Paizocon, any news?


PaizoCon General Discussion

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

My personal thought - the barbarian remake won't necessarily be Rage based. It will still be a barbarian in flavor and tone, but not carrying that "legacy" mechanic.

I'm thinking that "unchained from BC" also means playing around with flavor and mechanical design, even if not specifically targeting power level.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What does Unchained mean for product support?

Will support continue for the old versions of the classes, or for the new? Both? Will the Unchained variants continue to receive support after their release? Will support be compatible with both version of those classes?

Contributor

The main thing on my brain right now is whether or not these changes are going to conserve backwards compatibility with existing Pathfinder content.

For example, am I going to be able to add the thug archetype to the new rogue class?

Oops. Ninja'd by RD.


Are these four classes the only ones getting new versions in this book?

Contributor

Dragon78 wrote:
Are these four classes the only ones getting new versions in this book?

We don't know and its likely that we won't learn more until GenCon.

Which, coincidentally, is when we'll learn what next year's GenCon release is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I sure hope they don't nerf the barbarian in some attempt to make inline with where they could/might view some of the other martial classes are/should be.


I can see how the barbarian could be revamped. The class was, IMO, a lot more fun to play in beta than in the final release of the rules. There were a lot of innovative, simplifying rules in the alpha and beta rules releases leading up to the Core Rulebook that would have been marked improvements over how things were done in D&D 3.5, which seem to have gotten scrapped due to an vocal outpouring from potential customers who just didn't want to let go of that game. (The expanded use of the Spellcraft skill for things other than "HAY WUTS THAT GUY CASTING" was one of my personal favorites that didn't make it, as was the brief abandonment of the poorly-structured 3.X skill ranks system that didn't survive alpha. And I REALLY hope this book offers an option for eliminating iterative attacks from play.)

So, yay for Pathfinder Unchained! It's long overdue that this rules team got to make some solid, fun mechanics that helped move the game forward without having to be tied to the bloated dead body of D&D3.5.

Grand Lodge

Dreaming Psion wrote:
I sure hope they don't nerf the barbarian in some attempt to make inline with where they could/might view some of the other martial classes are/should be.

I doubt barbarian gets an intentional nerf but rather a rework to include interesting mechanics to further set it apart from other classes and possibly to discourage a 1 level dip for fighters. Rogue and Monk will almost certainly get reworks to buff them (however I personally see a combat maneuver monk as one of the best builds in the game, but I do agree that the class blows balls otherwise.)

As a GM, summoner is one of those classes that I begin to move my hand towards the "ban button" when a player says they want to play one. It can easily be broken via synthesist and can just ruin a game with master summoner, thereby throwing out the only two archtypes that are any good (or at least than anybody wants to play). Regardless, whenever somebody wants to play a summoner, I generally am only comfortable if I know them well as a player.

Barbarian is kind of in a similar boat as summoner in that regard. It can be damn powerful in the hands of a min-maxer who you don't know very well. By contrast, despite the fact that bard is the best class in my book, I have never thought "I better keep an eye on that guy" when a new player wants to play one.

So i think these other two classes, while not overpowered and certainly not underpowered, could stand to see a rework for that reason and more importantly to introduce some really revolutionary mechanics. Horizontal changes for them is what I expect.


I'm looking forward to Unchained. I hope we hear some more about it soon.

Contributor

I wonder what (if anything) from Unchained will be available for Pathfinder Society. Typically alternate rules systems aren't available.


I wonder if there will be a playtest for Pathfinder Unchained.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
I wonder if there will be a playtest for Pathfinder Unchained.

There usually isn't one for the Spring release. Normally the play test is for the GenCon release.


Ah didn't realize it was a Spring release. Cool.

Contributor

Justin Franklin wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I wonder if there will be a playtest for Pathfinder Unchained.
There usually isn't one for the Spring release. Normally the play test is for the GenCon release.

Not true. Ultimate Magic (2011) and the Advanced Race Guide (2012) were both Spring released and both books had playtests: the Magus had a playtest for Ultimate Magic and the race building rules had a playtest in the Advanced Race Guide. The only Spring releases that didn't have playtests were the GameMastery Guide (2010) and Ultimate Campaign (2013) because those books weren't crunch-focused.

The REAL question is whether or not the developers think that the book's content needs a playtest. I would be surprised if the new classes didn't receive a playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Blog said Spring of 2015 for Unchained. I doubt it.

