|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
i'd be comfortable with that as well.
so far it seems that it completely kneecaps the cavalier, lessens diversity in the magus even further (spell combat+spellstrike und nussing else), and classes that have a swift-action 'now i have class bonuses' abilities get tied up.
said class abilities have to meet or pass that missed attack in overall usefulness in order to not have been a waste (since you could have just taken that third attack and contributed more to the fight).
it gives the swashbuckler the extra swift actions it begged for... at the cost of everything else i could do in its turn instead, similar with the warpriest's ability and paladin/inquisitor casting.
'lotsa' natural attack builds are no pretty much dead but 'big hit' natural attack builds are terrifying now (a t-rex can now [bite->grab->swallow] up to three party members in a single round), twf is now far more attractive, a lot of action shift class abilities/feats are now useless (rapid reload is now in a weird place, brawler and investigator abilities for their core features now do nothing, etc), casters are now less mobile, and nobody gets a 4th iterative anymore unless they have haste.
on the upside, new players don't have to juggle the different action types (a MAJOR hangup for my newest group), and you can move -> attack -> move (or) move -> attack x2 (or) attack -> move -> attack etc, all from level 1, which is HUGE for martials (but causes the earlier mentioned dilemma for classes that cost actions to activate their core class features).
have i missed anything guys?
overall it's a mixed bag. a good deal of the current meta either doesnt work or works far less efficiently--while stuff that was previously subpar are now a great choice with the right application.
the loss of the courageous enchant kinda hurts (since it was one of the only classes not named bard that could really use the thing), and there's less knock-on effects all around as pointed out by Taja the Barbarian.
stances seem good, though why would someone take the other accuracy stance over accurate--the latter doesn't impose an AC penalty for the same bonus, and even has another power to boost it for concealment stuff! i'm expecting a feat later that shifts rage stances from a move action to a swift action (even without it you can use a runners shirt to take it as a freebie when combat starts).
i'm considering (pending input from my players) changing over to the action economy overhaul (with some minor houseruling), and active spellcasting rules.
also eyeing the alignment shifts/affirmations + alignment feats and wound thresholds systems because they seem pretty cool, but more bookeeping on my and the payers parts has me kinda wary of them.
getting swift -> free ones is still great though (rapid reload on gunlsingers is a waste unless they're using alchemical cartridges--hooray build and ammo diversity!)
i'll say most of 1-9 is definitely agreeable (although for the bonus feats thing i'd give the condition that you must meet the bab/skill rank/level prereqs for such feats since full bab is a thing now), but for 10 i'll say that elbow smash is fine.
yes choosing between it and flying kick is a pain, but an extra full-bab attack in a round that you're already flurrying is a lot (even moreso if you go for enforcer+hurtful). that it's nonlethal-only seems fine, since if they hit zero hp from lethal+nonlethal they're unconscious and can be CDG'd anyway (one of the reasons i was yelling at mark about the kineticist's ridiculous playtest costs). yes things are immune to nonlethal, but things are also immune to magic, and sneak attack, etc.
a lot of wizards' nastiest spells usually require either a party member or a summoned monster to actually finish the target off (the bigger control spells--pits/clouds/rays of prismatic light), which is fine--it promotes SOME sort of co-dependency/teamwork until the wizard gets simulacrums or summon monster down to a standard action.
when it gets to the point that the wizard can come in and go 'aaaand you're dead and youre dead and youre REALLY dead' without any aid or cooperation with the party (while invisible and able to teleport out instantly if things somehow get bad) or even effort on his part--he just lists off what spells he's using and on whom and marks the spells cast off on his sheet. it falls to the monsters to either roll well or keel over--that it becomes an issue for me (because this is a team game and everyone should have a chance to contribute).
thankfully most of that is solved by asking 'hey, could dial it back a bit?' to the wizard player who's a reasonable guy and swapping to the Active Casting alternate rule.
which he is paying for by not being able to wear armor/shield/medium load+ and lots of feats/abilities/items to make it competitive with simply using a weapon.
Money Advantage where?
nowhere, since he still has to shell out dosh to cover his armor disparity until his WIS gets high enough to count (still needs it if he wants armor enchants even then), and freeing up the neck slot for the amulet of natural armor helps his money a bit and makes him not need to pay the class ability tax for barkskin.
nice quality of life upgrade.
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
couldnt you do that with this system as well? i thought the teleport was part of the casting, and casting a spell is only 2 actions, so couldn't you [move][cast] to teleport anyway?
Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I know there's not a whole lot of caster sympathy out there, but this pretty much ruins the teleportation subschool. I don't like it generally, a lot of classes are build on swift and standard actions; it's a nerf to all classes that have powers based on that. Luckily, it's optional, no need to utilize it.
wait how is it a nerf to teleportation?
it's always ended your turn after use (unless you've got dimensional agility, which also works in this system), so it doesnt seem much different to me.
then again i dont play casters too often, so if im missing anyhting really obvious please enlighten me.
but only if he's a rogue, not a slayer.
