[Legendary Games] Corefinder


Product Discussion

301 to 350 of 644 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

I'm not sure prestige classes need to be in the first rulebook though. They're a great subject for extra content later on (how many D&D 3.5 books didn't have a prestige class?) and removing some complexity from the rules that you show people initially is a good thing.

Grand Lodge

avr wrote:
I'm not sure prestige classes need to be in the first rulebook though. They're a great subject for extra content later on (how many D&D 3.5 books didn't have a prestige class?) and removing some complexity from the rules that you show people initially is a good thing.

Depends on how thick they want to make the first book. If it’s a tome like the Pathfinder 1e Core Rulebook, then it should be added. If they’re going for something closer to WotC three book rule, then maybe not. As for the number of books without PrC’s in 3.0/3.5, it’s not that many comparably. A couple of books were almost exclusively PrC. Pathfinder shied away from that and went all-in on archetypes.


I just want to chime in about all the monster discussion...it is great to have discussion, but the CF concept is limited to the player side of things so DMs will not have to recalculate everything in the bestiaries. Just a little expectation management there. Also, I am not a member of the Legendary team either, but I have been keeping a close eye on progress so far...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be fine if they got rid of prestige classes. I have never liked them and archetypes are a good replacement.


Office of Expectation Management time.

Corefinder as a concept is meant to be a genre-agnostic RP system built using the existing d20 rules and adapted from PF1. There are going to be different modules (oh, we have plans...) covering Fantasy, Science Fiction, Modern and probably a billion more that I'm not aware of.

We're looking to have CF Fantasy launch simultaneously to CF itself (whether they're two books or a single book is still a topic for debate as far as I know), and it's CF Fantasy that will have all the fun craziness like wizards and elves and metamagic feats.

Prestige classes are an interesting case, and I know what my opinion of them is, but I'm also aware that I'm not the only person with an opinion.

On the topic of monsters... there's a LOT up for grabs there. One of the design goals is to be able to grab a PF statblock and with a few tweaks here and there (mostly for things like "everyone can use the CF version of Power Attack, so that's not a feat any more") just use those numbers, they'll be fine, you won't break anything. Does that mean that we're not going to just merge Animal and Magical Beasts into a single creature type? Dunno. Sounds like a great idea to me. Will we separate BAB/Saves/Skills from creature type in our own monster creation rules? Dunno. Sounds like an interesting idea that has merit to discuss. Are we going to provide guidance on what changes need to be made to a PF creature to make it work like a CF creature? Yes.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ben Walklate wrote:

Office of Expectation Management time.

Corefinder as a concept is meant to be a genre-agnostic RP system built using the existing d20 rules and adapted from PF1. There are going to be different modules (oh, we have plans...) covering Fantasy, Science Fiction, Modern and probably a billion more that I'm not aware of.

We're looking to have CF Fantasy launch simultaneously to CF itself (whether they're two books or a single book is still a topic for debate as far as I know), and it's CF Fantasy that will have all the fun craziness like wizards and elves and metamagic feats.

Prestige classes are an interesting case, and I know what my opinion of them is, but I'm also aware that I'm not the only person with an opinion.

On the topic of monsters... there's a LOT up for grabs there. One of the design goals is to be able to grab a PF statblock and with a few tweaks here and there (mostly for things like "everyone can use the CF version of Power Attack, so that's not a feat any more") just use those numbers, they'll be fine, you won't break anything. Does that mean that we're not going to just merge Animal and Magical Beasts into a single creature type? Dunno. Sounds like a great idea to me. Will we separate BAB/Saves/Skills from creature type in our own monster creation rules? Dunno. Sounds like an interesting idea that has merit to discuss. Are we going to provide guidance on what changes need to be made to a PF creature to make it work like a CF creature? Yes.

My vote in the non-democracy decision making process is to have your conversion guide on how to change PF creatures at launch, but to make a CF Monster Book which can fully re-design all the monsters and monster rules as you want. I know I'm looking for a system which is a full, self-contained update to PF 1st edition, not something that just is a core book plus genre books. My interest level drops off precipitously if it's just a single rule book and done.


JoelF847 wrote:
My vote in the non-democracy decision making process is to have your conversion guide on how to change PF creatures at launch, but to make a CF Monster Book which can fully re-design all the monsters and monster rules as you want. I know I'm looking for a system which is a full, self-contained update to PF 1st edition, not something that just is a core book plus genre books. My interest level drops off precipitously if it's just a single rule book and done.

