| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I would prefer if they make a summoner that's more like the Master Summoner.
These classes are "unchained" so I want to see new and innovative takes on the concepts that are actually unchained from 3.5 and 3.P
Rogue without Sneak attack
Barb without Rage
Monk without Flurry and abilities with contradictory playstyles
Summoner that specializes in summoning magic and augmenting summons
Problem with master summoner is that it really slows down play to a crawl. If they could make it work, great. And if they could make the "summon monster" aspect as rewarding as using the ediolon, that'd be awesome. But honestly, the eidolon was such a cool aspect to the class that I'd hate to see it completely gutted in favor for a something akin to animal companions. To me, it'd be boring and sad to see such cool mechanics abandoned in favor of something that's already been used for other classes.
Does the summoner need some balance work? Yes, definitely. I just don't want to see one of my favorite innovations in 3.5 gutted because of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has Paizo stated anywhere whether these classes will replace material ALA MRP, or are they simply new classes like the ACG classes that have new names?
Once this book comes out is the old Summoner and Barb going to disappear?
If not, then I don't care too much where Paizo directs these new ones because the classes I know and love still exist.
So far all evidence points towards all these classes being optional rewrites.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can think of many people I know that would firebomb Paizo HQ if 2Ed were announced ;)
Sadly I'm not sure you're mistaken.
Sometimes treating a game like SERIOUS BUSINESS wears more than a little thin. :/
Has Paizo stated anywhere whether these classes will replace material ALA MRP, or are they simply new classes like the ACG classes that have new names?
Once this book comes out is the old Summoner and Barb going to disappear?
If not, then I don't care too much where Paizo directs these new ones because the classes I know and love still exist.
So far all evidence points towards all these classes being optional rewrites.
GMs will see these revamps version and chances are, they will probably use these newer ones. Why wouldn't they? Not only will they be free on the PFSRD, but it's taking a problematic class like the summoner and make it easier to deal with for GMs. GMs tend to be harder on banning casters than martials. So I'd be hard-pressed to find a GM to allow the older style summoner if the new "balanced" version exists that guts my favorite aspect of the summoner. And if I'm a GM, that does me no good since I'm not playing a summoner character.
All I'm saying is that I want the eidolon to remain an option. If this new summoner can have that option, be better balanced with a better spell list, and even have the option for augmenting summons like you want, then I'd be really happy. But given how much JJ despises the summoner, I'm not exactly holding my breath for it.
Well fortunately for us this isn't the Golarian group, so Jason and Stephen will be handling these.
Well fortunately for us this isn't the Golarian group, so Jason and Stephen will be handling these.
JJ still helps with rules and such. He did a lot of work with the Swashbuckler for the ACG coming out.
Sorry if it sounds like I'm being a downer. The other stuff sounds awesome. But the summoner is one of my favorite classes and I'd hate to see what I love about it removed. Having played though when GMs only allowed DnD Essentials instead of 4ed PHB 1, 2, and 3, I'm concerned about this. It's the nature of GMs.
I feel for you man :( didn't think far enough ahead to realize some GMs would do that. For your sake and fun's sake I hope that these new classes are as fun as the originals.
I feel for you man :( didn't think far enough ahead to realize some GMs would do that. For your sake and fun's sake I hope that these new classes are as fun as the originals.
Amen to that. For those that don't understand, think of it this way. Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible, but how many GMs do you know of actually allow 3.5 material? I think I'm the only GM in my area that uses 3.5 stuff (and even 3.0 stuff... but I don't think Advanced Bestiary counts ;) ).
Yah, we use non-core material all the time in our modules and Adventure Paths. It's more or less an absolute requirement, in fact... we're currently working on AP #17 after all, and keeping things fresh and interesting after so many campaigns demands using more than just what's in the Core Rulebook.
Just how the elements of Pathfinder Unchained get picked up and used in our adventures, though... that's something we're still figuring out. We'll see!
And not just that, sometimes you guys use third party content in your APs!
Speaking of Advanced Bestiary... You excited for the Pathfinder Advanced Bestiary?
Hey Jason / Stephen / Mark, was it mentioned whether the new "Unchained" classes are going to maintain backwards compatibility with existing Pathfinder material? Specifically archetypes?
