Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained (OGL)

4.60/5 (based on 15 ratings)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained (OGL)
Show Description For:
Non-Mint

Add Hardcover $39.99 $19.99

Add PDF $19.99

Add Non-Mint $39.99 $29.99

Facebook Twitter Email

Get ready to shake up your game! Within these pages, the designers of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game unleash their wildest ideas, and nothing is safe. From totally revised fundamentals like core classes and monster design to brand-new systems for expanding the way you play, this book offers fresh ideas while still blending with the existing system. With Pathfinder Unchained, you become the game designer!

Pathfinder Unchained is an indispensable companion to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Core Rulebook. This imaginative tabletop game builds upon more than 15 years of system development and an Open Playtest featuring more than 50,000 gamers to create a cutting-edge RPG experience that brings the all-time best-selling set of fantasy rules into a new era.

Pathfinder Unchained includes:

  • New versions of the barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner classes, all revised to make them more balanced and easier to play.
  • New skill options for both those who want more skills to fill out their characters' backgrounds and those seeking streamlined systems for speed and simplicity.
  • Changes to how combat works, from a revised action system to an exhaustive list of combat tricks that draw upon your character's stamina.
  • Magic items that power up with you throughout your career—and ways to maintain variety while still letting players choose the "best" magic items.
  • Simplified monster creation rules for making new creatures on the fly.
  • Exotic material components ready to supercharge your spellcasting.
  • New takes on alignment, multiclassing, iterative attacks, wounds, diseases and poisons, and item creation.
  • ... and much, much more!

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-715-4

Other Resources: This product is also available on the following platforms:

Hero Lab Online
Fantasy Grounds Virtual Tabletop
Archives of Nethys

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Rulebook Subscription.

Product Availability

Hardcover:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 11 to 20 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Non-Mint:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 11 to 20 business days.

This product is non-mint. Refunds are not available for non-mint products. The standard version of this product can be found here.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO1131


See Also:

1 to 5 of 15 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

4.60/5 (based on 15 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Some of the suggested mechanics are worth the entire price

5/5

Automatic Bonus Progression is enough to justify the entire price of the book. Better versions of the Rogue and Monk, as well as fixes to the summoner and streamlining the barabarian seal the deal. There is a lot of other good stuff in here as well. Well worth it!


Upgraded Mechanics!

5/5

I love the idea of this book, I wish this happened more often. They took what they saw wrong with their game and spent proper time and effort to come up with proper solutions. It's pretty rare for a company to spend this much effort on tweaking things. The new proposed mechanics for combat and skills are unique and great ideas to help customize your groups' gaming experience.
I hope they release more books like this in the future. I've love for more variations for multiclassing, and I'm still waiting for a summoner archetype that removes the class summon monster ability and focuses more on the eidolon.
Highly recommend it, especially for anyone interested in how someone goes about making a gaming system. It provides awesome insights.


Fantastic product

5/5

It's been a while since it took me so long to digest a Pathfinder book, and boy, did Unchained ever keep me digesting. More optional rules than you can shake a stick at, to be implemented in modular or wholesale fashion, to tweak your game to your heart's content, and with top-notch art throughout, to boot. Excellent work by Paizo and one of their finest offerings in a while.

As for the negatives, the only thing I can really point out is that the writing can be somewhat scattershot and unfocused in a couple of reasonably complex sections, which would have benefited greatly from examples or bolded formulae.


Love The Options

5/5

This book is a great addition. Options are optional, and it's great that this book has so many. It really makes customizing a campaign easy. Of you'll like you never use every option, or likely even half of them in a single you play or run, but having them really gives you a great toolbox to use. Some people are finicky about house rules, so having an official batch of "house rules" to choose from is nice for people who prefer to stick to official products. No book is perfect, but being this book isn't really being forced on anyone (of course I suppose none of the supplements are), and that is a giant bag of options that you can pick and choose from to enhance the game, for those who'd like it enhanced, I give this product 5 stars, especially if I am comparing it to the usefulness of the average Pathfinder product.


Great Options for Pathfinder

5/5

I'm a huge fan of the rules options in Pathfinder Unchained. They do a great job of creating fixes to some of the potential issues with the Pathfinder system without upsetting the entire rule system.

I'm one of those weird people who loved playing my TWF core rogue through all 11 levels of PFS, but I have to admit that the unchained rogue is an improvement. I also actually prefer the unchained summoner to the base summoner; even though the new one may seem less powerful, it's more thematically appropriate. I'm considering playing a summoner for the first time.