Josh McIllwain on Mighty Meep! wrote:


The biggest reveal from the PaizoCon banquet is a brand new rulebook titled Pathfinder Unchained, a 256-page hardcover tome with many new and updated game mechanics. Details on the new book are sparse, but new game systems, a different magic item crafting structure and new magic items were promised as well as revised versions of existing classes like the barbarian, monk, rogue and summoner. The book is drawing many apt comparisons to the classic Unearthed Arcana book from Dungeons & Dragons' 1st edition, which expanded the existing rules in new and interesting ways. Pathfinder Unchained isn't an entirely new edition of the game, just a modification of a few of the common complaints that carried over from Pathfinder's legacy as a continuation of D&D 3.5.

One of the attendees at the banquet stated, "...it is described as the book that developers got to write without being chained down by something like backwards compatibility. So, a more powerful rogue, a monk with full BAB, a summoner that isn't broken beyond belief. These are the kind of optional rules they plan to introduce, allowing GMs to swap out pieces of existing rules that they don't like."

As a frustrated fan of the Pathfinder RPG, this is quite the good news indeed. Look for Pathfinder Unchained in Spring of 2015.


Dragon78 wrote:
Are these four classes the only ones getting new versions in this book?

I assume all classes will probably get some unchained treatment...these were just 4 examples (3 of which are often cited as problematic classes).

I will be intrigued to see what they do with Fighter. Also, if this book will talk about any of the new hybrid classes.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I wonder if there will be a playtest for Pathfinder Unchained.
There usually isn't one for the Spring release. Normally the play test is for the GenCon release.

Not true. Ultimate Magic (2011) and the Advanced Race Guide (2012) were both Spring released and both books had playtests: the Magus had a playtest for Ultimate Magic and the race building rules had a playtest in the Advanced Race Guide. The only Spring releases that didn't have playtests were the GameMastery Guide (2010) and Ultimate Campaign (2013) because those books weren't crunch-focused.

The REAL question is whether or not the developers think that the book's content needs a playtest. I would be surprised if the new classes didn't receive a playtest.

Technically the strategy guide was the spring release for 2014 and didn't get one either. So I guess we are at 40% of the spring releases getting one. And 100% for GenCon releases.


As psyched as I am over Pathfinder Unchained, will the "rebuilt" versions of the Monk, Summoner, Rogue et cetera be compatible with Pathfinder's published archetypes for those classes?


Axial wrote:
As psyched as I am over Pathfinder Unchained, will the "rebuilt" versions of the Monk, Summoner, Rogue et cetera be compatible with Pathfinder's published archetypes for those classes?

I'm guessing not - from the sounds of it they're completely new classes sharing only a name and concept with the original version. Otherwise they would be tied to some level of compatibility (the very thing they expressly don't want) to be able to use those archetypes.

This sounds like the very thing the game needed - a refresh of the class layer while retaining the underlying PF/d20 system. Hopefully the first of many incremental changes.


Matt Thomason wrote:
Axial wrote:
As psyched as I am over Pathfinder Unchained, will the "rebuilt" versions of the Monk, Summoner, Rogue et cetera be compatible with Pathfinder's published archetypes for those classes?

I'm guessing not - from the sounds of it they're completely new classes sharing only a name and concept with the original version. Otherwise they would be tied to some level of compatibility (the very thing they expressly don't want) to be able to use those archetypes.

This sounds like the very thing the game needed - a refresh of the class layer while retaining the underlying PF/d20 system. Hopefully the first of many incremental changes.

Except for the fact that archetypes are a PF thing, not a 3.5 thing. If archetypes are invalidated, the this appears to be an options patch to address the forum-bloat of "X sucks" rather than the new "standard". I can see advantages to both approaches, so I don't have a strong leaning towards either direction yet. More details will likely change that.

I'm likely an auto-buy anyway, but I'd love to see some changes that would lessen the dependence on 3.5-legacy Christmas Tree Effect magic items.

Liberty's Edge

I think the fact that they expressly went for "go nuts, backwards compatibility be damned", means archetypes will not be guaranteed to be compatible. Might be in lucky cases but better not count on it.

Dark Archive

BPorter wrote:
I'm likely an auto-buy anyway, but I'd love to see some changes that would lessen the dependence on 3.5-legacy Christmas Tree Effect magic items.

That would require a re-write of the core game or a way to incorporate numerical assumptions in the character advancement rules, RE: not going to happen/don't hold your breath.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Auxmaulous wrote:
BPorter wrote:
I'm likely an auto-buy anyway, but I'd love to see some changes that would lessen the dependence on 3.5-legacy Christmas Tree Effect magic items.
That would require a re-write of the core game or a way to incorporate numerical assumptions in the character advancement rules, RE: not going to happen/don't hold your breath.