GMs will see these revamps version and chances are, they will probably use these newer ones. Why wouldn't they? Not only will they be free on the PFSRD, but it's taking a problematic class like the summoner and make it easier to deal with for GMs. GMs tend to be harder on banning casters than martials. So I'd be hard-pressed to find a GM to allow the older style summoner if the new "balanced" version exists that guts my favorite aspect of the summoner. And if I'm a GM, that does me no good since I'm not playing a summoner character.
All I'm saying is that I want the eidolon to remain an option. If this new summoner can have that option, be better balanced with a better spell list, and even have the option for augmenting summons like you want, then I'd be really happy. But given how much JJ despises the summoner, I'm not exactly holding my breath for it.
I'm sorry that you like the summoner as-is. Honestly, there are parts that I like about it too. Synthesist Summoner is an awesome way to handle iconic characters who go through a form change (Power Rangers, He-Man, Sailor Moon, Eren Yaeger). I would miss that if it was gone. But making a personal attack on James isn't likely to get your point across any better than just stating your hopes and fears without the insult.
That wasn't a personal attack in any way. Jason has been on record in multiple threads stating that he does in fact dislike the Summoner and informing us that it's banned at his table.
How did you interpret "But given how much JJ despises the summoner, I'm not exactly holding my breath for it" as a personal insult?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry that you like the summoner as-is. Honestly, there are parts that I like about it too. Synthesist Summoner is an awesome way to handle iconic characters who go through a form change (Power Rangers, He-Man, Sailor Moon, Eren Yaeger). I would miss that if it was gone. But making a personal attack on James isn't likely to get your point across any better than just stating your hopes and fears without the insult.GMs will see these revamps version and chances are, they will probably use these newer ones. Why wouldn't they? Not only will they be free on the PFSRD, but it's taking a problematic class like the summoner and make it easier to deal with for GMs. GMs tend to be harder on banning casters than martials. So I'd be hard-pressed to find a GM to allow the older style summoner if the new "balanced" version exists that guts my favorite aspect of the summoner. And if I'm a GM, that does me no good since I'm not playing a summoner character.
All I'm saying is that I want the eidolon to remain an option. If this new summoner can have that option, be better balanced with a better spell list, and even have the option for augmenting summons like you want, then I'd be really happy. But given how much JJ despises the summoner, I'm not exactly holding my breath for it.
It's not an attack nor an insult. There are several posts where he states that does not like the summoner. He has good points, like the spell list being reworked. Some spells the summoner gets early enough to make wands of. Wands of teleport is kind of crazy. But he also wants to remove the eidolon in favor of an outsider companion similar to the animal companion. And for me, that would really kill the summoner. So it's not like I'm saying he's a terrible person. I'm saying he has more pull in the company than some random schmuck on the internet, and if he wants to gut the eidolon like he has posted several times on these forums, the rules team is going to consider his opinion greatly.
I understand the balance issues the summoner causes. But, I'd rather see the balance problems with the eidolon fixed, not completely gutted. Though JJ's issues with the eidolon also stem from the fact that the player has control over what the eidolon is, which can be at odds with a game setting and verisimilitude. Personally, I don't have a problem with that and have that built into my setting to account for it.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The coolest part of the Eidolon is that you actually customize it. I'd rather see the spell list gutted than customization killed.
Also the player having control over how his Eidolon manifests shouldn't be at odds with the game setting because it's the character whos CREATING a body for a disembodied outsider.
|
Jason and Stephen will be handling these.
Pathfinder Unchained must be the absolute coolest thing to walk into for a newly hired designer. I can't imagine how cool it must have been for Jason and Stephen to say, "Hey, welcome to the office! Have a seat, we're just tinkering with the ENTIRE WORLD'S PERCEPTION ON HOW TO PLAY PATHFINDER. No pressure."Yeah that meeting was...extremely exciting. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands dirty with Unchained--this kind of stuff is right up my alley and plays to my strengths in a way that my minor contributions to the end of the Monster Codex cycle did not!
I would guess that the goal for the summoner is to make something that Paizo can actually use in an AP - the Rivals Guide is the only thing I can think of that actually had statted up summoners. Otherwise, Paizo stays the hell away from the things as NPCs or opponents.
I would also welcome a GM-friendly version of the summoner that actually uses the eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The coolest part of the Eidolon is that you actually customize it. I'd rather see the spell list gutted than customization killed.
Also the player having control over how his Eidolon manifests shouldn't be at odds with the game setting because it's the character whos CREATING a body for a disembodied outsider.
