Wolfgang Rolf |
Wow over 500 posts for a book that won't be coming till April 2015(Tentative Date). I guess it is safe to say that this book will make a killing, especially if the people like the changes made to the classes mentioned. Which means we'll probably see a 2nd and possibly a 3rd Unchained book...and before you know it Paizo will announce Pathfinder 2.0, I mean wow if people made such a big deal over optional new takes on four classes, what will they do when they hear about a new version? The sheer amount of joy, rage, interest, excitement, hate, etc. will be overwhelming.
Transmission89 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Back on topic (away from the fighter de railment which now actually has its own thread I believe) I'm really looking forward to this!
I want to see some of the cool things Paizo can do with a class when it doesn't have to adhere to strict 3.x philosophy. As myself and my play group have relatively low experience with pathfinder's intricacies, anything that can "speed up play and dispel confusion" will be a godsend!
Sub-Creator |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More than anything right now, I'm looking forward to seeing what they've cooked up for this new martial combat system, as well as how they plan on fixing action economy. It's the systems they're playing with moreso than the classes they're "fixing" that make this book worth it to me. People will complain about class issues until the day RPGs go out of style; they'll never fix such things to everyone's contentment. However, if they can make combat more intuitive, that'll be a godsend, I agree!
necromental |
I am more interested in alternate skills and feats than classes. I would like more interesting skills, that grant you "unrealistic/magical" effects, as you gain ranks (applicable to class skills only). Having something more then binary success on a skill would be really nice. Examples, Climb giving you climb speed, ditto for swim, a good Diplomacy having the effect of Charm Person...the spells are the limit :D
I would like to see feats reworked to scale. Also reworked full attack (with some movement, at least) would be nice.
I believe those two things would make rogue and fighter viable again. But, I think rogue talents should be reworked (the best feat for rogue should be Extra Talent, rather than best talent being extra combat feat), and I think that fighter should be gaining talents (something in the line of Rogue Genius Games Talented fighter, where many of the archetype abilities are presented for picking).
While I'm interested in seeing the martial pool, I'd rather that it be a means of fixing caster/martial disparity, rather than a specific fighter fix.
Moving away from Wealth By Level-table, especially the big six.
Alternate metamagic system/mana pool maybe.
Effectively, I'm the least interested in classes (I find them easy to rework), I'm much more interested in reworking some base sistems (skills, magic, feats)
Chris Lambertz Paizo Glitterati Robot |
ikarinokami |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Removed some posts and the replies to them. Let's keep this discussion thread about this product specifically. If you would like to discuss topics that are touched upon in this product in detail, another forum is more appropriate.
not being difficult, though it may appear so, but if i you can't talk about the contents of the product in the product thread, what purpose does the product thread serve?
Jason Bulmahn Lead Designer |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I gotta admit, I'm also confused on that. Like, I get that this isn't a topic for wishlisting. But if we can't talk about the contents here... what's the point of the thread?
Because a fighter revamp is not mentioned as something that is going into this product and every time it has been mentioned it turns into an argument with a lot of sniping and baiting on all sides.
So yeah, there is a thread for talking about a revamped fighter. Take the discussion there. When we post more about what is going into this book, this the place to talk about it.
Its just to try and keep this on some semblance of a focus and not to derail this thread into nothing but wish lists and fighter arguments.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Wolfgang Rolf |
Alright so besides the glorious push to full base attack bonus, what other changes do you think we'll see for the monk? Maybe a new type of attack that is along the vein of Stunning Fist and Quivering Palm? Maybe a Dazing Kick? Nerve Strike that causes some type of condition?
I honestly doubt we'll see a change to flurry and ki will likely still be there, I am guessing there could be more uses for the ki pool, hey maybe the monk will even get a hadouken lol or some type of long ranged attack that utilizes ki. Honestly though I am hoping for leniency on the alignment restriction or completely removing it. Its one of the things that I actually love about the Martial Artist archetype, you can be an unlawful monk *gasp*!
While this is not a change to the class, I wouldn't be surprised if we got new style feats in this book as well.