I've been using some of the alternate rules systems in my Hell's Rebels campaign, and I like how they are working out. I'm using automatic bonus progression at least in part because I know some of my players like to ignore the Big 6, or spend all their gold on +6 stat items as soon as possible to the exclusion of other items. This way I know their AC is still going up, and they'll end up more balanced. I can now also let them craft---using the much more engaging dynamic item creation rules---without worrying too much about wealth by level.

Some of the rules I wouldn't personally implement. I feel like alignment affirmations will just lead to alignment arguments at the table, and in my experience, multiclassers don't need the boost from partial base attack bonus increases. But I am glad that these options exist for tables that want them.


1 to 5 of 15 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
301 to 350 of 2,417 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Go to page 14...

Oh drat! It was an imp! He stings you with his tail and leaves you to die, on the road. Return to page 1.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
Return to page 1.

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I hate this book...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*waves sign* "I like this book."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mike Tuholski wrote:

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.

This.

I don't really view character classes as part of the system core - more of a layer on top of the underlying d20 system (attributes, skills, and how to perform skill checks). Changing them doesn't change the underlying combat rules, monster stat blocks, and doesn't really break compatibility of adventures (except in the case of the occasional NPC belonging to one of those classes, in which case you've still got the option of using the original class or re-statting that NPC yourself.)

There's nothing intrinsically broken with that underlying system that can't be fixed by detaching and replacing parts of it in a far more modular way like this. Take some classes and replace them, rework how magic works, even rewrite the combat rules, and you still retain stat-level compatibility for adventure modules. New modules would still work with the "old" system and old with new, without any worries about forcing anyone to run a particular system with it.

And you know, if these versions of the classes end up being more popular than the originals, there's no reason why there can't be a new edition of the Core Rulebook somewhere down the road that uses these (and any other new rules introduced in a modular manner) instead of the old ones. That's how "editions" should be done (and are done in the majority of RPGs) - not by writing a brand new game.


This book kinda makes me go meh. Most of the things this book is 'fixing' I really don't see as problems....more of issues of perceptions. Or are better actually fixed with in the system. It really just smacks too much of how WotC fixes things.

I still will probably get it with as RPG design is of interest me...but actually using anything from this book I doubt it. Though I would have liked to see something a lot more interesting and useful has a hardcover release.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:

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.

I'd like to see Sneak Attack with a table of associated effects, like a targeted silence to represent you stabbing a guard in such a way that even if he survives he can't raise his voice to sound the alarm.

Something like the 3.5 psionic rogue class, the Lurk, that had a pretty modular table of "sneak attack dice" that could be spent either on actual extra damage dice or a variety of special effects.


Ssalarn wrote:
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:

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.

I'd like to see Sneak Attack with a table of associated effects, like a targeted silence to represent you stabbing a guard in such a way that even if he survives he can't raise his voice to sound the alarm.

Something like the 3.5 psionic rogue class, the Lurk, that had a pretty modular table of "sneak attack dice" that could be spent either on actual extra damage dice or a variety of special effects.

Oh that would be awesome. Could be done through the rogue attempting to strangle his foe with a wire or some such. Abilities like that should really define the rogue, its part of the core idea of the class, this is someone who doesn't play fair, no, this is someone who turned fighting dirty into an art form. The rogue should get abilities that focus on debilitating their foe and to slam them with annoying conditions.

The rogue also needs an ability to reliably increase his attack bonus. Every class in the game can increase their attack bonus one way or another except for the rogue. Getting new abilities and inflicting foes with conditions is great, but lets be sure we actually have as good a chance of landing them, and I know I am running the risk of sounding like a broken record but please give the rogue an ability that lets him use his rogue level instead of his BAB when using Dirty Trick, the most rogue-ish maneuver in the game and they get no bonuses what so ever when using it.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Ultimate Combat had an attempt to tie Sneak Attack to the various Critical Mastery feats, but suffered from the problem that the pre-reqs to have Critical Mastery were already so high it couldn't be used until very late in the game.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
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.

In some cases (such as the summoner), the archetypes have even more problems than the base class. For those, I hope they would provide revisions to the archetypes that are compatible with the new base classes.


David knott 242 wrote:
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
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.

