Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained (OGL)

For those who are interested, yes I am the one designing the summoner. As for the ideas of other folks around the office, I always showcase off my concepts and let others throw in their ideas, concerns, and criticisms. Its how the process works.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Well, at least we know who to blame for the changes made to one of our favorite hot-topic classes.

And you will be blamed, vehemently, regardless of the actual changes. You did too much, you did not do enough, you went the wrong direction, all of the above.

For those who are interested, yes I am the one designing the summoner. As for the ideas of other folks around the office, I always showcase off my concepts and let others throw in their ideas, concerns, and criticisms. Its how the process works.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Please fix the synthesist as well. Make it so the fused eidolon adds an increasing bonus to the summoner's physical scores and natural armor, and that the increases are enhancement bonuses. A synthesist would be unable to select the ability score increase evolution, because that would just be crazy!

Also, some way to blend master summoner and synthesist would be absolutely awesome. :D

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

For those who are interested, yes I am the one designing the summoner. As for the ideas of other folks around the office, I always showcase off my concepts and let others throw in their ideas, concerns, and criticisms. Its how the process works.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Well, at least we know who to blame for the changes made to one of our favorite hot-topic classes.

And you will be blamed, vehemently, regardless of the actual changes. You did too much, you did not do enough, you went the wrong direction, all of the above.

Par for the course...

There going to be any feat rewrites?

Artanthos wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

For those who are interested, yes I am the one designing the summoner. As for the ideas of other folks around the office, I always showcase off my concepts and let others throw in their ideas, concerns, and criticisms. Its how the process works.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Well, at least we know who to blame for the changes made to one of our favorite hot-topic classes.

And you will be blamed, vehemently, regardless of the actual changes. You did too much, you did not do enough, you went the wrong direction, all of the above.

Par for the course...

The great thing about a book of optional changes, is you don't have to use them if you like the original better. Or you can even house-rule the parts you like from each version if you really see fit.

I'm currently playing a summoner (A gnome named Bortie, riding a flying turtle named Jeeves), but I'll be curious to see how things change. Although our campaign will likely be over by the time this comes out.

Well of course. Doesn't mean it won't work.

I've seen plenty of great interpretations of this concept;

The Paladins of Freedom, Slaughter and Tyranny, from Unearthed Arcana.

The Holy Warrior and Unholy Warrior classes from Green Ronin's Book of the Righteous and Complete Unholy Warrior.

The 'Ghaffir' class from Green Ronin's Hamunaptra: Egyptian Adventures (LG, LN and LE Paladin-based holy warriors, substituting smite good for the LE ones and smite chaos for the LN ones).

Even Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evolved had a less alignment based holy warrior called the Champion which, much more logically for a D&D based set of deities, had 'Paladins' based around Domain-like concepts, rather than alignments. (So 'Paladins' of Light, Darkness, Justice, Life, Knowledge, Magic, Death, etc.) A variation on this, totally abandoning alignment, might have 'Paladins' of Iomedae with powers related to / based on Justice or Chivalry or Honor, instead of 'law' or 'good.' (Neither of which are concepts that Iomedae explicitly gives a rat's butt about, since she's neither the god of Law (that's Abadar) or Good.) The Holy Warrior did it better, IMO, but it's much better suited to a setting with many gods, with many Domains, for their holy champions to have powers related to stuff important to their specific gods like Fire or Community or Weather or Artifice, than squiffy concepts like 'law' or 'good' that apply to dozens (if not hundreds) of unrelated gods and are more mechanical meta-game concepts (to adjudicate various detect X, protection from X and smite X effects) like 'armor class' and 'hit points.'

It's just backwards compatibility that has left us with a divine class with powers based around moral good, in a setting that has no actual god *of* good (a bunch of gods happen to be good, but that doesn't make them gods *of* good, unlike Abadar, who is not only lawful, but is the actual god *of* law. Various gods are also outsiders, without being the gods of outsiders, and Erastil has an animal head, but that doesn't automagically make him the god of Rakshasa).