Miss the part above?

"...a different magic item crafting structure and new magic items were promised..."

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
BPorter wrote:
I'm likely an auto-buy anyway, but I'd love to see some changes that would lessen the dependence on 3.5-legacy Christmas Tree Effect magic items.
That would require a re-write of the core game or a way to incorporate numerical assumptions in the character advancement rules, RE: not going to happen/don't hold your breath.

Miss the part above?

"...a different magic item crafting structure and new magic items were promised..."

LOL,what does that have to due with the assumed math, X-mass tree and big six?

Nothing.

Sounds exactly like what it sounds like - "a different magic item crafting structure and new magic items" rinse repeat with all the player Ultimate books and variant rules they have released (and not supported).

They said they were going to tweak and fix some classes, I have yet to hear that they are going to re-work the math assumptions of the game.

If they do, great. But, they won't.
Again, that would require some MAJOR and BOLD changes and I don't think this is the company to do it. This seems more of a reaction to the deluge of Rogues Suck and Monks suck threads.


Auxmaulous wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
BPorter wrote:
I'm likely an auto-buy anyway, but I'd love to see some changes that would lessen the dependence on 3.5-legacy Christmas Tree Effect magic items.
That would require a re-write of the core game or a way to incorporate numerical assumptions in the character advancement rules, RE: not going to happen/don't hold your breath.

Miss the part above?

"...a different magic item crafting structure and new magic items were promised..."

LOL,what does that have to due with the assumed math, X-mass tree and big six?

Nothing.

Sounds exactly like what it sounds like - "a different magic item crafting structure and new magic items" rinse repeat with all the player Ultimate books and variant rules they have released (and not supported).

They said they were going to tweak and fix some classes, I have yet to hear that they are going to re-work the math assumptions of the game.

If they do, great. But, they won't.
Again, that would require some MAJOR and BOLD changes and I don't think this is the company to do it. This seems more of a reaction to the deluge of Rogues Suck and Monks suck threads.

Well, actually, if they are looking at magic item crafting, it is possible that they could also look at the "Christmas Tree Effect" and Big Six. It's too early to completely dismiss it. I say we wait for PaizoCon to finish and see if we can get more info about Pathfinder Unchained.


I'd say that if they change the magic item crafting system it would be an alternate system to create the same items. Perhaps something to address the complaints of "this is OP in campaigns like Kingmaker" vs "this is useless in RotRL." Maybe giving more GM control to crafting times or a different time system than 1day per 1000gp.


Alternate crafting may also be to address some of the more insane results that come into play for non-magical items thanks to those rules.


Auxmaulous wrote:
BPorter wrote:
I'm likely an auto-buy anyway, but I'd love to see some changes that would lessen the dependence on 3.5-legacy Christmas Tree Effect magic items.
That would require a re-write of the core game or a way to incorporate numerical assumptions in the character advancement rules, RE: not going to happen/don't hold your breath.

I agree that it's unlikely (but with far less negative motives than what you seem to be assigning to Paizo - I'm NOT looking for a rewrite/unrecognizable PF), but if it's ever going to be attempted then why the frak not in a book breaking with 3.5 comparability concerns?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Because the bestiary already exists. Unless you're saying these classes can meet the number requirements without the core items.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Because the bestiary already exists. Unless you're saying these classes can meet the number requirements without the core items.

So you're saying that the ONLY way to build in the assumed "big 6" bonuses is via magic items? It would be impossible to do a level- or feat-based system or Mythic-style overlay?

Color me unconvinced.


I don't believe Paizo would design such a system, so while possible it is as unlikely as Paizo making Ultimate Psionics PFS legal.


Backwards compatibility to 3.5 also means, in a large part, backwards compatibility to Pathfinder of course. There are certain parts of the rules that do not appear in the print products (and I am talking player, settings and AP books here) all that heavily, such as the action economy and the crafting rules. These rules are largely applied by the group and very lightly referenced in PF books (again non rules books) and as such changes to these areas of the game would retain a large degree of compatibility with prior non-rulebook materials. Changes to classes such as their features, math, or way of operating will of course clash with previously published statblocks. That is what I am quite interested to see how they handle.