EXACTLY! I love tinkering, both as a GM and as a player. The eidolon gives me the option to tinker and customize something as a player in a way you didn't see with other classes that have a pet (druid, ranger, cavalier). It would be disappointing to see that go. I'd rather have more, balanced options than removal of options.
How wide will the developer/designer net be cast? Is it entirely in-house or is it likely (possible?) that there'll be input from freelancers?
Speaking of Advanced Bestiary... You excited for the Pathfinder Advanced Bestiary?
Yeah, when's that supposed to come out, anyway?
Apparently the PDF will be released by the end of July. Dunno about the hardcopy.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
See when it comes to the Summoner I'd prefer more specific flavourful chassis with limited customization based on specific kinds of outsiders (Angel, Azata, Devil, Demon, Daemon, Elemental, Genie, Inevitable, Proteans, Psychopomps, Q'lippoth etc).
Right now the Summoner is both overpowered AND flavorless. The Eidolon just doesn't have any real meaningful character in and of itself and might as well just be an extension of the PC. An eidolon with agendas of its own, perhaps bound to a summoner who doesn't share its outlook is far more interesting than the boring class as it exists.
I prefer that. Magic is its own flavor and it allows more creative character concepts.
|
I would guess that the goal for the summoner is to make something that Paizo can actually use in an AP - the Rivals Guide is the only thing I can think of that actually had statted up summoners. Otherwise, Paizo stays the hell away from the things as NPCs or opponents.
There is one in a recent AP volume.
See when it comes to the Summoner I'd prefer more specific flavourful chassis with limited customization based on specific kinds of outsiders (Angel, Azata, Devil, Demon, Daemon, Elemental, Genie, Inevitable, Proteans, Psychopomps, Q'lippoth etc).
Right now the Summoner is both overpowered AND flavorless. The Eidolon just doesn't have any real meaningful character in and of itself and might as well just be an extension of the PC. An eidolon with agendas of its own, perhaps bound to a summoner who doesn't share its outlook is far more interesting than the boring class as it exists.
The Eidolon being based off specific kinds of outsiders sounds like a great archetype. Definitely not the base Summoner. The base summoner's current fluff is that they give a physical body to an already existent and disembodied mind from somewhere in the multiverse. I don't know about you, but that sounds flavorful enough for me. Reading the iconic summoner's backstory will really help you out. The class just requires more effort on the player's part to give it the writing it deserves, since the Summoner as a class is about as clean of a slate as a martial.
Also, each rank of angel, azata, devil, demon, daemon, inevitable, psychopmps, and qlippoth is so different from eachother that its impossible to have an eidolon be based off just the creature type.
Also, I want to put my vote in for a remade Fighter as well.
There is one in a recent AP volume.I would guess that the goal for the summoner is to make something that Paizo can actually use in an AP - the Rivals Guide is the only thing I can think of that actually had statted up summoners. Otherwise, Paizo stays the hell away from the things as NPCs or opponents.
There's a summoner statted up in The Harrowing module, as well.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
See when it comes to the Summoner I'd prefer more specific flavourful chassis with limited customization based on specific kinds of outsiders (Angel, Azata, Devil, Demon, Daemon, Elemental, Genie, Inevitable, Proteans, Psychopomps, Q'lippoth etc).
Right now the Summoner is both overpowered AND flavorless. The Eidolon just doesn't have any real meaningful character in and of itself and might as well just be an extension of the PC. An eidolon with agendas of its own, perhaps bound to a summoner who doesn't share its outlook is far more interesting than the boring class as it exists.
See I think of it as the opposite. The eidolon is a blank canvas that the PC and GM can apply their own flavor to. It could be the summoner's imaginary friend, or psychic essence, or an outsider called in with its own agendas, or a stand. I love that blank aspect on it because I can put whatever flavor I wish to it (with GM approval of course). That's the big draw for me. I prefer flavorless classes that I can mold into what I wish, rather than flavor-focused classes that are unbending and rigid.
I doubt they're looking for suggestions. BUT if they were.
I would love some touchups along these lines:
crafting maybe
Quick draw that allows splash weapons and alchemical items.
ways to boost alehcmial items (either paying more and able to increase the DC to add a d6. Easy enough and not unbalanced i think)
Maybe increasing poison ability so PC's could use it potentially.