(it's not as if a slayer doesnt get his own tricks though.)
reposting form the UC rogue general discussion thread:
So i've been fiddling around with things for the unchained rogue, and here's what I've come up with, at least initially:
half-elf unchained rogue 20
FCB: 18 human (+3 talents), 2 hp
Alt racials: dual-minded (+2 will)
example stats (dex>cha>con=wis>int>str)
traits - river rat/reactionary
-pretty much always attacks touch after level 6 (helps offset TWF penalties and low bab)
-can inflict 2 debilitations + stat damage (str or dex) on sneak attacks
-has HiPS light+dark+blindsight/sense at levels 7, 11, and 13 respectively, moves full speed during stealth at no penalty, and the stealth-break sneak attacks last all turn instead of a single attack (depending on stealth ranks).
-fairly MAD, but gets both wis and cha to will saves as well as slippery mind.
kinda lowish on accuracy, but after activating chill touch and you get an AC debilitation on them you're all set for the most part.
the build becomes MUCH more flexible with the action economy rework, since he could [move or step+stealth]+[TWF]+[ITWF] for four sneak attacks and loads of debuffs pretty much every round.
- - - - -
Thoughts? suggestions? any glaring flaws i missed?
with the rogue's new dex-focused abilities i'd think TWF would be a decent choice, especially if using the action economy overhaul (moving AND attacking is really nice).
still has accuracy issues until you can hit someone at least once yeah--and you raise a good point on fast healing and regen: are there any ways to cancel such abilities for a while?
spell combat packages the spell as part of the larger full-round action, and i thought spellstrike's action was (spellcast) + (free action attack to deliver it)
rant on teamwork feats and rogue playstyles:
on the subject of lookout: having to force someone else to spend their precious resources (feats) to make sure you work correctly is exactly the kind of terrible gameplay the original rogue promoted, which is capital B Bad.
every class--E.V.E.R.Y. class, should be able to at least stand and function on their own (and thus have fun even if separated from the party). having every other class (we'll not talk about the original/unchained monk here, since the latter requires a PhD in optimization to make not-awful and the former is still fuzzy until i can get the pdf) do this and then one class says "No! You HAVE to position here and delay your own build progress to accommodate my class' playstyle or i will be completely useless!" is TERRIBLE for both players put in that position.
Now dont misunderstand me, teamwork is all well and good, and making characters that use teamwork to excel is also fine, but the line is drawn when that 'teamwork' becomes mandatory to keep one person at the table from pouting over their choice of a trap class.
now on the actual front of teamwork feats: were that partner who gets lookout either A) an animal companion or familiar (with high enough int) gained via the animal ally feat or other means, or B) a cavalier, inquisitor, etc. who either get the feats for free or have incentives towards taking the feats regrdless, then thats great. nobody's losing out on their end to help you out on yours, and that's just fine.
sorry, i more meant WBL expenditure for/to the same effect
a +3 AoMF and +3 weapon are very different costs. as is a +3 bracers of armor vs +3 armor.
monk's robe can be counted as a wash, since most classes also have a '~15000g Class Ability Boost' item, and most martials have to put more money towards defensive items (jingasa, cloak or resistance, clear spindle ioun stone+wayfinder, etc), but items towards ki reduction or ki recovery are more WBL that most other classes don't have to account for.
the monk saves money on not having to buy an amulet of natural armor--if they traded a class ability for barkskin, a tax which is unheard of in most other classes--and used to be able to leverage their superior saves against having to purchase save-boosting stuff for a bit to buffer their larger purchases, but that's not the case anymore.
I'm still boggled at how anyone could think an unarmed strike isnt at LEAST a type of natural attack--it's not like you can equip your fists or equip your claws--they're there all the time if you have them.
I mean unarmed strike is specifically listed in the weapons table and everything as well, and spells and enhancements that affect either manufactured or natural weapons will affect unarmed strikes (or at least that's how enchants work with the clockwork arm at least).
i think on the SA bit it's less of a question of IF they stack (both abilities specifically say they stack with similar abilities), but SHOULD they stack.
since having oodles and oodles of sneak attack dice to throw at things might seem excessive to some people.
@lorekeeper: your tiger vs dragon thing got me thinking--going without dragon style REALLY hurts your damage on the unarmed side, and you cant take both without MoMS (iirc, one of the few archetypes that actually still work with unchained monk)
that trades out flurry, which used to be a pretty hard sell outside of dipping monk 2 and never touching it again (flurry was your ONLY class accuracy booster in the old monk), but you can pick up TWF fairly painlessly as a monk--you're required to have a high dex already anyway
you could start with 16 dex--after racials, since everything and their dog has dex bonuses--and put your 4th-level stat point towards it, then pick up ITWF at 7th (was never a fan of GTWF, since an extra -12 attack usually wasn't a spectacular idea)...
anyway, this is all just musing. anyone else got ideas for shoring up the defensive side? before 19th level, preferably (#shotsfired #paizodevsdown)
i'd love to see a pamphlet or pdf just going over how feats and other abilities now interact with stamina/action economy overhaul.