It's kind of funny that the nature of the Paladin as a LG-only class literally fails to fit the themes and tone of the Golarion setting. I imagine it's backwards compatibility, and not any sort of intentional mismatch between the tone of the setting (in which evil divine options have long outnumbered good ones, even in the cases of elemental lords and fey eldest, by design), and the mechanical options presented.

I disagree about Golarion gods.

Abadar is the God of Law, but that's law in the legal sense, not law in the alignment sense. He's no more the god of law (the alignment sense) than Irori is.

I'd also argue that Sarenrae could easily be the goddess of Good. And, of course, Iomedae is explicitly the Goddess of Paladins (even if not of Good and Law).

I think, though, an important thing to remember about making 'Paladins of other alignments' is that Paladins are defined by what they oppose as much as what they are. The default LG Paladin fights Evil. But an LG Paladin who fights Chaos would be different. On the other hand, making a CG paladin could be done without actually changing any class features, as long as they oppose Evil and not Law.

Should an LE (anti?)paladin fight Good or Chaos? Do we need a CE antipaladin who fights Law instead of Good?

I never really understood why if as you say the default LG paladin fights evil, he has to be lawful?

Mechanically the class heavily favors an anti-evil approach: He gets Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Aura of Justice (group-wide Smite evil), Aura of faith (weapon treated as Good-aligned), Aura of Righteousness (DR 5 v Evil), and finally Holy champion, which is utterly Good-themed.

In relation there is a distinct lack of class features that focus on the Lawful aspect of the class. There's the code of conduct (which is... Well, let's call it controversial) and they can use Divine Bond to make their weapon Axiomatic. Near as I can tell that's pretty much it.

There going to be any feat rewrites?

This is a biggie, I think. Some feats really shouldn't do what they do. Power Attack is a good example. It is statistically sound with respect to how much damage scaling happens - but it isn't balanced that well in practice. PCs are hitting for 1d8+42. "Tough" monsters evaporate in one round.

The thing is, although it should balance out: the party has too many ways to buff to-hit to the point where a miss (even with Power Attack penalty) is very unlikely - but the damage output is exceedingly high. Not to mention incidentally side-effects, such as significantly reducing the value of DR on many creatures that rely on it as their primary means for defense. CR 8 fighting-type monsters can have attacks that deal 1d6+3 damage; and the PCs that encounter them do 1d6+15.

Increase the penalty, reduce the damage, limit the scaling, add additional negative riders (AC penalty, limited use, limited per-round-use, Standard Action use, 1 round fatigue, not-multiplied-on-crits, etc).

The bottom-line is that the feat is too good; I'm willing to say "fun-diminishing", particularly for something that PCs pick up at level 1.

What I would suggest:

Power Attack
Benefit: You can choose to take a –2 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a bonus on all melee damage rolls equal to your Constitution modifier. This bonus damage is halved if the attack is made with a weapon wielded in one hand.

• benefits traditional martial "tough guys", especially barbarians(!)
  
• significant but not over-powering bonus
  
• scales benignly
  

Yes, nerfing martial characters, just what the game needs. [/sarc]

I never really understood why if as you say the default LG paladin fights evil, he has to be lawful?

Mechanically the class heavily favors an anti-evil approach: He gets Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Aura of Justice (group-wide Smite evil), Aura of faith (weapon treated as Good-aligned), Aura of Righteousness (DR 5 v Evil), and finally Holy champion, which is utterly Good-themed.

In relation there is a distinct lack of class features that focus on the Lawful aspect of the class. There's the code of conduct (which is... Well, let's call it controversial) and they can use Divine Bond to make their weapon Axiomatic. Near as I can tell that's pretty much it.

The way I interpret it is that a stock Paladin fights Evil, and takes an organized, knightly approach to doing so. They're Good first, Lawful second.

An NG or CG paladin would only require adjustments to the Code of Conduct (such as perhaps removing it, retaining only the 'evil act' language.)

Likewise, making an LE or NE antipaladin out of the antipaladin would not be difficult.