In some cases (such as the summoner), the archetypes have even more problems than the base class. For those, I hope they would provide revisions to the archetypes that are compatible with the new base classes.

That would be ideal in my opinion.


So let me get this straight. Everyone here is wanting fixes to classes from a book dated to be released a year from now. But everyone is perfectly ok with no fixes to classes being released in a Advanced Class Guide a month from now. i would like to think those fixes should have been in this upcoming release. but meh. And really has anyone learned from history of gaming ? Let a company swing a bat for you and it will be far more broken than before. woops now that this is to nerfed. we have to nerf the rest! Unchained should should be totally new concepts and gaming elements not more classes and junk that i have in 15 other books.


You know I was wondering about something; the barbarian is a strange choice for new mechanics, maybe they'll change the rage cycling thing?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Question:
Do you intend to put in e.g. sidebars explaining the reasons behind the changes/new rules/new ways of doing things? I.e. giving us a behind the scenes look at the process behind the book?
Or is that maybe something better left for blog posts?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think a "Behind the Curtain" type of sidebar would be really cool. I always liked those.


Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
You know I was wondering about something; the barbarian is a strange choice for new mechanics, maybe they'll change the rage cycling thing?

Apparently what they want to address is how "complicated" the barbarian is. Yet the significantly more complicated fighter is not mentioned.

Silver Crusade

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
You know I was wondering about something; the barbarian is a strange choice for new mechanics, maybe they'll change the rage cycling thing?
Apparently what they want to address is how "complicated" the barbarian is. Yet the significantly more complicated fighter is not mentioned.

Are you talking complication when building/planning, or complication running? (I assume the former.)


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Wolfgang Rolf wrote:
You know I was wondering about something; the barbarian is a strange choice for new mechanics, maybe they'll change the rage cycling thing?
Apparently what they want to address is how "complicated" the barbarian is. Yet the significantly more complicated fighter is not mentioned.

The barbarian is complicated? It always struck as one of the more simple classes in the game.


I think to new players it may seem complicated, at least in the eyes of the devs. Remember that how the devs see and play the game is not the same as how players see and play the game.


I think I see your point, can't see how they could make it easier though. Maybe a new rage and rage power system?


My bet is the removal of Rage powers and not having rage effect CON.

The hardest part about a Barb from the perspective of a new player is probably
-Rage Power selection (Maybe replaced with a regular and scaling feature)
-How temporary Con reacts with HP (maybe replaced with boosts to Dex?)
-Feat selection

I honestly can't think of anything else. The first problem is something that Rogues, Magus, Alchemists, and Witches all have to deal with. Some classes, such as Druids, have immensely more difficulty due to actual complicated class features.

Number 2 is somewhat complicated, until you read the rulebook, but I guess they want this class to be easy for someone with a loose understanding of the rules.

Is their anything else about Barb that is even remotely complicated?

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I think to new players it may seem complicated, at least in the eyes of the devs. Remember that how the devs see and play the game is not the same as how players see and play the game.

There's also the horrifying option of that the way you see the game is not the way devs and majority of players see the game.


Gorbacz wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I think to new players it may seem complicated, at least in the eyes of the devs. Remember that how the devs see and play the game is not the same as how players see and play the game.

There's also the horrifying option of that the way you see the game is not the way devs and majority of players see the game.

I see the game first as RAW and second as what is and isn't feng shui in my play group.

For example we know that Planar binding is a broken mess and it's generally frowned upon for someone to make a build involving its use. Considering this spell has no errata we can assume that for whatever reason Paizo does not agree that Planar Binding is broken.

Planar Binding is broken Rules As Written, so if the devs don't find it broken in their play that means they don't play the game RAW and thus do not see eye to eye with those who know Planar Binding is broken.

Edit: Their are a lot of other incredibly broken options in the core game (CRB, UC, UC, APG), but I decided to use Planar Binding. Alternatively we could use Dazing Metamagic, Spell Perfection, Courageous weapons, Fighters, elemental damage enchants, Wildshape on Druids, ect.

Outside core we have fun options like Blood Money+ an eventual limited wish to heal stat damage. Emergency Force Sphere because we needed to cover the one weakness that Diviner Wizards had. Their are more also, but I can't list them off the top of my head.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
I think to new players it may seem complicated, at least in the eyes of the devs. Remember that how the devs see and play the game is not the same as how players see and play the game.

There's also the horrifying option of that the way you see the game is not the way devs and majority of players see the game.