er, were you referring to my houserule musing? that's exactly that--houserules (and still WIP ones at that)
actually those cat-step slippers or whatever set a rules precedent otherwise, since they specifically land you on your feet while wearing them, instead of automatically falling prone when landing after X distance.
i'd say keep folks posted (maybe with a thread or something later) for that, since a lot of my worries could just be making a mountain out of a molehill, as i tend to do.
i'd love to see some playtest logs for the new stuff once the pdf drops for most people.
i'll agree that this system does open up a lot of options (it really does). I just feel it needs to be considerate of the classes that were unfortunate enough to be designed for the previous system--otherwise we'd need a whole wave of unchained classes (magus/cavalier/swash/etc) designed with this in mind so they're not tripping over themselves as they are now.
so far this new action economy makes combat more mobile (always a plus), slows down kiting wizards (good), and removes 1/4 of every full bab class' damage output--since even at -15, the barbarian, paladin, slayer, fighter, and ranger could still land that last iterative reliably--in the endgame (not a plus, but only affects level 16+ gameplay).
overall that's pretty great so far--i just want it to be a little better
using the reaction does make it a bit less of a no-brainer, yeah. also make combat reflexes for AoOs a bit mor attractive, since you could use your regular reaction for a swift action, and still AoO things outside of your turn.
anyway: casting a spell (2 actions) and then a quickened spell (1 action) in a single turn seems fine to me, since wizards can already do that--they're only really losing out on their mobility, which is fine.
then again with my ruling one could feasibly cast a swift-action-base spell (reaction), cast a regular spell (2 actions), and cast a quickened spell (1 action) in a single turn. hmm.
limiting it to divine-only would help keep the paladin/inquisitor and their spellcasting working properly, but seems too biased.
actually a thought occurs to me--why not have it cost 2 actions, but let people buffer it with their reaction?
so you could fit two 2-action vital strikes (2 actions, 1 action+reaction) in a single turn if you didn't move.
could give people who dont usually have swift action class abilities to take advantage of my rule's 'reaction trade' thing something to use it with.
applying it to other feats similarly might help that as well.
yep. paizo monk design at it's finest!
after all, the lord giveth, and the lord sayeth 'screw you monks'
i'd assume with near-mandatory vows/archetypes, more wbl/slot taxes, and spending your general feats on--like everyone else does on their core class abilities!
from what i understand so far, a houserule i think my table will be using (until we can put our heads together for a more elegant solution) will be:
-everyone gets 1 'swift' action free on their turn, additional swift actions cost one action as normal.
helps un-bone classes and monsters that got left in the lurch by the economy shift, still keeps spellcasting in its new less-mobile state.
also, im unsure how to handle vital strike-at one action it's strictly better than a single attack (slightly weaker than twf, i think), but at 2 actions it's FAR worse than just attacking twice.
edit: also @the t-rex comment(s) earlier: it's too bad crane wing is dead now, huh?
okay wait, can someone clear this up for me:
we all know casting spells costs two actions (this has been brought up repeatedly, and is generally accepted as fine and balanced) unless you us quicken spell to drop it to a swift action (one action)
do spells that are already swift actions cost one action or two?
I know I opposed the idea that it should have retained it's good will save. I think it could have extra HD or a good will save not both. It could have lost it's good ref or good fort and I'd have the same opinion.
i'll say that as a wis-based class i could deal with them having a lower will save due to it, but ONLY if they have a means to cut down MAD.
juggling four 'core' stats makes it so that lower will save isnt compensated for even with all the other wis-centric abilities incentivising investing in it--it's not like the monk doesn't want to have good wis, they simply cant afford to invest in it and not either:
i mean the dcs don't usually matter much outside of stunning fist, since quivering palm is now COMPLETELY USELESS WHO THOUGHT STANDARD ACTION WAS A GOOD IDEA SMACK HIM
besides the barkskin tax this is all a completely different issue from their stupid and completely needless WBL handicap.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
odd that the mountain-splitting and earthquaking are seen as less possible while the bearded invisible flying guy calls in angels en masse to battle cthulu.
why cant everyone be a heroic demigod at high levels? at the upper levels you are regularly worldhopping and wheeling and dealing with planar overlords, why the hell CANT i play a properly Fantastic martial? Why do I only get to affect the world only within the reach of my weapon, while the wizard can wave a hand and vaporize a city. or summon an elder god. or change the weather. or stop time. or or or or OR OR OR
why is any of that absurd when the party wizard can just up and turn into a dragon when he wants.
Yes I'm mad.
wanting a new and interesting thing to actually take existing class/ability design into account does not make one a muchkin.
as-is, a lot of classes get shafted class ability-wise despite (or even because of) the new action options in combat (large examples being investigators, the magus, the cavalier, the swashbuckler, and the warpriest, and it kicks the previously forgiving paladin spell list in the teeth). wanting that to not be the case is not a bad thing.