Again, not a member of the team, but there has been several references to "advanced fantasy book" and other similar names denoting expansion, so no, I do not think it is a one and done by any means. Their desire to make rules for different genres may impact the speed at which such expansion books are released however.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
JoelF847 wrote:
My vote in the non-democracy decision making process is to have your conversion guide on how to change PF creatures at launch, but to make a CF Monster Book which can fully re-design all the monsters and monster rules as you want. I know I'm looking for a system which is a full, self-contained update to PF 1st edition, not something that just is a core book plus genre books. My interest level drops off precipitously if it's just a single rule book and done.

Sorry, seems like I failed at explaining some stuff. Corefinder has two primary goals at launch: To create a game system that Legendary Games can support that is suitable for any genre; and to publish a cleaned up version of Pathfinder 1E as our fantasy offering for that game system.

Top priority, and it's seeing the most discussion and work, is essentially the Core Rulebook for Fantasy, so that on day one someone can replace their Pathfinder Core Rulebook with the Corefinder one and have a (relatively) seamless transition from one game to the other.

We are simultaneously having some very vibrant discussions about monsters and how we want to treat them. Will we see a Corefinder Bestiary on day 1? I have no idea right now. A lot of what follows will depend on sales, but the team are really excited by the prospect of updating all of the PF1 classes and providing ongoing fantasy support. I'd love to see all the PF Bestiaries updated. I'm also excited by the prospect of Advanced Fantasy and something like Mythic Fantasy (no insider information here, just throwing that out as an idea).

We want to provide a living ruleset that we can support on an ongoing basis to scratch the 3.x itch for anyone who wants to use it.


If the new system is supposed to be setting neutral, I'd like to see a Ravenloft-esque technology level. Cut down on technologies that obsoleted the other existing side-by-side, and helps provide flavor for various cultures in a way that fits in the stats block. The basic concept is already released to OGL via d20 Future.

Bring arms and armor weights closer to reality. Add a line to the weapons section making it explicit that the cost and weight of weapons includes standard accessories like scabbards and maintenance gear. Kill off the non-sense "studded leather" and just say under brigandine's description "[...] sometimes mis-identified as "studded leather" [...]". It exist purely as a relic of poor research from really old D&D and there's no reason to keep it.

Make guns simple weapons with a long reload time and reduce the loading time if one has martial weapon proficiency (which stacks with other sources of reload time reduction like rapid reload ect.). Being super mysterious, ultra expensive, weapons only specialists can use that randomly explode is ridiculous. Data says prices were about 2-3 times a basic sword. The US Hall Rifle trials set average muzzle loading matchlock rate of fire from trained soldiers at 2.223 shots a minute. That makes it a weapon for large scale engagements, opening volley, and burst damage, which is a solid mechanical niche that sets it apart from other weapons.

Starting equipment is always one of the most time consuming things for creating a new character. Don't cut down on options, but provide bundles that allow quickly grabbing related gear without micro-managing costs.

I liked how Saga Edition let you finesse any one handed weapon you had weapon focus in. While Weapon Focus itself ought to be killed off, it being relatively simple (but not totally without cost) to finesse one handed weapons was the right idea.


deuxhero wrote:

If the new system is supposed to be setting neutral, I'd like to see a Ravenloft-esque technology level.

You know that Ravenloft level tech can range from basically stone age to post Renaissance, right?

deuxhero wrote:


Bring arms and armor weights closer to reality. Add a line to the weapons section making it explicit that the cost and weight of weapons includes standard accessories like scabbards and maintenance gear. Kill off the non-sense "studded leather" and just say under brigandine's description "[...] sometimes mis-identified as "studded leather" [...]". It exist purely as a relic of poor research from really old D&D and there's no reason to keep it.

This.

deuxhero wrote:


While Weapon Focus itself ought to be killed off, it being relatively simple (but not totally without cost) to finesse one handed weapons was the right idea.

Something like Weapon Focus could have its place if altered in some way, e.g. smashing Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, and greater variants of those into a single feat, starting with +1 to that weapon as BAB +1, and the other abilities coming on line when you reach a certain BAB.

I liked the weapon mastery system from BECMI and there has yet to be an interesting d20 variant that isn't a series of underwhelming feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe some kind of penalty for using non-piercing reach weapons (and perhaps 2 handers in general) in enclosed spaces? They're pretty top tier weapons as is and could stand to be knocked down a peg.