Well the ability to increase the DC of alchemical items in general. Even if it's just like add 5-10 to the craft dc to add +1 to the Dc. and +5-10craft dc to add damage boosts or something.
Maybe add a weapons category for alchemical items and a weapons training like feat line.It's a really niche/small time thing, since there are very few other than myself who are stupid obsessed with alchemical items/splash weapons/poisons but they fall out of use so quickly. it's not likely to ever occur but I would utterly love to play a fighter or an alchemist who was all about alcheimcal weapons.
As for summoner, I think changing sythesist summoner so instead of utterly replacing stats it just added a ediolion bonus to the rolls. (i.e. the edoion stats were 18 str, 15dex 14 con. then it would add straight up to on the summoner's stats. (summoner str 13(+1) dex 18(+4) con 14 would get +4 their str totally a +5. Kinda like a power suitt instead of replacing it copmletely. That way they can't utter dump things as easily. Only way i could think of to play some weird natural attack ideas (poison tail <3)
could be along the lines of psionic's aegis I guess. That seems pretty popular and pretty similiar.
Yeah, if the summoner just gave a bonus to the physical stats like Wild Shape does, that would be better I feel.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
See I think of it as the opposite. The eidolon is a blank canvas that the PC and GM can apply their own flavor to. It could be the summoner's imaginary friend, or psychic essence, or an outsider called in with its own agendas, or a stand. I love that blank aspect on it because I can put whatever flavor I wish to it (with GM approval of course). That's the big draw for me. I prefer flavorless classes that I can mold into what I wish, rather than flavor-focused classes that are unbending and rigid.See when it comes to the Summoner I'd prefer more specific flavourful chassis with limited customization based on specific kinds of outsiders (Angel, Azata, Devil, Demon, Daemon, Elemental, Genie, Inevitable, Proteans, Psychopomps, Q'lippoth etc).
Right now the Summoner is both overpowered AND flavorless. The Eidolon just doesn't have any real meaningful character in and of itself and might as well just be an extension of the PC. An eidolon with agendas of its own, perhaps bound to a summoner who doesn't share its outlook is far more interesting than the boring class as it exists.
Oh, you've gone and done it now.
I now have an urge to make a summoner with an eidolon that looks like this :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would be great if the book has rules to make the characters less gear dependent. That and the problems of action economy can make that a really great book. The changes to monk and rogue will help, of course. A pair of questions;
- The changes of the classes will allow still the known archetypes?
- This is a spring or summer book? Contradictory information on this.
What I doubly like about this is I still have 9 months to save up for it :)
I prefer that. Magic is its own flavor and it allows more creative character concepts.
Just re-fluff whatever comes closest. You don't need mechanics for a character concept, just change the way it looks and feels and use the mechanics as-is. Because nothing is going to sit exactly with what you have in your head anyway, it's all a compromise.
But summoners are just stupid anyway, I hope they nerf them to heck and back. Combat round hoarders, improv Deus Ex Scenicus and general outside context problem specialists. They're as bad as wizards. Not to mention hard to build, hard to audit, and have a tendency towards silliness.
At least once they're built, they're done. Wizards can turn the world upside down every day.
All IMHO of course :-)
Fighters may benefit from some attention but overall the class progression is solid so it's understandable they aren't on the list for a reworking. The "new resource pool for martial characters, allowing for exciting new tactical options" sounds ideal.
Barbarians rage cycling isn't an issue in my opinion, but I'm sure there's other places they might need work, and the only place I can see where 'work'='complete redesign' would be changing how rage works (perhaps explicitly include rage cycling as a feature).
Rogues are soft, stealth is hard to adjudicate/explain/envisage and the class doesn't stand up to a 20 level progression so again happy this is getting a redesign.
Monks are a class I have never EVER played or GMed for. That says something right there, but not enough to make it an opinion of monks in general.
I've already covered Summoners :-) but I'm surprised Magic isn't getting a lot of attention to depower stuff: getting rid of terms like "immune to" and instead having "+20 to roll against DC" perhaps, or improved DR, or "1/2 of 1/2" damage or duration against effects. Immunity is a pretty final statement.
256 pages is a lot though - can't wait to see what else they've got in there.
|
I will say I'm with people who have mixed feelings about this since on the one hand I totally want some overhaul updates to certain stuff (cough rogue & monk cough) but at the same time I get the worries about completely changing something in a system that already has 5 years of content in print for it.