I see the game first as RAW and second as what is and isn't feng shui in my play group.

For example we know that Planar binding is a broken mess and it's generally frowned upon for someone to make a build involving its use. Considering this spell has no errata we can assume that for whatever reason Paizo does not agree that Planar Binding is broken.

Planar Binding is broken Rules As Written, so if the devs don't find it broken in their play that means they don't play the game RAW and thus do not see eye to eye with those who know Planar Binding is broken.

I disagree, I think that Paizo sees Planar Binding as falling under the category of 'Subject to GM Discretion' along with many other such spells, like Gate, Planar Ally, Simulacrum Limited/Wish etc.

These spells have a broad selection of abilities and should not be used without GM Oversight. That's what the GM is there for after all. If Paizo were writing Pathfinder to be part of a computer game, I'm sure such spells would be vastly different in nature and effect.


I edited in some other similarly broken abilities.

I half way disagree with your opinion on Planar Binding, Gate, Simulacrum, ect because while that MAYBE was their intent, it's not stated or implied anywhere in those spells. If they had some text in the book warning DMs then I would agree with that statement. I don't believe that "house ruling it" makes the RAW for those abilities any less broken.

Also Planar Ally isn't really in the same category because it's a very large expenditure of gold. Comparatively planar binding is very cheap and can be used to get you a small adventuring party of outsiders very quickly.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

I edited in some other similarly broken abilities.

I half way disagree with your opinion on Planar Binding, Gate, Simulacrum, ect because while that MAYBE was their intent, it's not stated or implied anywhere in those spells. If they had some text in the book warning DMs then I would agree with that statement. I don't believe that "house ruling it" makes the RAW for those abilities any less broken.

Also Planar Ally isn't really in the same category because it's a very large expenditure of gold. Comparatively planar binding is very cheap and can be used to get you a small adventuring party of outsiders very quickly.

The issue with Planar Binding is that something that is bound can, under certain circumstances, refuse to listen to you outright. And sure, you can always have a dominate monster up your sleeve, but now you have to be careful, in case that creature comes back for vengeance against you.

With Planar Ally, it costs money but at least there aren't repercussions for it. Though Planar Binding could probably have some cost to it. I've run it before as a GM plenty of times and have had great experiences with it.


That's why you don't planar bind things that can come back to bite you. If someone planar bound an Ice Devil or a Genie then that'd be like kidnapping a noble and would call for serious repercussions.

Bargests, Chaos Beasts, Soul Eaters, Several Demons, several elementals, Qlipphophs, and some more are good examples of servants for Binding or fire and forget weapons as with Gate.


I feel like a lot of those would be smart enough and spiteful enough to come back and get vengeance against. Especially a soul eater if the target was wily enough. Funnily enough, I've always played it to where devils were (usually) least likely to get payback if they though they could get your soul out of it, while demons would probably try and get their buddies to come back and ambush you. But that's different strokes for ya :)

Though probably the chaos beast and elementals wouldn't really come back for revenge out of being minions or too dumb. But either way, I don't really mind players calling in allies of any type, NPCs or outsiders.

Contributor

For the Barbarian, I doubt they're going to remove the rage power mechanic. If my memory serves correctly, the barbarian was considered a bland, weak, and uninteresting class until the Advanced Class Guide introduced a more varied assortment of rage powers. Plus removing rage powers would absolutely destroy the Unchained Barbarian's backwards compatibility with other Pathfinder products.

I think we're looking at a reworking for the rage mechanic, personally. One of the more confusing aspects of Rage is gaming REAL hit points from a Constitution increase that are "lost first" when you stop raging. If I was going to predict what the Unchained Barbarian would look like, I'd say that it is going to end up being a class that grants you a number of temporary hit points per barbarian level while raging. Not only is that a little bit easier to understand, but there is also a mechanic in place already to handle that. The only thing that would really be lost is the Fortitude save bonus, which could also be manually added back in to the rage mechanic.

In short, I don't think we're going to see massive scrap-and-totally-redesign mechanics for these classes. The point of the product is "What if we could make changes without needing to preserve backwards compatibility?" not, "Okay Lisa, let's blow the whole damn thing sky-high!"


Alexander Augunas wrote:

For the Barbarian, I doubt they're going to remove the rage power mechanic. If my memory serves correctly, the barbarian was considered a bland, weak, and uninteresting class until the Advanced Class Guide introduced a more varied assortment of rage powers. Plus removing rage powers would absolutely destroy the Unchained Barbarian's backwards compatibility with other Pathfinder products.