Odraude |
Odraude wrote:Yeah I gotta admit, I'm also confused on that. Like, I get that this isn't a topic for wishlisting. But if we can't talk about the contents here... what's the point of the thread?Because a fighter revamp is not mentioned as something that is going into this product and every time it has been mentioned it turns into an argument with a lot of sniping and baiting on all sides.
So yeah, there is a thread for talking about a revamped fighter. Take the discussion there. When we post more about what is going into this book, this the place to talk about it.
Its just to try and keep this on some semblance of a focus and not to derail this thread into nothing but wish lists and fighter arguments.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I understand and definitely agree with that, and I apologize if this sounds fighty, but from what Chris wrote, it looks like we can't even talk about the "topics that are touched upon in this product". So can we not speculate about the martial resource pool that's mentioned above, or the new monster creation rules? I just want to know what is okay to discuss here without derailing the topic and making Chris's job any harder.
ikarinokami |
Jason Bulmahn wrote:I understand and definitely agree with that, and I apologize if this sounds fighty, but from what Chris wrote, it looks like we can't even talk about the "topics that are touched upon in this product". So can we not speculate about the martial resource pool that's mentioned above, or the new monster creation rules? I just want to know what is okay to discuss here without derailing the topic and making Chris's job any harder.Odraude wrote:Yeah I gotta admit, I'm also confused on that. Like, I get that this isn't a topic for wishlisting. But if we can't talk about the contents here... what's the point of the thread?Because a fighter revamp is not mentioned as something that is going into this product and every time it has been mentioned it turns into an argument with a lot of sniping and baiting on all sides.
So yeah, there is a thread for talking about a revamped fighter. Take the discussion there. When we post more about what is going into this book, this the place to talk about it.
Its just to try and keep this on some semblance of a focus and not to derail this thread into nothing but wish lists and fighter arguments.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
and I'm not even sure that there is a single topic covered in this book according to the description that is not going to evoke a strong response, and if that is the stance they are taking, they shouldn't have open this thread, and in all honesty they shouldn't have annouced the product yet.
Jason Bulmahn Lead Designer |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its perfectly fine to talk about some of the things we have mentioned as being part of this book. Speculation, to a limited extent, is even perfectly fine. The fighter revamp topic went way beyond speculation and started taking things over, which is why we pushed it to another thread. The fact that it is such a heated topic was not helping matters any.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer |
Wolfgang Rolf's "What other changes do you think we'll see for the monk in the book" is fine, because he's focusing on the potential in this product. But if it became a debate about what parts of the monk are/are not in need of changing, that's a derail that's going to get removed.
Basically, opinions and speculation about this book are welcome. Opinions about content from the Core Rulebook or other books does not belong here. And opinions about *other* people's opinions are *really* not needed.
Insain Dragoon |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most important issue that I believe needs to be addressed in the Monk is his stat and role schizophrenia.
Stats:
So I don't wear armor and get Wisdom to AC... So I need Dex and Wisdom to be have decent AC?! Cool I'll be swift as a coursing river... Then in gameplay realize you have nowhere near the strength of a raging fire. If a Monk wants to do DPS their best off ignoring dex and focusing on tons of STR and Flurry of blows with a Temple sword or with Tiger Style.
Role:
I have tons of cool abilities telling me to move around, but I do piddly damage unless I stand still and full attack.
If those concerns are addressed in the new Monk class then I think it can be a success.
Also the fact that this discussion keeps turning to Fighter I consider to be good proof that the Fighter should be heavily considered for a rewrite.
Wolfgang Rolf |
Well moving and attacking means less damage for almost everyone in melee combat(Unless you're a high level Mobile Fighter.), anyway with full base attack bonus at least the monk will have a good chance of landing an attack after moving, or just land a stunning fist, trip or any ability that will hold the thing you're fighting there so you can flurry it in the next round.
Would be interesting if the monk got a self heal that uses his ki pool. Which could also help with his survival.
For the record I agree the monk is quite MAD and it would be nice if paizo did something about it.
Ross Byers RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32 |
my head hurts.