That being said I do like the idea of a "book of paizo houserules" coming out to give us a view at some of the more out there stuff they are working on and potentially test the waters for the next addition. If this is the best way they feel they can present that stuff but not up end all their previous work I'm willing to give it a try and check in on spoilers and an open beta.
See I think of it as the opposite. The eidolon is a blank canvas that the PC and GM can apply their own flavor to. It could be the summoner's imaginary friend, or psychic essence, or an outsider called in with its own agendas, or a stand. I love that blank aspect on it because I can put whatever flavor I wish to it (with GM approval of course). That's the big draw for me. I prefer flavorless classes that I can mold into what I wish, rather than flavor-focused classes that are unbending and rigid.See when it comes to the Summoner I'd prefer more specific flavourful chassis with limited customization based on specific kinds of outsiders (Angel, Azata, Devil, Demon, Daemon, Elemental, Genie, Inevitable, Proteans, Psychopomps, Q'lippoth etc).
Right now the Summoner is both overpowered AND flavorless. The Eidolon just doesn't have any real meaningful character in and of itself and might as well just be an extension of the PC. An eidolon with agendas of its own, perhaps bound to a summoner who doesn't share its outlook is far more interesting than the boring class as it exists.
+1. Love me the customization. Have to agree that "i have an angel/fiend/etc. buddy" would make a great secondary archetype, but the blank slate, anything-is-possible customization and flavoring of the core Summoner is what makes it so cool.
My first Summoner's Eidolon was based on a Lavos Spawn. Tell me where I can find an already-existing critter in the game that will let me replicate that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Add me to the list of people that don't think the fighter needs a full rework. It's a popular target on the boards, but in my eye it serves the need for a simple to build, simple to run class that anyone can play. It doesn't need to have as many toys as casters as that's not the point. The inevitably low will save on most fighters is a weakness but you need to have one, right?
I think the fighter just needs more options for stuff to do outside of combat. And perhaps a way to diversify its fighting modes without having to spread his overall fighting power between them. (fighters I see usually, always do the same thing every round because its the only thing they are good at, or they get feats for multiple things and arent really good at anything)
This book sounds pretty awesome. I can't wait to see what it has in store.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am wondering if we will get something halfway between the "design a eidolon" and "summon a outsider". Like kits directed towards building certain types of outsiders. So you pick Qlipppoth and you can build a eidolon from a set group of features for Qlippoths. Pick Protean and you can another, partial overlapping set of options to chose from. And so on.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some Rule Options I personally would like to see:
- Ability score bonuses to TWO or even THREE ability scores every four levels, to lessen the gap between MAD and SAD classes.
- Set aside the Big Six magic items and the Wealth By Level chart. Give inherent bonuses (or alternative 20-level progressions) for BAB, saves, and AC.
- Give martial characters a major bonus against fear effects. I've always found it weird that martial characters usually have low Will saves and are the most likely to run away from yeth hounds and the like.
- Give melee characters a way to stay equally effective while being mobile in combat. Right now, they're too dependent on standing still and doing Full Attacks, which can get boring. (I haven't seen the Book of Nine Swords, but popular options from there might be introduced as options.)
- Advice on how to simplify higher level play. This can include lessening the number of attacks characters can have. Maybe replace the +20/+15/+10/+5 progression with something akin to +18/+18. Limit each character to a set number of buff effects. (I don't like the potential for Scry and Fry.)
- Make multiclassing more viable by having a single BAB progression chart that goes up to 80: a level in a full BAB class gives you 4 "points," a level in a medium BAB class gives you 3 "points," a level in a low-BAB class gives you 2 "points."
- Make a lot more spells have 1-round or longer casting times or make them into rituals, especially for some higher-level spells. Personally, I like the idea from 1E that higher-level spells take longer to cast and require that the party protect the caster.
- Making two-weapon fighting and one-handed weapon fighting more viable. (Or maybe even give an initiative penalty to two-handed fighters.)
By the way, should we have a thread to talk about things we'd like to see in Pathfinder Unchained? I know the design team already has ideas of what to do, but I'd love to participate in and follow such a thread.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Add me to the list of people that don't think the fighter needs a full rework. It's a popular target on the boards, but in my eye it serves the need for a simple to build, simple to run class that anyone can play. It doesn't need to have as many toys as casters as that's not the point. The inevitably low will save on most fighters is a weakness but you need to have one, right?