I see paladins as the emobidments of purity and justice, and that is only possible with a LG alignment. The moment you move from that axis you introduce pragmatism which to me is the anthisis of what being a Paladin means.

a paladin to me is as much a calling, a way of life as it is a class, and that neither can be seperated from the other.

I see paladins as the emobidments of purity and justice, and that is only possible with a LG alignment. The moment you move from that axis you introduce pragmatism which to me is the anthisis of what being a Paladin means.

a paladin to me is as much a calling, a way of life as it is a class, and that neither can be seperated from the other.

I don't see how it's only possible with LG to me a Paladin seems like they'd be NG concerning themselves with only what is good not caring for matters of Law and Chaos since they both can get in the way of what is good and right.

Yes, nerfing martial characters, just what the game needs. [/sarc]

I only play martial characters (and only melee ones at that, no sucky ranged ones). I just don't like Power Attack.

I'm all for buffing martials, but Power Attack is not what I want. It's boring, it's powerful in wrong ways, it makes encounters less interesting.

The way I interpret it is that a stock Paladin fights Evil, and takes an organized, knightly approach to doing so. They're Good first, Lawful second.

An NG or CG paladin would only require adjustments to the Code of Conduct (such as perhaps removing it, retaining only the 'evil act' language.)

Likewise, making an LE or NE antipaladin out of the antipaladin would not be difficult.

I really think that's what a lot of people are looking for when they request a paladin that's not LG - an alternate class that's more or less identical to the original paladin, but has either a revised code of conduct (possibly focusing on dogma rather than a secondary alignment aspect?) or no code at all.

For a NG or CG paladin that's basically just removing Axiomatic and adding Anarchic as weapon property options under Divine Bond.

I was a little puzzled at the implication from the Warpriest blog post that the WP is meant to be the "any alignment"-paladin. They occupy similar ground thematically, but mechanically they are very different. While I think the WP is a promising class, I'm not sure if it'll cover the "alignment-free paladin" people have been debating for a fairly long time now.

CR 8 fighting-type monsters can have attacks that deal 1d6+3 damage; and the PCs that encounter them do 1d6+15.

Most "fighting-type" monsters have Power Attack as well (I'd also go so far as to say that if it's damage is only 1d6+3 and it doesn't have like, 6 of those attacks, it's probably not actually a "fighting-type" monster).

Power Attack sits well within the total framework of the game; the fact that some combat classes can make those penalties relatively negligible is intended. I think the only real issue with Power Attack is how few other feats share its scaling design principle and consistent utility. Power Attack is just as good for a level 1 character as a level 20 character; few other feats can say the same.

If anything, I'd like to see rules for more feats to scale the way Power Attack does, like Vital Strike, Improved Bull Rush, Improved Disarm, Two Weapon Fighting, etc. 3 feat chains shouldn't be being spent just to stay competitive, they'd be better spent on allowing you to do cool new things that you couldn't do previously, like Thunder and Fang, Whirlwind Attack (although that could probably use a few less prereqs), or the Style chains.

christos gurd wrote:

There going to be any feat rewrites?

This is a biggie, I think. Some feats really shouldn't do what they do. Power Attack is a good example. It is statistically sound with respect to how much damage scaling happens - but it isn't balanced that well in practice. PCs are hitting for 1d8+42. "Tough" monsters evaporate in one round.

The thing is, although it should balance out: the party has too many ways to buff to-hit to the point where a miss (even with Power Attack penalty) is very unlikely - but the damage output is exceedingly high. Not to mention incidentally side-effects, such as significantly reducing the value of DR on many creatures that rely on it as their primary means for defense. CR 8 fighting-type monsters can have attacks that deal 1d6+3 damage; and the PCs that encounter them do 1d6+15.

Increase the penalty, reduce the damage, limit the scaling, add additional negative riders (AC penalty, limited use, limited per-round-use, Standard Action use, 1 round fatigue, not-multiplied-on-crits, etc).

The bottom-line is that the feat is too good; I'm willing to say "fun-diminishing", particularly for something that PCs pick up at level 1.