I'd like to see ways to bypass the time constraints on crafting while giving up some of the financial benefits. In other words, I'd like to be able to craft things quickly without "forcing" the DM to push the party through their adventures at warp speed to prevent crafting from blowing up WBL.

I'd also like to see some SoD/SoL elimination even more extensive than what happened during the 3.5 to Pathfinder upgrade. I think it is generally boring and sometimes frustrating when a single die roll decides a battle, often in a single round. I'd rather see damage and debuffs with a chance to continue fighting. Mirror Image could probably be tweaked for better balance. Touch attacks could be toned down (especially in regards to Alchemists and Gunslingers). Hopefully summons will no longer flood the table. Grapple rules could always use a tweak...

That's kind of my personal wish list or at least a big part of it. Less reliance on magic items might be nice too though I'd mostly prefer to just see more interesting magic items being taken instead of the "Big 6"

Dark Archive

Insain Dragoon wrote:
Because the bestiary already exists. Unless you're saying these classes can meet the number requirements without the core items.

Exactly - it would have to be a system that changes the way characters progress mathematically but unless you revise all the bestiaries then end result values would have to match up with current PF values.

I think Paizo will do a makeover for classes that may need it (after all the crying on these forums), I don't think that Paizo is going to pull off a re-write of core game math assumptions via inherent system as replacement or supplemental system for the current magic items in the game.

It won't work and it can't be done because you would need to still address spells that boost stats and Saves outside of any magic item changes and the math associated with them. Again, an entire revision would be needed - items and the spells which make up the items.

Like I said, I don't see this happening and I don't see that Paizo as the company that's going to do this, at least not with this edition. This just seems like it's a big patch to some existing player problems as they relate to their current system and complaints by players (weaker vs stronger classes).

Not knowing what the "many new and updated game mechanics. Details on the new book are sparse, but new game systems..." part has me intrigued.
Part of me hopes for new DM support material so I can run the game I want: low-magic, decoupled math - core numbers vs. superfluous numbers and values. What we will probably get is a new Players Splat with a small section for DMs/system management (wounds/armor as DR, etc).

This latter has happened so many times that the recurring burn is a running joke in my gaming circle (my players laughing at me for getting my hopes up high).


Auxmaulous wrote:
BPorter wrote:
I'm likely an auto-buy anyway, but I'd love to see some changes that would lessen the dependence on 3.5-legacy Christmas Tree Effect magic items.
That would require a re-write of the core game or a way to incorporate numerical assumptions in the character advancement rules, RE: not going to happen/don't hold your breath.

I really don't think it would be as hard or requiring such a massive rewrite as you think it does. Heck the simple formula of -1 per 3CR to AC, Saves, saves Dc, etc would work...without even touching the character side of things.


I'm imagining more "changing how X combat maneuvers work" kind of rule changes.

I also imagine the "new" classes will be more like brand new classes that happened to be named familiarly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pathfinder Unchained sounds incredibly interesting! I understand that some design compromises had to be made to make sure that Pathfinder was "familiar" to the 3.5 players who were unhappy with 4E when Pathfinder was first launched, and I can't wait to see what the design team, free of limitations or compatibility concerns and with fifteen years of class design experience can come up with.

I am a little surprised that they selected the barbarian though. Rogues, monks and summoners make sense in that they're all classes that have some issues, but the barbarian seems to be doing OK - I wonder if the Fighter might perhaps have been a better choice for a "revamp"? I hope the book will revisit more classes than just the ones mentioned.

Revising the action economy is potentially very, very interesting - I hope they'll revisit the "mobility issues" presented by Full Attacks. I generally find melee combat much more tactical and interesting at levels 1-5, before Full Attacks become an option.

Removing most of the "Big 6" wouldn't be that hard actually - the Vow of Poverty feat from Book of Exalted Good is a good starting point. While the feat itself is problematic (enjoy never gaining flight unless you're a spellcaster), the +saves/+ability score/+AC/+to hit progression could be re-purposed fairly easily.

For example:
Every three levels a character gets a +1 Resistance bonus to all saves, capping with +5 at level 15.

Every five levels a character gets a +2 enhancement bonus to one, two or more ability scores, capping at +6 on level 15.

Suddenly we've removed two of the big 6, the Cloak of Resistance and the belt/headband of excellence. Throw on a revised WBL chart adjusting for the expenses we no longer have and we're in business.