"What other changes do you think we'll see for the monk in the book" presupposes "what parts of the monk are/are not in need of changing"
again I question the creation of a"production discussion" thread where nothing can actually be "discussed"
Tone is relevant, I think. This thread has been derailed a few times by people more interested in debating, for the umpteenth time, the caster/martial disparity, how fighters and rogues suck, and so on.
The dividing line is rather thin, but I can see where a heavy hand might be necessary to avoid this thread turning into either a debatefest or a bunch of interconnected homebrew threads.
Vic Wertz Chief Technical Officer |
TOZ |
10 people marked this as a favorite. |
"What other changes do you think we'll see for the monk in the book" presupposes "what parts of the monk are/are not in need of changing"
I totally want to see a full BAB monk!
The monk is total failsauce and needs full BAB to even begin to approach relevance in Pathfinder. Also wizards are still better fighters.
Set |
Would be interesting if the monk got a self heal that uses his ki pool. Which could also help with his survival.
I'm for dragging that 'must have a cleric' sacred cow behind the shed and making scrum-dilly-icious burgers out of it.
Not just Monk healing chi-manipulation / prana-adjusting whatever, but healing Bard performance and healing Rogues with fancy surgery Heal skill tricks and Barbarian's fast healing during Rages and Rangers making up herbal poultices in their Favored Terrain. Spread it around, let everyone be a little more responsible for their own health and welfare, and a party without a Cleric (or Life Oracle, or Druid or Paladin relegated to never using their Druid or Paladin abilities, because they are stuck being second-best healbot) be completely viable.
And, because why not, since Bards, Alchemists and Witches can already do arcane healing, maybe even some Sor/Wiz transmutation healing spells.
Ashiel Cultist |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to the monk redone as a psychic version of a magus.
(sigh}
But that presupposes psychic magic not in evidence. So I suspect things will be going in a different direction.
Well, I have good news for you then! The wonderful, glorious, and magnificent Lord Ashiel has created a Psychic Monk based off the Psychic Warrior! Even better, the generous Lord Ashiel offers it free of charge on his blog over at Alvena Publishing. For your convenience, I have linked you to the Psychic Monk. Remember to bask in the benevolence of our Lord Ashiel, and give your praise to our glorious creator!
GentleGiant |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still contend that people aren't... "unchained" enough in their visions of how the classes will be done. The suggestions above are still taking already existing abilities and trying to patch them on to e.g. the monk.
This is an opportunity for the rules team to completely reinvent the classes from the bottom up. Sure, some things will stay (or be modified) because, while they don't have to be backward compatible, they still have to function within the D20 system, so we'll still see e.g. full BAB and similar classifications.
But besides that I still think people are being way too conservative in their thinking.
Obviously, that also makes it harder to speculate on, when you truly throw the doors wide open, design-wise.
Or I could be wrong... ;-)
Matrix Dragon |
wish list = appropriate.
Well, I won't stop then ;)
I may as well point out that aside from summoners, one of the most commonly banned classes is the gunslinger. This often isn't because people don't like guns: many people simply dislike the fact that guns use touch attack mechanics.
Personally, the idea that even a non-magical simple firearm can simply ignore +5 Full Plate completely destroys my suspension of disbelief. After all, in real life it was often possible to buy (non-magical) armor that could stop a bullet from an early gun if you were rich enough and willing to learn to wear the armor. Unless I am mistaken, early guns had barely more penetration power than a longbow.
I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in an optional rule that replaces the current gun mechanics with something that fits more with the way other weapons function in Pathfinder without making gunslingers underpowered.
Tels |
Vic Wertz wrote:wish list = appropriate.Well, I won't stop then ;)
I may as well point out that aside from summoners, one of the most commonly banned classes is the gunslinger. This often isn't because people don't like guns: many people simply dislike the fact that guns use touch attack mechanics.
Personally, the idea that even a non-magical simple firearm can simply ignore +5 Full Plate completely destroys my suspension of disbelief. After all, in real life it was often possible to buy (non-magical) armor that could stop a bullet from an early gun if you were rich enough and willing to learn to wear the armor. Unless I am mistaken, early guns had barely more penetration power than a longbow.