What I would suggest:

Power Attack
Benefit: You can choose to take a –2 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a bonus on all melee damage rolls equal to your Constitution modifier. This bonus damage is halved if the attack is made with a weapon wielded in one hand.

• benefits traditional martial "tough guys", especially barbarians(!)
  
• significant but not over-powering bonus
  
• scales benignly
  

If I was redesigning Power Attack, I'd make it a baseline action that anyone could do. I.E. anyone can take a penalty on melee attack rolls to gain a bonus on melee damage rolls. Sure, you'd have to redesign some prerequisites )Furious Focus and Mythic Power Attack and Improved Bull Rush) but overall I think that it would be a step towards giving martials something nice while also letting their feats define their fighting style more. As-is, Power Attack is basically mandatory in my groups by Level 7 or so.

* Can we leave the Paladins and their alignments thing to the bazillion other threads dedicated to it.

@ Alexander Augunas, it has been posited in the "feats that should not be feats" thread that PA should be available to anyone. I agree wholeheartedly.

Adam B. 135 wrote:

ikarinokami wrote:

the one thing I don't want to see, is paladins of different alignments

We will agree to disagree. I want to see faith-charged warriors of every alignment. Maybe not smiting, but they do need to be divinely charged.

I think the Warpriest was conceived with this very notion in mind.

Not gonna revive the debates on the Warpriest from the Warpriest blog, but I will say that the Warpriest is not what I wanted. It focuses too much on being a spellcasting/warrior hybrid instead of being a divine warrior.

Bulette
CR7 'Fighting type monster"
On turn one it's gonna leap charge and do 4 attacks at +14 2d6+6 (average 12 dmg per hit). +14 is pretty huge hit chance at that level and against my party all the attacks hit, so expect around 48 damage pounce!

With power attack this creature becomes +11 2d6+12. This will murder a player straight up.

A CR7-8 "fighting type monster" looks like this, not like "1d6+3."

You want a CR 8?

Three attacks for 2d4+8, 2d6+8 x2. Throw in some extra 2d4+8 if you're unlucky.

2d8+12 twice.

1d6+3 is laughable at that level.

Kudaku wrote:

I never really understood why if as you say the default LG paladin fights evil, he has to be lawful?

Mechanically the class heavily favors an anti-evil approach: He gets Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Aura of Justice (group-wide Smite evil), Aura of faith (weapon treated as Good-aligned), Aura of Righteousness (DR 5 v Evil), and finally Holy champion, which is utterly Good-themed.

In relation there is a distinct lack of class features that focus on the Lawful aspect of the class. There's the code of conduct (which is... Well, let's call it controversial) and they can use Divine Bond to make their weapon Axiomatic. Near as I can tell that's pretty much it.

The way I interpret it is that a stock Paladin fights Evil, and takes an organized, knightly approach to doing so. They're Good first, Lawful second.

An NG or CG paladin would only require adjustments to the Code of Conduct (such as perhaps removing it, retaining only the 'evil act' language.)

Likewise, making an LE or NE antipaladin out of the antipaladin would not be difficult.

I've always seen Paladins as Lawful first and Good second. If they stray from their path, even in the name of Good, they still have penalties to face. Again, this is just one interpretation.

As far as the opposites of a Paladin, I've always thought there were two.

The Marshall, LE, who takes a very similar code oriented approach to order through the use of evil. The Marshall mirrors the Paladin with a few changes. A Marshall and a Paladin might very well find themselves on the same side of a conflict at certain times, but that doesn't mean they'd like it.

The Death Knight, CE, who is the antithesis of the Paladin, is all about chaos, death, and suffering. These guys worship Rovagug above all else, and focus primarily on necromancy.

Let's keep this discussion thread about the product, thank you. Other topics of discussions should go to the appropriate forums.

Let's keep this discussion thread about the product, thank you. Other topics of discussions should go to the appropriate forums.

Perhaps I'm being more dense than normal, but is this directed at the debate on Paladins with different alignments?

I don't want to push the thread in an unwanted direction but I'd be very interested in seeing an "unchained" paladin, so to say.