Bjørn Røyrvik wrote:
deuxhero wrote:

If the new system is supposed to be setting neutral, I'd like to see a Ravenloft-esque technology level.

You know that Ravenloft level tech can range from basically stone age to post Renaissance, right?

Exactly. This would mean that for relatively little effort the system would support such a broad range of settings by just saying "X setting is TL ____" instead of re-writing the equipment section entirely per setting. It also means different cultures within a setting can have different levels (A place like Milan or Lantan could be a greater TL than its neighbors) like Ravenloft has. Also big for planet hopping sci-fi games as it can quickly set the abilities of the local natives.

Best way I can think of to handle TL disparity is to give a bonus/penalty to hit armored based on difference between weapon and armor material (a steel spear isn't particularly more lethal than a bronze one, but it will penetrate armor better). Something like stone/bone>bronze>iron>steel>hardened steel with each step giving +2/-2 each step of difference. Certain things would sit outside this (slings, being based on propelling lead to a high velocity, didn't really change much with material advances).

Grand Lodge

Speaking of the feat, Rapid Reload, make it a single feat. It shouldn't be a feat you need to take umpting times like Weapon Focus. A very unnecessary feat tax. At most, I could see the argument of needing to take it twice; once for firearms and once for crossbows.

I'm fine with Weapon Focus sticking around, along with the feat tree it belongs to, but it needs to be for weapon groups, not individual weapons. This goes hand-in-hand for monsters. Such a waste of feats when you see a monster has Weapon Focus (bite, claw, tail). That's two extra feats that could have been used on Vital Strike, Improved Critical, Toughness, or anything else.

Improved Critical should also be for weapon groups. It's very rare that you're going to ever use any of the other dozen weapons listed in that group, but it's still nice to have.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Minor thing about rapid reload - allow it to also work for slings. It's not going to make slings as good a crossbows (or firearms) but there's no real reason it shouldn't apply to any ranged weapon which has a reload time.

Unrelated, but a thought from Deuxhero's question about if it will be setting neutral, how are you thinking of handling clerics/domains, assuming setting neutral? Will you have a list of generic deities or come up with a new core pantheon for LG products to include in the core book?


Ben Walklate wrote:
We are simultaneously having some very vibrant discussions about monsters and how we want to treat them. Will we see a Corefinder Bestiary on day 1? I have no idea right now. A lot of what follows will depend on sales, but the team are really excited by the prospect of updating all of the PF1 classes and providing ongoing fantasy support. I'd love to see all the PF Bestiaries updated. I'm also excited by the prospect of Advanced Fantasy and something like Mythic Fantasy (no insider information here, just throwing that out as an idea).

Huh, this is the first I have read about doing a redesign of the bestiaries aside from the fans postulating what they think it should look like. The specifics I had recalled was that only the player side was getting reworked so GMs did not need to reaquire more books. Not really a problem in my opinion, just did not realize it was on the table.

JoelF487 wrote:
Unrelated, but a thought from Deuxhero's question about if it will be setting neutral, how are you thinking of handling clerics/domains, assuming setting neutral? Will you have a list of generic deities or come up with a new core pantheon for LG products to include in the core book?

Last I heard it would go down somewhat like the concepts behind the domains, good, evil, sun, moon, etc. etc. because it is setting neutral and they will not have a pantheon of gods prewritten. Considering even though I have read just about all there is on the corefinder channel and I have still gotten details about your last two questions wrong, we should wait for Ben Walklate to show back up and disillusion me again...[insert smiley]

Grand Lodge

JoelF847 wrote:
Minor thing about rapid reload - allow it to also work for slings. It's not going to make slings as good a crossbows (or firearms) but there's no real reason it shouldn't apply to any ranged weapon which has a reload time.

Oh, yes, that's right. Currently the only way to do that is to have ranks in Sleight of Hand and take the small feat tree from "Halflings of Golarion".


I don't think that rapid reload should apply to all weapons. Re-loading guns, slings and crossbows are radically different actions. And in game terms none are in the same weapon group either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Thedmstrikes wrote:
Huh, this is the first I have read about doing a redesign of the bestiaries aside from the fans postulating what they think it should look like. The specifics I had recalled was that only the player side was getting reworked so GMs did not need to reaquire more books. Not really a problem in my opinion, just did not realize it was on the table.

There's very little that's not on the table. What actually makes it into production is another matter entirely.