I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in an optional rule that replaces the current gun mechanics with something that makes a little more sense without making gunslingers underpowered.
Half Armor, Shield and Natural Armor bonus against guns. This just popped into my head and feels like something that could work as a real quick fix.
Artanthos |
Matrix Dragon wrote:Half Armor, Shield and Natural Armor bonus against guns. This just popped into my head and feels like something that could work as a real quick fix.Vic Wertz wrote:wish list = appropriate.Well, I won't stop then ;)
I may as well point out that aside from summoners, one of the most commonly banned classes is the gunslinger. This often isn't because people don't like guns: many people simply dislike the fact that guns use touch attack mechanics.
Personally, the idea that even a non-magical simple firearm can simply ignore +5 Full Plate completely destroys my suspension of disbelief. After all, in real life it was often possible to buy (non-magical) armor that could stop a bullet from an early gun if you were rich enough and willing to learn to wear the armor. Unless I am mistaken, early guns had barely more penetration power than a longbow.
I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in an optional rule that replaces the current gun mechanics with something that makes a little more sense without making gunslingers underpowered.
It would accomplish nothing against a full BAB class. The gunslinger would still be hitting everything on 2+
Of course, once they get past 10th level fighters and barbarians usually hit on a 2+ with at least their first two iteratives.
Tels |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tels wrote:Matrix Dragon wrote:Half Armor, Shield and Natural Armor bonus against guns. This just popped into my head and feels like something that could work as a real quick fix.Vic Wertz wrote:wish list = appropriate.Well, I won't stop then ;)
I may as well point out that aside from summoners, one of the most commonly banned classes is the gunslinger. This often isn't because people don't like guns: many people simply dislike the fact that guns use touch attack mechanics.
Personally, the idea that even a non-magical simple firearm can simply ignore +5 Full Plate completely destroys my suspension of disbelief. After all, in real life it was often possible to buy (non-magical) armor that could stop a bullet from an early gun if you were rich enough and willing to learn to wear the armor. Unless I am mistaken, early guns had barely more penetration power than a longbow.
I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in an optional rule that replaces the current gun mechanics with something that makes a little more sense without making gunslingers underpowered.
It would accomplish nothing against a full BAB class. The gunslinger would still be hitting everything on 2+
Of course, once they get past 10th level fighters and barbarians usually hit on a 2+ with at least their first two iteratives.
Currently, Gunslingers get a staggering amount of penalties on their attacks because they often use every option they can to boost their damage at the expense of accuracy. This works because of touch AC being so low across the board. If monster got half of the stuff normally bypassed by touch AC, you'd see many of those 'guaranteed hits' become misses a lot more often. Guns would still be powerful, granted, but maybe not as much so.
Personally, I think Natural Armor should apply as DR/- against guns. There's a reason why we needed larger caliber guns to bring down animals after all. Sometimes the bullets just don't hurt them.
Alexander Augunas Contributor |
It would accomplish nothing against a full BAB class. The gunslinger would still be hitting everything on 2+
Of course, once they get past 10th level fighters and barbarians usually hit on a 2+ with at least their first two iteratives.
Not necessarily true. Firearm gameplay is based around taking penalties to hit in order to deal damage. For example, you take a penalty for Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot. Firearm range increments are also incredibly short (save for the Advanced Firearms), so you'll likely be taking a penalty on those attacks too.
Changing up the system so that gunslingers actually cared about AC would make the firearm gameplay more tactical. "Do I take this penalty and have a decent chance to deal no damage?" instead of "Heck yeah I take the penalty! I'mma hit no matter what!"
Hayato Ken |
Well, some know that there is a new player companion for ranged combat coming out this year. I´m afraid of what that one will do.
Still i think there could be more stuff and also better rules for crossbows and slings as well as thrown stuff.
A revision of lightning, dark vision and precision damage is also very high on my wish list. That would not only make rogues and swashbuckerls who don´t have darkvision a lot more playable, but also bring races with and without darkvision into one line on the powertrack maybe.
As it stands now, darkvision is not only one of the biggest enhancements characters can have, but also a very huge atmosphere destroyer.