The wording implies that more than 4 classes will be reworked :)

Also maybe this Barbarian will be a class that doesn't rage? Since these classes are not MRPing the old ones they can move into new design space.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

At the very least, they should come up with a rage alternative that does not have an ever increasing chance of immediately killing a barbarian who is reduced to zero or fewer hp. Unearthed Arcana actually came up with a rage variant that did exactly that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm betting the rogue is going to be a lot better of a class after this book comes out.

Dark Archive

John Kretzer wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
BPorter wrote:
I'm likely an auto-buy anyway, but I'd love to see some changes that would lessen the dependence on 3.5-legacy Christmas Tree Effect magic items.
That would require a re-write of the core game or a way to incorporate numerical assumptions in the character advancement rules, RE: not going to happen/don't hold your breath.
I really don't think it would be as hard or requiring such a massive rewrite as you think it does. Heck the simple formula of -1 per 3CR to AC, Saves, saves Dc, etc would work...without even touching the character side of things.

And you would need to scale down the damage die & hp for the creatures, and also hp assumptions for the PCs, re-evaluate each creature to determine how much and what penalties to apply depending on the type of creature - melee vs. SLA/specialty creature, etc. A generic rule wouldn't work.

And on top of that you would be invalidating several Bestiaries as written if you were going to change the math assumptions. So a flat subtract "X" guideline wouldn't work. A re-write and you have PF 1.5 on your hands and a revolt. Or you split the fan base - pre and post revision (they may already get this with their Unleashed Classes), and people wanting continued support for the old or new material depending on the camp you happen to be in.

Kudaku wrote:

Removing most of the "Big 6" wouldn't be that hard actually - the Vow of Poverty feat from Book of Exalted Good is a good starting point. While the feat itself is problematic (enjoy never gaining flight unless you're a spellcaster), the +saves/+ability score/+AC/+to hit progression could be re-purposed fairly easily.

For example:
Every three levels a character gets a +1 Resistance bonus to all saves, capping with +5 at level 15.

Every five levels a character gets a +2 enhancement bonus to one, two or more ability scores, capping at +6 on level 15.

Suddenly we've removed two of the big 6, the Cloak of Resistance and the belt/headband of excellence. Throw on a revised WBL chart adjusting for the expenses we no longer have and we're in business.

And what happens to a number of buff spells that already exist in the game? Do you remove them, or do you allow them to exist and stack with the newly built-in numbers taking PCs even greater out of CR range than they already are for optimized players? Inherent bonuses only work if you eliminate the spells that go into the magic items that currently give the buffs. That means changing a good number of spells.

And what about treasure? Unless you can create a unique feel magic item system in this game (which right now you can't - all standard magic items = spells, which are in the core book and anyone can use) what are you going to give your PCs as a reward? Magical weapons with no bonuses to hit or special damage? It could be done, but how sustainable would it be from level 1-20 with a multitude of characters types over the course of different campaigns?

Again - we are talking about a major revision here, if not a new game. This is why there are so many people out their banging their heads on low-magic games, or new item creation rules or P6 or P8 - because they are looking for a mechanical fix where one is very hard to find.

Fixing a class by just adding raw power is very doable - you balance your new class against an existing baseline and you phase out the old model.

Fixing the math assumptions of your core game is considerably more difficult if you are not prepared to make some MAJOR changes and re-write existing content. I don't think Paizo is at that point in the road - and probably never will be. Not at PF 1.0 at least.

I feel like I've heard this discussion before.

The Facts of Life:

Tyrell: The facts of life... to make an alteration in the evolvement of an organic life system is fatal. A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.

Batty: Why not?

Tyrell: Because by the second day of incubation, any cells that have undergone reversion mutation give rise to revertant colonies, like rats leaving a sinking ship; then the ship... sinks.

Batty: What about EMS-3 recombination?

Tyrell: We've already tried it - ethyl, methane, sulfinate as an alkylating agent and potent mutagen; it created a virus so lethal the subject was dead before it even left the table.

Batty: Then a repressor protein, that would block the operating cells.

Tyrell: Wouldn't obstruct replication; but it does give rise to an error in replication, so that the newly formed DNA strand carries with it a mutation - and you've got a virus again... but this, all of this is academic. You were made as well as we could make you.

I would also be curious to see if they can make elegant system changes with one book. I don't think it's possible unless you go back to the base game and do some serious number trimming so you can better manage the totals; Stat modifiers, + feat bonuses, + item bonuses, + spell (double dipping on item bonuses), + trait bonuses, + class ability bonuses, + racial bonuses.

If they can do it I will buy one copy of the book for my players to be used along side with the CRB.

That isn't what this is though.