I'm certainly not saying that we're definitely going to publish a CF Bestiary, for example. I happen to think it's a good idea, since PF Bestiary entries have some stuff that's not going to matter in CF, and don't have some stuff that will matter quite a bit. The essence of the backwards compatibility is to be able to look at a PF1 statblock and know that the numbers that are in it are fine to use, but to be a full CF statblock some new numbers need to be derived (but you'll be able to use the info in the PF statblock to derive those numbers without much work). So when I say that I'd love to see all of the PF Bestiaries updated, I mean that's a personal desire, not anything Legendary have decided.

Quote:
JoelF487 wrote:
Unrelated, but a thought from Deuxhero's question about if it will be setting neutral, how are you thinking of handling clerics/domains, assuming setting neutral? Will you have a list of generic deities or come up with a new core pantheon for LG products to include in the core book?
Last I heard it would go down somewhat like the concepts behind the domains, good, evil, sun, moon, etc. etc. because it is setting neutral and they will not have a pantheon of gods prewritten. Considering even though I have read just about all there is on the corefinder channel and I have still gotten details about your last two questions wrong, we should wait for Ben Walklate to show back up and disillusion me again...[insert smiley]

No plans to include a pantheon that I know of. I don't know everything, but I've not been told to shut up and stop talking yet. One idea that sprang to mind for me, though, was to use the Pantheon created for the Legendary Planet AP as our Core Deities. I've not suggested this to anyone officially, yet - this is the first time I'm writing it down anywhere.

Grand Lodge

Ghostwheel wrote:
I don't think that rapid reload should apply to all weapons. Re-loading guns, slings and crossbows are radically different actions. And in game terms none are in the same weapon group either.

Right, but weapon group wise, I wouldn't want to go "Rapid Reload (thrown)" when that really only covers maybe two items. Crossbows would include light, heavy, aquatic, double, etc. I mean, it'd nerf it terribly if we added a loading property to it, but the blowgun doesn't even require a move action to load.

I'd be fine with Rapid Reload covering all crossbows and slings, and then a second one for all firearms. That'd be fine. Or make it quicker to load a sling. Something better than needing "Sleight of Hand ranks 1, Ammo Drop, and Juggle Load".


I don't disagree about a shorter path to fast reloading slings. I don't have time right now to dive into it, but maybe one feat that progresses through what are now prerequisites to get there would work in the spirit of simplification.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
kevin_video wrote:
Speaking of the feat, Rapid Reload, make it a single feat. It shouldn't be a feat you need to take umpting times like Weapon Focus. A very unnecessary feat tax. At most, I could see the argument of needing to take it twice; once for firearms and once for crossbows.

As there is one feat difference between crossbows/slings (simple weapon) and bows (martial weapons), I'd love for it to cost exactly *one* feat for a crossbow or sling user to be *competitive* with a bow user. (Not exactly equal in all things, maybe one is faster and the other hits harder, or some other variance, but the bow shouldn't always be the better choice in all situations, and the crossbow or sling user shouldn't need *three* feats to come close to parity).

And yeah, any feats (or class abilities) that modify archery that could logically apply to crossbows, slings, thrown spears, thrown daggers, thrown hatchets, shuriken, etc. should do so. No need for three feats that do the same thing, for differently shaped weapons, IMO, unless there's some mechanical reason why (obviously a feat that has something to do smacking someone with a loaded sling like a improv mace won't apply to a bow, and you can already stab someone with a dagger or spear instead of throwing it without requiring a feat!).


I still think heavy crossbows should be touch attacks at close range.

I agree, rabid reload should be for slings as well.

In fact, any rules/feats that make weapons like boomarangs(thrown weapons in general), crossbows, spears, slings, tridents, etc. better (and/or more interesting) would be nice.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Ghostwheel wrote:
I don't think that rapid reload should apply to all weapons. Re-loading guns, slings and crossbows are radically different actions. And in game terms none are in the same weapon group either.

I'm fine if you select a weapon group for the feat (i.e. firearms, slings, or crossbows), but just want poor neglected slings to have a way to use the feat without house rule.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:

I still think heavy crossbows should be touch attacks at close range.

I agree, rabid reload should be for slings as well.

In fact, any rules/feats that make weapons like boomarangs(thrown weapons in general), crossbows, spears, slings, tridents, etc. better (and/or more interesting) would be nice.