Hayato Ken |
Rogues, ninjas and swashbucklers clearly should have something built in that allows them to use precision damage more often. Maybe even sneak attack.
Something like the inquisitors solo-tactics comes to mind: solo flanking.
Yeah there is feinting, but you can´t feint everyone or all the time and it´s a big time and feat consuming thing, where feats are already rare.
It could be skill check dependant, from bluff or acrobatics.
Precision damage in dim light or darkness could also be perception dependant for example.
Landon Winkler |
Looking forward to this book. I hope we're going to see a fully realized version of the Beta barbarian (c'mon rage points!)
Really, any simple barbarian would be great though. Adding another class to the "simple enough to hand a new player" stack would be golden.
A rogue buff might help our new players feel more useful as well. Basically, I'm just looking for simple classes to throw at newbies :)
Anyway, book looks great, looking forward to it! Hope we get some more news at GenCon.
Cheers!
Landon
Shadow Bloodmoon |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only thoughts to add are that if this book is anything like Unearthed Arcana was, I'm sold. I mean, I'm subscribed anyway, but I love the options that such a book provides to help create a game my group and I like to play. Pathfinder had always been about options and honestly I feel like any of the current classes could be made viable without much change, using the options already provided, but that's me and I'm less of a tactical gamer and more of a story gamer when it comes to pathfinder. Talk to me about say, Warhammer, it would be different. Nonetheless, in all fairness, play the game you want to play, Pathfinder gives you the options, it's up to each player to make it work for their game. This book I think will expand those options and I'm very happy Paizo has decided to do it.
Bossun |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to point something out that I thought would be obvious... but apparently it is not after having read all 500+ posts on this thread.
They said "UNCHAINED", as in a departure from the shackles of one's current state.
Skill points, feats, initiative order, hit points, action types (free, swift, immediate, move, standard, full-round), armor class, and much more could all very well become a thing of the past.
After all, these things are all carry-over from the 3.X era. And my hope is that some of these new rules, optional or otherwise, will eradicate these sloppy concepts with well thought out new ideas to simplify not just combat but the entire game.
This is Paizo, they brought us the simpler system of Combat Maneuvers already. I expect brilliant new ideas going forward.
With the aforementioned information in mind... what I want to see is a skill test system for everything, most especially trap finding. Make trap finding something more than some one in the party spotting a trap and the rogue disabling it because he just happens to have +1 to +10 points better in disable from his class. Make it worthwhile to be a rogue! You remember that D&D movie that only the otaku/cult mentality types liked because they love D&D that much? I want to see traps like that! That's what makes it exciting to be a rogue. I want to be a rogue because the game makes it worthwhile and fun to be one, not because the party needs one "just in case we run into a trap".
Melee types like fighter and barbarian need a mechanic for making use of their high armor (or damage reduction) and hit points to force enemies in combat to focus on them. Give us a threat system, and give certain classes like rogues and rangers a way to ignore threat so that they can target that pesky spell user anyways.
You remember all of those books that were published for D&D worlds? Arcane and Divine spell casters need something like that. Where their whole task in combat is thwarting an identified enemy caster in order to protect their allies. Seriously, go read the Elminster series. He spends 75% of his career thwarting other casters just so his allies with swords and spears can do the real damage. Only 10% of his career is spent soloing high level devils in hell... and by that point he was level 25+ and had the favor of a goddess.
Above all, expand on your teamwork feats idea. GIVE US MORE BENEFITS FOR WORKING TOGETHER AS A TEAM AND LESS BENEFITS FOR BEING THE STRONGEST IN THE PARTY! It is a team game, not a soloist game. Reward the party with a system that supports teamwork. Butterfly's Sting was a step in the right direction. The bard with it could boost his ac with the combat expertise feat no one ever wants so he can stand toe to toe in melee, spend his move action to grant the party bonuses, and use his attacks to go for a critical strike which he could then let his much stronger barbarian friend with a scythe do the real damage by taking advantage of the exposed area the bard revealed with the sting feat! MORE OF THIS, MORE OF IT, MORE! We need more players working together to pull off amazing combinations like this and fewer players running characters like synthesist summoners who can do everything by themselves.