I was a little puzzled at the implication from the Warpriest blog post that the WP is meant to be the "any alignment"-paladin. They occupy similar ground thematically, but mechanically they are very different.

If that argument had any weight, then the Warpriest would be forbidden to be LG, because 'a LG Warpriest is just a Paladin.'

Since that's not true, neither is the base premise.

And, as far as I can tell, that's exactly the sort of thing that Unchained should be representing. Class design 'unchained' from artifacts of 3.X design like the LG only Paladin. (Or the Lawful-only Monk or non-Lawful-only Bard and Barbarian, one of which has already been jettisoned, along with other old school relics like 'dwarves can't be wizards' and 'humans can't multiclass' and 'Rangers must be good aligned.')

Liz Courts wrote:

Let's keep this discussion thread about the product, thank you. Other topics of discussions should go to the appropriate forums.

Perhaps I'm being more dense than normal, but is this directed at the debate on Paladins with different alignments?

I don't want to push the thread in an unwanted direction but I'd be very interested in seeing an "unchained" paladin, so to say.

I too would love to see an "Unchained Paladin"

I agree with the idea of a Chaotic Good and Lawful Evil variant in the vein of anti paladin.

Until such a time where it might be announced that an Unchained paladin, fighter or any other class not mentioned in the product description is being included in the book, could all discussion of such please be relegated to its own thread (as per Liz's post above)?
It serves no good purpose to have this thread coalesce into a thread of all the grievances people might have with the rules. There are already plenty of such threads in the other areas of the messageboards.
Wish list posts only clog up the discussion of the *actual* product.

I suppose if all we're allowed to talk about are barbarians, monks, rogues and summoners, I'm interested in what sort of changes the barbarian might see.

I've always thought that the class was pretty solid (and a decent step up from 3.X, with the /round rage mechanic and rage powers to flavor it up and fill up the 'dead levels'), and, other than the 'can't be lawful' thing, didn't really see much backwards-compatible fluff needing to be trimmed away.

Obviously nothing has been announced about what would change for the barbarian, so it would be speculative at best, which, I'm not terribly clear, might be off-limits for discussion, but that seems unlikely since we'd have to close the thread entirely until the book was released, since *everything* is going to be kind of speculative to those of us who don't work at Paizo (and whose time machines are on the fritz). :)

i don't think an unchained paladin would be a paladin, it would be like a wizard who doesn't cast spells.

i think unchained should be things like the full bab monk or a full bab rogue.

or a sorcerer who isn't penalized with slowed spell progression, overhauled stealth rules.

more skill points for all classes.

and ways to make epic work, since most of the complaints seems to that epic is inherently difficult because of the base 3.0 rules pathfinder is built on, well this seems like a perfect opportunity to rectify that.

I suppose if all we're allowed to talk about are barbarians, monks, rogues and summoners, I'm interested in what sort of changes the barbarian might see.

I've always thought that the class was pretty solid (and a decent step up from 3.X, with the /round rage mechanic and rage powers to flavor it up and fill up the 'dead levels'), and, other than the 'can't be lawful' thing, didn't really see much backwards-compatible fluff needing to be trimmed away.

Obviously nothing has been announced about what would change for the barbarian, so it would be speculative at best, which, I'm not terribly clear, might be off-limits for discussion, but that seems unlikely since we'd have to close the thread entirely until the book was released, since *everything* is going to be kind of speculative to those of us who don't work at Paizo (and whose time machines are on the fritz). :)

Jason specifically said that it was going to introduce "Barbarians that are easier to run at the table". My guess would be that he's talking about a barbarian that your little brother could easily play without getting caught in one of the many little "traps" the class is riddled with, or needing to rely on some kind of complex series of items and class features to use his cool rage toys consistently and reliably.

For a class that embodies the sublimely simple idea of "Hulk smash!!", it's actually got a lot of moving pieces to deal with.

i don't think an unchained paladin would be a paladin, it would be like a wizard who doesn't cast spells.

i think unchained should be things like the full bab monk or a full bab rogue.

or a sorcerer who isn't penalized with slowed spell progression, overhauled stealth rules.

more skill points for all classes.

and ways to make epic work, since most of the complaints seems to that epic is inherently difficult because of the base 3.0 rules pathfinder is built on, well this seems like a perfect opportunity to rectify that.