I think we're looking at a reworking for the rage mechanic, personally. One of the more confusing aspects of Rage is gaming REAL hit points from a Constitution increase that are "lost first" when you stop raging. If I was going to predict what the Unchained Barbarian would look like, I'd say that it is going to end up being a class that grants you a number of temporary hit points per barbarian level while raging. Not only is that a little bit easier to understand, but there is also a mechanic in place already to handle that. The only thing that would really be lost is the Fortitude save bonus, which could also be manually added back in to the rage mechanic.

In short, I don't think we're going to see massive scrap-and-totally-redesign mechanics for these classes. The point of the product is "What if we could make changes without needing to preserve backwards compatibility?" not, "Okay Lisa, let's blow the whole damn thing sky-high!"

In my opinion in the case of the rogue, monk, summoner and fighter(Should he ever get a turn) they might as well blow the whole thing sky-high and start over. The fighter could use some out of battle utility, and a resource he can contribute with to the rest of the party. The rogue is sorta the opposite it needs to be of more use during battle, but still needs a resource and a way to buff his skills in a way that is similar to bards, inquisitors and rangers. The summoner well...I'd recommend hitting it with the nerf stick till it stopped moving and then start over. Finally the monk, the 20 BAB we heard about is a good start, now if only we get him more use of ki, possibly make him less MAD and a way for him to buff his attack bonus...which is also something the rogue desperately needs.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

That's why you don't planar bind things that can come back to bite you. If someone planar bound an Ice Devil or a Genie then that'd be like kidnapping a noble and would call for serious repercussions.

Bargests, Chaos Beasts, Soul Eaters, Several Demons, several elementals, Qlipphophs, and some more are good examples of servants for Binding or fire and forget weapons as with Gate.

Planar Binding OT:
If one of my player's characters was dumb enough to summon Barghests, Demons or Qlippoth, there would be repercussions.

Using Soul Eaters already is a gamble, at best, because if they fail to kill a target, they return and attack their summoner. And elementals have superiors.


Alexander Augunas wrote:

For the Barbarian, I doubt they're going to remove the rage power mechanic. If my memory serves correctly, the barbarian was considered a bland, weak, and uninteresting class until the Advanced Class Guide introduced a more varied assortment of rage powers. Plus removing rage powers would absolutely destroy the Unchained Barbarian's backwards compatibility with other Pathfinder products.

I think we're looking at a reworking for the rage mechanic, personally. One of the more confusing aspects of Rage is gaming REAL hit points from a Constitution increase that are "lost first" when you stop raging. If I was going to predict what the Unchained Barbarian would look like, I'd say that it is going to end up being a class that grants you a number of temporary hit points per barbarian level while raging. Not only is that a little bit easier to understand, but there is also a mechanic in place already to handle that. The only thing that would really be lost is the Fortitude save bonus, which could also be manually added back in to the rage mechanic.

If they're going to so that, they really have to kill rage-cycling. A new batch of temporary hit points every round? Yes please.

Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Since so much of "out of combat utility" for most characters revolves around skill points, another thing that I wouldn't mind seeing is the increase of skill points per level to match Hit Dice. Something like this:

6 + Int (Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard)
8 + Int (Barbarian, Druid, Monk
10 + Int (Bard, Ranger)
12 + Int (Rogue)

Another thing that needs to be addressed is the fact that skills do not translate well into the combat system, which is one (of many) reasons why the rogue doesn't shine as brightly as other classes. Personally, I'm not sure if Unchained is the place to do much to the skill system.


While I agree that is a weird choice to pick barbarian, I would like to see a new mechanic to replace rage/rage powers.

It has also been said that these four classes might not be the only ones to get some love(fighter and sorcerer I hope).


Advanced Class Guide wrote:
Players will love the book's new resource pool for martial characters, allowing for exciting new tactical options

Depending on how this is set up (and what other changes to the combat system occur), this could result in a upgraded fighter, without changing the class.

Silver Crusade

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think the book should be renaned 'Pathfinder Exxxtreme' and have a Rob Liefeld cover.


MMCJawa wrote:
Advanced Class Guide wrote:
Players will love the book's new resource pool for martial characters, allowing for exciting new tactical options
Depending on how this is set up (and what other changes to the combat system occur), this could result in a upgraded fighter, without changing the class.

