into a real bear(or construct creature) that fights for you.
-Food and candy that grant various spell effects.
-"Third eye" gems that attach to your forehead(head slot) that grant various magical effects like darkvision, see invisibility, clairvoyance, psychic blast, energy beam, gaze attack, greensight, detect alignment, detect "creature type", etc..

Dark Archive

JiCi wrote:
Something I... kinda fail to build using a Fighter is your typical BBEG... because the Fighter lacks anything to make the class unique on its own.

This was a problem I had DMing 3.5 AD&D as well. All the 'end-bosses' seemed to be spellcasters (and usually wizards, rarely, if ever, clerics or druids), or big demon/dragon/aboleth type critters. The only way to make a Fighter BBEG or end-boss was to template the hell out of it by making it a vampire or death knight or efreeti noble or pit fiend or whatever, and then it's not really that it's a *Fighter* that makes it the BBEG anymore...

Or, as you say, to base it on special equipment. I tried one end-boss who specialized in combat expertise / total defense turtling, and used a sword of wounding and whirlwind strike to try and get everyone in reach bleeding and then sort of wait them out, but it was a useless tactic in a game where half the party can throw magic zaps and doesn't care about his 43 AC. :)

Upthread it was mentioned that the Weapon Master's Handbook was amazing, and I second this. So many cool options for the Fighter, I was struggling with how I wanted to try so many of them that I'd have to play *multiple* Fighter characters to play them all, and then I backed away and put the book down, because I never play Fighters. Evil book, tempting me away from my favorite classes! :)

Dark Archive

Dragon78 wrote:
Hawk12192, I had the same idea on page 6 of this wish list. I agree that the drake rules just wasn't what I would have liked.

Some sort of 'smaller dragons' usable as mounts, battle companions, and then even smaller dragons usable as familiars, would rock. Not wyverns or pseudo-dragons, with their poison stingers or wings-for-forelimbs, but actual hexapods that can breath/spit fire (or whatever...). Sure the familiar sized 'dragonet' is only going to 'spit fire' that does damage like alchemist's fire or acid with a 30 ft. range, and not a Xd6 30 ft. cone or anything silly, but the idea is to keep the theme, without annihilating game balance. :)

Dark Archive

I'd have liked to see a more thorough FAQ sweep done to finish things off. Just, freakin' errata EVERYTHING. If there have been 3 or more threads about "How does [Thing] work?" then issue an official Errata.

A players companion "Adventurers of Unusual Size" with detailed rules for playing Diminutive, Tiny, Large, and Huge characters.

Another players companion "Monstrous Adventurers" with detailed rules for playing various iconic monsters as PCs, and a general conversion rule set for turning a Bestiary entry into a PC race template.

Advanced Class Guide II - Featuring 10ish new Hybrid classes, which all use at least one base class not from the core book as one of their inspirations.


Set, I come up with the idea to just have a group of "domesticated" dragons. Give them a variety of body shapes and abilities kind of like How to Train Your Dragon did.


SilvercatMoonpaw wrote:
blahpers wrote:
JiCi wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Ooh, on that subject, more options for mounted combat specialists that don't involve binding the character to an animal companion, including ways to keep non-companion mounts alive above low levels.
Don't we have feats that allow any class to get a familiar or companion?
We do, and that's awesome, and I've used them quite a bit. But sometimes I'd like to play a mounted character without a dedicated pet and, well, not suck at it. Sometimes the general's horse is just a horse.
What we need is a class/archetype that empowers whatever it's riding. So they can get on any horse and it instantly gets a boost to everything. If that mount dies, you just get on another and repeat.

I houseruled the Horselord archetype to do this.


We have animals, construct, outsiders, plants, and vermin companions. We could have also used aberrations, dragons, fey, magical beast, monstrous humanoids, oozes, and undead companions as well.

As for mounts could have used aberrations, dragons, magical beast, and undead. I don't remember if we have construct based mounts, but if not, those as well.


Dragon78 wrote:
Set, I come up with the idea to just have a group of "domesticated" dragons. Give them a variety of body shapes and abilities kind of like How to Train Your Dragon did.

That reminds me of the Dragonblooded creatures, found in D&D 3.5 Dragon Magic. They were literally animals and vermins with draconic traits, but not "enough" to treat them as true Dragon-type creatures.

Back to material, I would have loved a Soldier Codex:
* War tactics for each core race
* NPC stats for units and ranks (footman, pikeman, archer, scout, knight, mage, healer, etc)
* Archetypes, feats, items and weapons based on warfare
* Humans, elves, dwarves, halfling and gnomes as core races being represented
* Leaving half-elves due to be with either humans or elves
* Leaving half-orcs due to be with either humans or orcs (previously stats in the Monster Codex)
* Essentially a Monster Codex II, but with an emphasis on core races


Dragon78 wrote:
We have animals, construct, outsiders, plants, and vermin companions. We could have also used aberrations, dragons, fey, magical beast, monstrous humanoids, oozes, and undead companions as well.

What we really needed is a "Companion" progression that you can plug into any class, with archetypes for different kinds of creatures.

Kind of like Unchained Summoner Eidolons, only with just more.


Monsters I would have liked to have seen.

More toy based monsters like toy solders(including swarm version), jack in the Box, silly putty, etc.

Candy themed monsters like a gingerbread man, candy cane golem, gummi bears, etc.

Oni based on catflok, trolls, goblins, cyclopes, grippli, etc.

More giants based on non-human races like catfolk, lashunta, goblin, gnome, lizardfolk, etc.

Elementals based on positive energy, negative energy, light, sound, gravity, wood, dream, time, mind, etc.

Gem dragons(diamond, ruby, emerald, saphire, and pearl).

Dragon species that are multi-headed, wingless, some bipedal and some quadrupedal.

401 to 450 of 494 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.