I have a house rule which instead of giving touch attacks at close range to crossbows or even firearms instead gives them armor penetration. Light crossbows get 2, heavy 4, pistols and light balistas 6 and rifles and heavy balistas 8. Essentially this reduces the shield, armor/natural armor total bonus by that amount. And compensates for the lower rate of fire compared to bows. Though adds a bit more complexity.


JoelF847 wrote:
Ghostwheel wrote:
I don't think that rapid reload should apply to all weapons. Re-loading guns, slings and crossbows are radically different actions. And in game terms none are in the same weapon group either.
I'm fine if you select a weapon group for the feat (i.e. firearms, slings, or crossbows), but just want poor neglected slings to have a way to use the feat without house rule.

I guess that I should have worded that a little differently. Same feat applies, but only to the weapon group chosen when the feat is taken. Can be taken multiple times, each time applies to a different weapon group.

It puts slings and other "thrown" weapons in the same category, which is where I think is the sweet spot for rules: grainy enough to make sense, but not overly complicated.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something that I was discussing earlier with others, but when CF gets to magic items, can we revise the price on the brilliant energy weapon property and the glove of storing? Please. They are way too overpriced.

Practically no one takes brilliant energy because it costs a +4 bonus and is now useless against undead and constructs. Or objects, but if you have brilliant energy you don't have a sundering build. What does it do? Torch light, and hits touch AC like an firearm can. And can ignore cover if it's an object. If you have it on a ranged weapon, maybe attack like you're trying to hit an invisible target. Still, not worth +4. Maybe +3. If put on a ranged weapon it's basically a seeking arrow.

Glove of storing is not worth 10k. Back during its first incarnation, it was worth 2,200 gp. If that's considered too low, compromise at 5k.

I'm sure other people will want to see some other magic items drop down in price too.


I wouldn't allow brilliant energy weapons in my game because I believe it is over powered. And there is very little that I would outright ban in this way.
As an aside, if a player wanted to play with a light saber, they should be playing a game based on that franchise.

Shadow Lodge

The brilliant energy blade is a terrible light saber anyway. It can’t cut through doors or droids.

Grand Lodge

TOZ wrote:
The brilliant energy blade is a terrible light saber anyway. It can’t cut through doors or droids.

I agree. Can't even deflect bullets because they'd pass through the blade like nothing and still hit their original target. Brilliant Energy is a terrible item unless it's on arrows or a bow, and even then it's still pointless in an undead or construct heavy campaign. Believe me. Had an evil DM who made practically every treasure we find be such a weapon, and we were essentially in Ravenloft ruled by someone not unlike Strahd. Couldn't even sell them because no one was rich enough to buy them off of us.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Talking to an old DM of mine, and told him of the Corefinder project. His request was that dragonhide, which is very expensive, do something like what he had houseruled for his group. He had it so that if the original dragon had an immunity to an energy, it gave the wearer resistance 3 to that element. If it was immune to something like poison or death effects, etc, that the wearer gained a +2 bonus to saves against the effect.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kevin_video wrote:
Talking to an old DM of mine, and told him of the Corefinder project. His request was that dragonhide, which is very expensive, do something like what he had houseruled for his group. He had it so that if the original dragon had an immunity to an energy, it gave the wearer resistance 3 to that element. If it was immune to something like poison or death effects, etc, that the wearer gained a +2 bonus to saves against the effect.

It would be cool if dragonhide was itself immune to the energy type the 'donor' dragon was (so red dragonhide would be unaffected by fire damage), but only granted a small bonus to the wearer (like your 3 fire resistance, or perhaps, something like adamantine, resistance based on armor type, so 1 fire resistance for light armor, 3 fire resistance for medium armor and 5 fire resistance for heavy dragonhide). Jack the price slightly, appropriately.

I'd also like if dragonhide was explicitly often made from 'lesser' dragon type creatures like wyrms, drakes and wyverns, which is where the relatively cheap dragonhide that often grants no resistance bonuses comes from.

Tatzelwurm and wyvern armor, well, you get what you pay for, and that's just a way for druids to get to wear something better than Hide. It's basically core 'dragonhide' with no cool bonuses vs. elements. :)

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I’d like to throw in linnorms as well.


I agree about what dragonhide should grant. Also if it doesn't already, it should reduce cost of enchanting the armor with energy resistance to the hide's same energy type.

Grand Lodge

Dragon78 wrote:
I agree about what dragonhide should grant. Also if it doesn't already, it should reduce cost of enchanting the armor with energy resistance to the hide's same energy type.