Fighter is a class I'm feeling pretty confident we'll see in here. It's fairly flawed, between inexplicably poor skills, bad saves that impede its ability to do its job, and a fairly dichotomous relationship between ease of play and ease of creation. It's certainly got more complications, weaknesses, and issues than other classes that are getting an eyeball, like the Barbarian.
And I don't think making a Fighter better intrinsically entails that the Fighter become more complicated. I'm confident that there's a lot of design space available for a Fighter that's as easy to build as it is to play, and which is capable of competently and reliably doing the things it's expected to do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see the hysteria dying down yet.
As far as I can understand everything I have read form the developers:
These unchained classes will be new options. And thus optional. They will not supersede anything published before. They may not preserve backwards compatibility. Archetypes may not still apply. New ones may be created.
I could be reading things wrong.
Apart from that:
* Put me in the "i love the open-ness of Eidolons - their flavor is eternally mutable" camp. Having said that, the Deep Magic book showed what a determined flavor can do for the Summoner.
* I'd be happy to see a "simplified" Barbarian for beginners.
* I'm quite looking forward to Pathfinder Unchained. :)
|
|
As far as I can understand everything I have read form the developers:
These unchained classes will be new options. And thus optional. They will not supersede anything published before. They may not preserve backwards compatibility. Archetypes may not still apply. New ones may be created.
***
This is pretty much exactly how I understood it from listening to Jason talk about the book during the banquet. I'm pretty sure he even said "You can use some of it, all of it, whatever you want to mine from this thing for your table".
I'd imagine that a full BAB monk probably won't have all the same class features as a standard monk, so there probably won't be 100% compatibility with all archetypes, and I wouldn't expect there to be. Based on things that have been discussed in the past I'm pretty sure a re-balanced Summoner is going to look very different that a core Summoner currently looks. These aren't bad things. They're new options made to run in the system as the existing options, but with less legacy and more Paizo. That, to me, can really only be a good thing.
I would suspect that the class redesigns will be alternate classes, similar to the ninja's relationship to the rogue. So that way, they have more freedom to "remix" the whole class.
Lead Designer
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there folks,
While it is way too early for me to be giving out specifics, I will mention a few points here...
1. The classes mentioned fall into a special category in my mind. That being: Classes I would do differently today than the way they were done years ago during their initial design phase. Its not that we dislike them, it is just that they do not quite live up to our current design philosophies here in the office. This is a chance for us to revisit them in a safe environment, while allowing all of you to play with the results.
2. There will be things for everyone in this book. Although we only mentioned four classes, that list might grow. In addition, there are a number of other systems and rules bits that will apply to a wide variety of characters, giving them new ways to play the game. I think, as we get closer and are able to share some additional details, folks are going to be very excited about these options.
3. Careful with the wish-listing. I'd prefer folks not set up false expectations for this book. Its going to have a lot of things no one expects, and probably in the end, be missing some things that you might think are a no-brainer. Lets just be careful about wishing for the sky. In the end, the pieces of this book will still need to work with a lot of the game, so that does put some limits on what we can do, even if we are tinkering with other big systems.
At any rate.. glad to see a lot of enthusiasm here. We are excited to be working on this awesome book.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
+1. Love me the customization. Have to agree that "i have an angel/fiend/etc. buddy" would make a great secondary archetype, but the blank slate, anything-is-possible customization and flavoring of the core Summoner is what makes it so cool.
More classes should be open in this way.
The Fighter class should straight up be open and modular and able to model light-armored highly mobile desert warriors, and not have class abilities geared around being a heavily armored European style fighter, for instance.
Clerics of ethos should be possible. Using the Rogue chassis to make for other skill specialists, replacing advanced uses of Perception/Disable Device through Trapfinding with advanced uses of Heal through Chirurgy or whatever, could be kind of awesome.
If all those options aren't allowed in a specific setting, because Designer X was bitten by a non-LG Paladin as a child, then fine, that's Golarion setting-specific and explicitly has no business being reflected in the setting-neutral Pathfinder game mechanics anyway.
More options. Less 'hardcoded flavor' (like mechanically equivalent versions of hand axes from the far east being Exotic Weapons for no darn reason at all). The GM can decide which of them to add or remove, so that the stew is flavored to his preferences.