Given that there is no Pathfinder support for epic play beyond a blurb that says "here's an idea if you really need like 2 or three more levels of play" and they just released Mythic as their "back door" into epic level adventures, I would be really surprised to see anything like that in Unchained. From a business perspective it would be weird to release a product that has so much overlap and potential conflict with another recently released product, and from a design perspective they already Unchained themselves when they said "Epic play via level progression is crappy hard to support and difficult to balance, so here's a paragraph of guidelines and maybe go see what's up in the 3pp world".

Personally, epic rules are pretty close to the last thing I'd want to see them spending precious page count on when we don't even know if they're going to take a look at other legacy classes that could use some Unchaining (Fighter), or how much of the book can address legacy issues with feats that are just obnoxious taxes that don't even make sense for many builds (Combat Expertise).

i don't think an unchained paladin would be a paladin, it would be like a wizard who doesn't cast spells.

I don't get why this argument keeps popping up it doesn't make any sense they are two drastically different things, an 'Any Good' alignment Paladin and a Wizard who can't cast spells are nowhere near each other; a better comparison would be a Wizard's casting stat was changed from Intelligence to Wisdom.

Tentatively excited. Paizo swung and missed with the original Monk, and based on the 2nd playtest, with the Brawler as well...I REALLY hope third time's the charm for us getting an awesome kung fu master class.

I think this is a great move and a fantastic way to transition to "Pathfinder 1.5" as I imagine it (without forcing people to buy new books if they don't want to upgrade).

The one thing I didn't see listed that I was really hoping for though was an alternate magic system (i.e. NON-Vancian casting). Without that I think the book will be fairly incomplete.

I think this is a great move and a fantastic way to transition to "Pathfinder 1.5" as I imagine it (without forcing people to buy new books if they don't want to upgrade).

I am curious if Paizo could support more than one system. I recall people clamoring for a "modern" system long ago. Either that, or supplements for non-Paizo systems. Could either of these be done?

The one thing I didn't see listed that I was really hoping for though was an alternate magic system (i.e. NON-Vancian casting). Without that I think the book will be fairly incomplete.

I very much liked Words of Power. I'm also a fan of 3.5 Psionics. If it's possible to have a blend, I'd love to give that a shot.

Cautiously optimistic, and by that I mean, ready to be disappointed yet again, and go back to playing my fantasy RPGs using Mutants & Masterminds.

Though on the less pessimistic side, I do hope, even more than just their fixing of the classes, that they find a way to fix the full-action attack issue, and similar things like that. Also, a thing that would be really interesting for me, would be a revision of the way Healing works. I'm tired of the Wands of CLW, and would prefer a better way, that not only is more fun, from a gameplay perspective, but fits in better with what you'd expect to see from high fantasy stories. There are a couple ways I could see going with this, either with some sort of vitality stockpile, which goes beyond your Max HP, or else a quicker Natural healing of HP, where injuries sustained in combat are represented, not as having lower HP going into the next encounter, but by tracking lasting injuries, which apply penalties as they stack up, and can be healed only by magic (though somehow exempting wands of CLW) or with slower natural healing. Or some other way that they feel works.

But yeah, my two main hopes (beyond just fixing up classes, and adding options to make certain other classes more interesting) are a fix to the martial full-attack paradigm, and a more interesting, and more flavorful way of doing Healing.

So any thoughts on how they'll go about giving us a new rogue? Do you think it will be a massive overhaul? Will they keep abilities like sneak attack? Would you like to see the rogue gain an ability to increase its attack bonus?

Personally I hope they add a varied debilitating ability or give the rogues an easier time of utilizing dirty trick? Give them improved dirty trick through rogue talents? Maybe replace BAB in CMB for rogue level when using Dirty Trick? Let them get Greater Dirty Trick through advanced rogue talents.