It definitely does. It's a 25% reduction. The Dragonslayer book allowed someone with the Dragoncrafting feat to add one additional energy resistance with a 25% discount. Which is great, but then there's the issue of the energy resistances being a little over priced too. I mean, 66k for resistance 30 to an element? The ring is only 44k. Even with the discount, the armor's version is still worth over 49k.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

kevin_video wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
I agree about what dragonhide should grant. Also if it doesn't already, it should reduce cost of enchanting the armor with energy resistance to the hide's same energy type.
It definitely does. It's a 25% reduction. The Dragonslayer book allowed someone with the Dragoncrafting feat to add one additional energy resistance with a 25% discount. Which is great, but then there's the issue of the energy resistances being a little over priced too. I mean, 66k for resistance 30 to an element? The ring is only 44k. Even with the discount, the armor's version is still worth over 49k.

The armor costing 50% more than the ring is on purpose, since the resistance on armor is slotless, while the ring uses a slot.


Strange. I thought armor was a slot type. You can only wear 1 at a time.

On that note, a slotless magic item would have its priced doubled, not increased by 50%. A 50% increase is more inline with a magic item having "Multiple different abilities" (see table 15-29).

Grand Lodge

OmniMage wrote:

Strange. I thought armor was a slot type. You can only wear 1 at a time.

On that note, a slotless magic item would have its priced doubled, not increased by 50%. A 50% increase is more inline with a magic item having "Multiple different abilities" (see table 15-29).

The +50% was also for if you had a magic item in a slot that it didn’t belong. So like a headband of Strength or a belt of Intelligence. Ioun stones are a slot less item that’s double cost.

But, yes, you’re correct. Armor is technically a slot.


Also rules for more armors(mundane and magical) made from various monsters would be cool.


OmniMage wrote:

Strange. I thought armor was a slot type. You can only wear 1 at a time.

On that note, a slotless magic item would have its priced doubled, not increased by 50%. A 50% increase is more inline with a magic item having "Multiple different abilities" (see table 15-29).

Energy Resistance on Armor doesn't increase its plusses, nor does it count against the maximum of +10. So, therefore, it is pricier.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing that I really want to see stay, despite other companies saying they should go (and in some cases did toss them when they printed their own books), is NPC classes. However, I want to upgrade them. It makes no sense to me how a warrior 20 is CR 18, but a fighter 5/warrior 15 is somehow CR 19. That makes absolutely no sense.

Regardless, back in 3.5 there was a book called, Unearthed Arcana, and what it did was use a system called Generic Classes. At specific levels, you could customize your character by taking a feat or a class feature that you met the prerequisites for. For example, a warrior and an expert got bonus feats at the same level as a fighter did, but nothing else. No weapon training, no armor training, bravery, or any of that. As for class features, if you had Base Reflex save +3, you could spend a bonus feat for evasion. If you of a good alignment, you could take smite 1/day. If you cast divine spells, you could take Turn Undead. Nowadays, it'd likely be channel energy. If you didn't have any prerequisites, you could still spend that bonus feat for a feat, or you could take Favored Enemy +2. Personally, I like that if I had 4 ranks of Handle Animal, I could access wild empathy. That seems like something everyone should be able to gain access to, honestly.

In addition, I'd like to see an arcane version of the adept. In 3.5, the Eberron book had one, and they named it the magewright. The main difference with that one was, unlike other NPC classes, it actually got something at 1st, 4th, and every 4 levels afterwards. However, that was also part of the draw back. Every ability was the Spell Mastery feat. Why? Because they could only cast spells they knew. They couldn't learn spells from scrolls nor did they have a spell book. So by 20th level, they had Spell Mastery six times. It was kind of like a weaker sorcerer that used Intelligence instead of Charisma. But, I'd like to see that carried over. Maybe rename it to some like, apprentice.

Lastly, I'd like to see a rule that if your NPC class levels are twice that of your base class levels, then your CR is -2. That's honestly how it should be, and originally you see that with the old NPC builds, but then Paizo got rid of that line of thinking entirely for no good reason.

At any rate, it makes the NPC classes closer to what the base classes are, and if the base classes are getting another boost, like they might, then the NPC version should get something as well. They'll still never be anywhere close to what a full base class character will be, but even a 10th level commoner should be rewarded in some fashion. Even if all of their feats are put into Toughness, Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and the like.