Not really this is a buff to all martial characters. Unless its design benefits the fighter by a huge margin when conpared to other martial characters, otherwise the fighter's place will remain unchanged.

What is funny to me is hearing a few people decry changes to the fighter or all classes. Why is this? Paizo has stated that these changes are optional, so if you like the old fighter, rogue, monk, etc keep using them at your games and let others enjoy changes these optional changes.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I spun off a thread to discuss planar binding

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to see them just cut 1/day, 1/rage, etc. out of the Rogue and Barb completely, and have more mechanics where you just know how to do XYZ and crazy rage cycling shenanigans aren't necessary to do whatever you've spent resources on. I mean, a Barbarian can Pounce all day long with the right choice dealing gobs of damage to an enemy, but he can only heal a piddling amount of damage (Renewed Vigor) once? Mathematically the two powers have absolutely no comparison. Similarly with Rogue abilities like Resilience and Defensive Roll.


I am very interested to see an official version of the monk that might actually work. I love the class, as a concept, but the mechanics of the class always lagged far behind the promise of the flavour. Here's hoping they actually fixed it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now THAT is something I think Pathfinder Unchained should have. More things to spend skill points on. Like more skills, or "skill tricks" (remember those back in D&D 3.5? That was one of the best alternate uses for Skill Points they did), or more uses on current skills.

My players are saying how "bland" their characters are when it comes to skills, because the PCs end up maxing or being just as good as the other guy at doing the same thing.

"ROGUE: I am great at hearing, spotting almost anything, and searching even the most minute details to discover something important!"

"ALCHEMIST/BARBARIAN/BARD/DRUID/GUNSLINGER/INQUISITOR/MONK/RANGER: Get in line, pal!"

I always see Acrobatics, Bluff, Perception, Spellcraft, UMD, Knowledge (Arcana, Dungeoneering, Planes, Religion), Sense Motive. It's rather annoying because no one seems unique to one thing in particular. This was why I enjoyed 3.5 larger skill set. One guy may be good at hiding but he was clumsy when moving around (low Move Silently). One guy was good at sensing things via hearing, another with his eyes, and another was good at analyzing what he was able to find and logically puzzle something together to gain more information. It would take more skill to do both or all three!

Paizo, please consider more stuff to do with skill points! Thanks!

Webstore Gninja Minion

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Another reminder to keep personal musing about game topics elsewhere on the boards. Please keep this thread for THE ACTUAL PRODUCT DISCUSSION ONLY.


Hasn't Jason said that the books contents aren't set in stone? Perhaps these musings are actually more useful than simply discussing the incredibly sparce info.

Maybe people need to say what they think needa to be unleashed so that the devs actually know what players consider a problem.

Webstore Gninja Minion

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Hasn't Jason said that the books contents aren't set in stone? Perhaps these musings are actually more useful than simply discussing the incredibly sparce info.

Maybe people need to say what they think needa to be unleashed so that the devs actually know what players consider a problem.

We have entire forums dedicated for this purpose—please use them.


On those forums aren't people always calling for Fighter, not Barbarian, fixes.

Webstore Gninja Minion

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:
On those forums aren't people always calling for Fighter, not Barbarian, fixes.

So start a new thread if you wish to expound upon the topic... A new thread on those forums, not in the product discussion forum.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

What we need is another thread titled
Pathfinder Discussion: Discussion Unchained
in which Discussions of Pathfinder Unchained break away from the framework set by the 3.5 edition of the Pathfinder Unchained Discussion thread.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is off topic to talk about what we want in Pathfinder Unchained within the Pathfinder Unchained Discussion thread, so let's discuss what we want Unchained without being chained down by the chains of this thread, so let's move discussion of the Unchained Fighter to This thread

Silver Crusade

I think Paizo should scrap the extra HP while raging and replace it with DR/- equal to 1/2 of the Barbarians level. IMO this would do the same thing as extra temp hit points and be an easier mechanic for players to use. The Extra Con given by raging will still give the Barbarian at least a +2 on their Fort save more when the Barbarian gets greater rage.


So... Pathfinder Essentials?

Lou Diamond wrote:
I think Paizo should scrap the extra HP while raging and replace it with DR/- equal to 1/2 of the Barbarians level.

This is one of the two basic components of my Rage rewrite.

301 to 350 of 2,417 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained (OGL) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.