(Yes I have synthesist hate, and it comes from a place that it rips off the 3.X druid and does it 5x better)
Rub-Eta |
Question: Will this only break compatability with pre-Pathfinder rules and no Pathfinder material? I'm mostly thinking about archetypes for classes that are being re-designed. Like, will the unchained rogue be compatible with the already excisting rogue archetypes and those coming in ACG? Or is it basically a new class with its' own archetypes?
Maybe somebody already asked and got an answear here? I can't find anything about it though
Zark |
Question: Will this only break compatability with pre-Pathfinder rules and no Pathfinder material? I'm mostly thinking about archetypes for classes that are being re-designed. Like, will the unchained rogue be compatible with the already excisting rogue archetypes and those coming in ACG? Or is it basically a new class with its' own archetypes?
Maybe somebody already asked and got an answear here? I can't find anything about it though
Good question.
edit:
Me I hope they redesign the rogue so completely that we need new archetypes.
What I also hope for is a modefied skill system where skills at higher levels let you do stuff humans normally can't do.
Rub-Eta |
If they essentially make new classes, I hope they won't fall as flat at higher levels as some seem to do. not that they're bad, but they're not as flashy
Just like how a level 20 Wizard, Clerics and other full casters can stop time, travle to different dimensions, preform miracles and even create new worlds, these unchained martials (barbarian, monk, rogue and more if that's not all of them) should also be able to preform feats of extraordinary attributes. Maybe not as powerfull though.
Ex
A Monk shouldn't just gain the 60ft speed boost. They should be able to skip up and down and betweeen mountain tops and flurry flaming walls of pain at their enemies with their magical, adamantine fists! Or something like Tulkas, for those who've read the silmarillion
A Rogues should be able to dissapear into the shadow plane to sneak around unnoticeable and have spider-trap senses and reflexes. Change their face and apperance like the Druid's A Thousand Faces to infiltrate. Why not even provide a reliable way to sneak attack at range? Spy and Assassin Master is what I think when I hear level 20 rogue, but not what I see when I look at the current rogue.
And dragons will tremble in the presence of the titan of rage. I really would like to be able to wrestle a dragon (Hercules Disney style) and when the DM says "it bites you" I want to reply "I bite back" and win
Kryzbyn |
Monks should have the mystic feel, but should not be dependant on unarmed attacks.
There are many kinds of mystic acetic warriors that use all kinds of weapons.
I'd like the monk to serve as the template for that idea, and the player chooses the weapons he flurries with.
Ed Reppert |
Monks should have the mystic feel, but should not be dependant on unarmed attacks.
There are many kinds of mystic acetic warriors that use all kinds of weapons.
I'd like the monk to serve as the template for that idea, and the player chooses the weapons he flurries with.
I'd really like to see a "martial artist" class that brings forth the flavor of all the martial arts. The "hard" arts (like Shaolin and Karate) and the "soft" arts (like Taiji and Aikido) and arts that emphasis kicks over punches (and vice versa) and wrestling (judo, jujitsu, palé) and the "weapon" arts (escrima, kendo, iaiajutsu, European or African or wherever variants). I well remember the scene in Flag in Exile where Honor Harrington, in a duel with a man who considers himself one of the best swordsmen on Grayson, thinks for a moment (for the reader's benefit) about "the domination" and "the crease" — and then kills her opponent with one stroke. And then there's Sinanju. :-)
sunshadow21 |
This looks interesting, and I will definitely be buying it. Should be good stuff; even if not all of the ideas end being the best in the world, they can give a better perspective on the overall game design and how to improve it going forward.
For those saying that that the fighter needs a rewrite, the problems with the fighter has never been the base class, but rather the overall combat mechanics, how feats are written (feat taxes, overly long feat chains, etc.), and other problems within the system as a whole. Therefore, I can understand why they aren't redoing the fighter class, but it does sound like they are reexamining a lot of the mechanics and systems that the fighter relies on more heavily than most other classes.