And what I'd really love to see is that at 1st level for each NPC class, is for them to have access to one unique boon or skill. Examples:
Adept: Skill: Favorable introductions to contacts in a local church, providing a PC a +2 bonus on Diplomacy checks made to influence members of that specific church.
Aristocrat: Favor: Use of influence to save the PCs from prosecution for a crime.
Commoner: Unique: Creates a map or leads a PC through the local wilderness to a secret location only he knows about.
Expert: Skill: Grants access to an exceptionally well outfitted workspace, granting a PC a +4 bonus on a specific Craft or Profession check.
Warrior: Unique: Can form a posse, bringing together a group of 2d4 low-level warriors to aid in one specific plan.
And each one have up to six choices. At higher levels, they could have two or even three of these.


On NPC classes, one change I'd like to see is instead of Commoner getting one simple weapon EVER, they get a choice of an extra simple weapon, light shields or (if they already have light shields) light armor every HD. It would make it possible for a militia to bombard with slings and shields, then switch to clubs when threatened in melee without them having levels in another class.

Dark Archive

Keeping the NPC classes limited to the Warrior, Expert and Adept makes sense to me. The Aristocrat could just mix some Expert and Warrior levels, as needed (and be more of a background than a class, IMO), and the Commoner is just dire and needs to die in a fire. Even I'm an Expert, even if most of my skill points are in Useless Game Trivia, Useless Fantasy Trivia, Useless Movie Trivia, Useless Comic Book Trivia, Useless Science-Fiction Trivia, Grammar Nazi and Science Dilettante.

In a faux medieval fantasy world where everyone's gotta run the farm, or occasionally fight off some goblins, even the 'commoners' should have a level in Expert (innkeeps and merchants and midwives and growers and animal trainers) or Warrior (caravan guards or town watch or particularly fighty farmhand), IMO. Commoner is just terrible.

Grand Lodge

More often than not, the commoner is the town drunk or the children who haven't learned a trade yet. I'd keep the commoner, but give them monk saves instead of construct saves. They gotta be good for something. Also, give them Improved Weapons at 1st level. They're almost always the ones using a club, pitchfork, and torch. They need more of a bone thrown at them. Also, 3/4 BAB instead of 1/2 so they at least have d8. They're humanoids. Give them something.

Silver Crusade

Hey all, N. Jolly here again!

So I'm gonna be honest and admit I didn't particularly keep up with the thread because I'm the community manager over at the devcord and one of the devs who often jumps on the soapbox as stated earlier.

So a lot of us are on the discord, and I get some of y'all don't like it, and that's fine. I will try to pop over here from time to time in order to check on discussion here (didn't know it was still going on, so that's why I didn't come over. Also, I don't really use the paizo boards anymore since I have my own communities over on discord that I enjoy more). Maybe it's just the pandemic talking, but a more immediate form of communication just feels better to me right now.

I have been reading over things though, checking out your concerns, and let me tell you when we go into playtest we're going to be splitting channels to talk about individual things in a more granular fashion. Right now though, we're getting more general ideas while we're putting things together.

But hey, since I'm here, if there's anything ya wanna ask specifically, lay it on me.

Dark Archive

Do you plan to use some of Pf 3pp classes or other products? For instance, there's Kobold Press class called Theurg, that works really great. What about some fan favorites that aren't a part of PF due to Paizo's desire not to ruffle feathers, such as Warlock or Artificer - or Warforged on the racial side of things?


If I could get a playable race from D&D, I would have to say Dragonborn.

I was never a fan of the D&D Warlock and the Kineticist fills that niche much better. Now if we had a new class called a Warlock that was a d8HD/3/4BA, hexes, 6th level caster(witch spell list), with some other cool class features then I would be good.

I would prefer a "Gadgeteer" class that uses bombs, guns, gadgets, inventions, maybe mechanical traps, etc., no magic/alchemy, 8HD/3/4BA, 6+Int skill points.

N. Jolly, are we getting new versions of all the Pathfinder classes or just some of them?

Will this just be a single rule book that you use to modify existing Pathfinder products or just a new system all together?

Are you guys still working a class compilation book as well?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
nightflier wrote:
Do you plan to use some of Pf 3pp classes or other products? For instance, there's Kobold Press class called Theurg, that works really great. What about some fan favorites that aren't a part of PF due to Paizo's desire not to ruffle feathers, such as Warlock or Artificer - or Warforged on the racial side of things?