I'm thinking they'll probably change Sneak Attack into something very different. But who knows? I'm excited to see, either way!

Jason, if you fix other rules in unchained please fix the WBL table it does not mesh with the cost of magic items. Pazio designs many great magic items that players will never see as they are too expensive for any pazio produced products. Examples Shadow Lords Armor 117,500gp Field Medics Breast Plate 53,500 gp, Most staffs. It is now nice to tease the people who buy your products with Items there characters will never be able to buy because of faulty WBL designed by WOTC [note this not Pazio's fault except you did not fix it.]

Since you are doing the Summoner could you talk to SKR and slip in his Robomancer arch-type it is really cool.

On the Rogue could you add the Skrimisher and Scouts Charge to the Rogues talent list this would greatly add to fixing the Rogue IMO.

It looks like Pazo did a great job with the Advanced Class Guide, keep up the good work.

If I could request anything for this book, it would be official rules to kill the big six magical items. If I could play a game without ever seeing a cloak of resistance....

Jason, if you fix other rules in unchained please fix the WBL table it does not mesh with the cost of magic items. Pazio designs many great magic items that players will never see as they are too expensive for any pazio produced products. Examples Shadow Lords Armor 117,500gp Field Medics Breast Plate 53,500 gp, Most staffs. It is now nice to tease the people who buy your products with Items there characters will never be able to buy because of faulty WBL designed by WOTC [note this not Pazio's fault except you did not fix it.]

Errr ... a level 16 (top of the line for most Paizo APs) char can afford either of these, doubly so if crafting.

Also, the rules need to support 17+ levels, too.

If I could request anything for this book, it would be official rules to kill the big six magical items. If I could play a game without ever seeing a cloak of resistance....

Yeah, I kinda agree with this... AC, and Saving Throws are boring bonuses...

Just read the description again... I'm very interested in finding out more about this resource pool for martial characters. In my opinion, some sort of option that gives martials some versitility would go a long way towards making things more interesting for non-casters.

I would also like rules to get rid of the need for the big six as well, though I do like magic weapons and armor but I am tired of cloaks of resistance, rigs of protection, and stat boosting items. I would love to get more stat points then just 1 every 4 levels. Also getting a deflection bonus to ac and resistance bonus to saves based on there level.

I'm thinking they'll probably change Sneak Attack into something very different. But who knows? I'm excited to see, either way!

I am personally hoping that the word "sneak attack dice" does not show up. I don't think having Sneak Attack just be additional dice is the right choice. If there is any "sneak attack" it should be something that actually lets a Rogue take out a patrol before they can sound an alarm.

I can see a few things I would want from this but super-powered classes or nerfed classes? No thanks.

I'm still waiting on Bestiary 5 announcement. Cannot ever have too many of those.

When it comes to the rogue I honestly hope they steer away from the X amount of times per day limitations. There are too many of those in rogue talents already. Wouldn't hurt to make ranged options viable for rogues either.

The thing that I want to know the most though is whether the current archetypes will be compatible with these new versions of the rogue, monk, barbarian and summoner.

To be honest i could care less about class fixes. Or what feat and or spell needs to be readjusted.I only care about one thing.And
I know this might be reaching but. How About some in depth role playing mechanics.Something to which there seems to be a lack of. It might actually give The Coast a run for there money. Considering it is there only selling point.I for one would love Something that breaks my Min maxer's away from the constant number crunching and daydreaming about what they will choose a level so and so.

Wow.
You're the one guy that wants to codify RP. Most people look at the LG requirement for Paladin, and think that's too much.

You encounter a merchant on the road! Roll a d4. You...

1. Are pleased to meet him, and make a purchase. (roll on Table 71-3-B to see what you bought)
2. Can't afford anything he sells. (if your character is rich, reduce treasure total as necessary)
3. Don't buy anything, as you find his hat annoying.
4. Realize you've been wrong all these years - you decide to follow your true calling as a merchant. Make a new character. (roll on table 182-3-R to see what class, race and alignment you will play)