So we are looking through other 3p stuff, but let me say that Warlock (as of the 3.5 design) is a strong contender to make it into the core book. For our first book, CF: Fantasy, we probably won't go into a construct race, but that's absolutely an option for CF: Advanced fantasy, which is where an artificer has been heavily discussed.

Dragon78 wrote:

If I could get a playable race from D&D, I would have to say Dragonborn.

I was never a fan of the D&D Warlock and the Kineticist fills that niche much better. Now if we had a new class called a Warlock that was a d8HD/3/4BA, hexes, 6th level caster(witch spell list), with some other cool class features then I would be good.

I would prefer a "Gadgeteer" class that uses bombs, guns, gadgets, inventions, maybe mechanical traps, etc., no magic/alchemy, 8HD/3/4BA, 6+Int skill points.

N. Jolly, are we getting new versions of all the Pathfinder classes or just some of them?

Will this just be a single rule book that you use to modify existing Pathfinder products or just a new system all together?

Are you guys still working a class compilation book as well?

If we do something with a dragon race, we have our own draconic race to use since you can't really just do dragonborn.

Gadgetry is also more of an advanced fantasy book sort of class, but it's absolutely on the table.

After a lot of discussion, we'll probably revamping every class.

This is effectively a new system, as we're using it as a chassis for all sorts of other themes, such as sci fi, supers, modern, etc. And yeah, class compilation is still coming out regardless of Corefinder. We just need to finish off I believe...2 more classes to have all the CRB ones.

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Hi all,

Finally got caught up on the thread. Thanks to all for your ideas and continued interest. We've got complete drafts of two chapters (Introduction - with ability scores, bonus types, etc., and Combat/Encounters, including conditions, cover, concealment, movement, etc.), and diving now into skills, feats, and equipment.

The Discord channel definitely has a lot of activity, not just on Corefinder-related stuff but on other product lines as well. I fully understand that the Discord interface isn't necessarily the best for archiving or being able to refer back to stuff because it's just one long avalanche of content. We'll be setting up sub-threads in the future for specific conversations, but for folks who like a different kind of interface we can certainly use the Paizo boards as well.

We have finished drafts of two chapters already, with chunks done of basic class drafts (currently just for the 5-6 Corefinder: Basic classes) and are branching out into more areas now. We are focusing on assembling the raw guts of the system before diving into the modular bits and pieces like full fantasy classes, spells, and magic items.

We also have updated our Legendary Games Patreon with more of a focus on Corefinder, though we'll also continue talking about Pathfinder 1st and 2nd Ed and Starfinder there as well. If you'd like first crack at alpha and beta review of Corefinder products, chapters, and discussion, by all means please consider signing up as a Patron at whatever level you like (and get all kinds of other great benefits as well)!

P.S. For those who follow 5E stuff, we are migrating our D&D 5E content over to a new separate Patreon that we just launched over the weekend called Legendary Loot.


For the class compilation book, roughly how many classes will there be?

How many Corefinder books do you plan on doing(that have classes/major themes like Fantasy, Modern, Sci-fi, etc.)?

What aspects/rules of Pathfinder(1e) are you not going to change?

Scarab Sages Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
For the class compilation book, roughly how many classes will there be?

Likely there will be two books - one for magical classes, one for martial classes, and they'll include pretty much all the classes we've done, which is most of the PF1 classes. I think we've done around 25 or so class books (plus a few more for villainous classes).

Dragon78 wrote:
How many Corefinder books do you plan on doing(that have classes/major themes like Fantasy, Modern, Sci-fi, etc.)?

Depends on sales. If things go well, lots! If thinks don't, it may end up being Basic, Fantasy, and maybe Advanced Fantasy.

At this point, there's no way to know for sure what the appetite for actually buying a Pathfinder 1.5. Lots of people want to talk about it, but this is a big undertaking, so until we see how many folks are actually willing to put money on the table we won't know how viable the product line is.

Dragon78 wrote:
What aspects/rules of Pathfinder(1e) are you not going to change?

A lot of stuff isn't changing, though rules are being pulled together from different places and condensed so explanations and descriptions are clearer and less wordy. It won't read identically, but it should be easier to use and have fewer ambiguities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why divide the book into two for martial and magical classes?

If you are divided the book into 12/13 classes, what else will be in the books?

So Corefinder will still be usable with Pathfinder APs, Modules, etc.?

301 to 350 of 644 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Third-Party Pathfinder RPG Products / Product Discussion / [Legendary Games] Corefinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.