Auxmaulous wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
BPorter wrote:
I'm likely an auto-buy anyway, but I'd love to see some changes that would lessen the dependence on 3.5-legacy Christmas Tree Effect magic items.
That would require a re-write of the core game or a way to incorporate numerical assumptions in the character advancement rules, RE: not going to happen/don't hold your breath.
I really don't think it would be as hard or requiring such a massive rewrite as you think it does. Heck the simple formula of -1 per 3CR to AC, Saves, saves Dc, etc would work...without even touching the character side of things.

And you would need to scale down the damage die & hp for the creatures, and also hp assumptions for the PCs, re-evaluate each creature to determine how much and what penalties to apply depending on the type of creature - melee vs. SLA/specialty creature, etc. A generic rule wouldn't work.

And on top of that you would be invalidating several Bestiaries as written if you were going to change the math assumptions. So a flat subtract "X" guideline wouldn't work. A re-write and you have PF 1.5 on your hands and a revolt. Or you split the fan base - pre and post revision (they may already get this with their Unleashed Classes), and people wanting continued support for the old or new material depending on the camp you happen to be in.

Actually the two year campaign I ran without magic items that ran from 1st to 20th level...yes it was that simple. But hey go a head and making something simple be much more complex than it has to be.

Dark Archive

And you can make sweeping changes in your home campaign as much as you like. Having an alternate rule set as a company is going to cause some problems - rewrites of the rules, what material is used for organized play, etc. Just take a look at these 4 class changes - are they going to be alt classes, replacement/errata'd classes? Will there be two types of Rogues in the game, and what about organized play? What support for the new version? The old versions?

When you have to deal with product lines, core mechanics and general game design philosophy what do you support? It isn't as if PF is a modular game - it was never sold that way. It's at default high-powered hero/super hero game. Anything else is breaking away from the system.

Maybe if there were modular components to the game or maybe if they established a smaller baseline from core in 2008 and built up it it might be a different story. But six years and several (mostly) players books, bestiaries and support product, changing a core design function could be extremely problematic.

It would be easier for them to make their major system changes in a PF 2.0 vs. having a houserule book for dealing with the big six, magic item dependency and changing math assumptions.

I don't think it's impossible, I just don't think they will do it.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I was at the banquet, and based on what Jason said it sounded like the Unchained Barbarian is going to be less "nerf" and more "simplification". He specifically mentioned making it easier to run at the table.
Summoner was the only one that sounded like it was getting nerfed.
My guess would be that Unchained ends up a lot like the Essentials line in 4th Edition; they're all made to run in the same game but just because it says it's a Rogue or Summoner doesn't actually mean it's going to use all the same things or play the same way as the CRB/APG version with the same name.

They also threw up a bunch of ACG clips, pretty cool that all the new classes have 4 pages of archetypes each and the existing classes all have at least one page of archetypes.

Dark Archive

This sounds cool but I am a little worried about the Pathfinder Unchained. I never had a problem with the rogue. I do recognize that a lot of people see the rogue as under powered. I just always played my rogues differently then all about combat.

I also hope they do not go over kill on the martial vs. spell caster disparity as that would destroy the balance of the casters. (Casters start weak and end really strong vs. martials can be good from day one).

I am looking forward to seeing what they do. Hope it does good and will be really interesting.


Well, the product page is up for Unchained.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

brad2411 wrote:


I also hope they do not go over kill on the martial vs. spell caster disparity as that would destroy the balance of the casters. (Casters start weak and end really strong vs. martials can be good from day one).

This is not a thing. Everyone starts at basically the same power level. At low levels, martials can hit hard and have good defenses against level appropriate challenges, and casters have weaker defenses (generally) but can flat out end entire encounters with a single casting of the right spell at the right time (looking at you color spray). They have basically the same impact on a battlefield, but the caster needs to control his awesomeness via careful resource management.

It is a myth that martials and casters are balanced around the idea that casters start out weak and martials start out stronger but taper off as the casters grow; that's not how the game's balanced at all.


GentleGiant wrote:
Well, the product page is up for Unchained.

Yes, just came here to post that link. It should be an extended, emphasized, elongated, empowered and otherwise completely metamagicked dispel hysteria for this thread.

Dark Archive

Ssalarn wrote:
brad2411 wrote:


I also hope they do not go over kill on the martial vs. spell caster disparity as that would destroy the balance of the casters. (Casters start weak and end really strong vs. martials can be good from day one).

This is not a thing. Everyone starts at basically the same power level. At low levels, martials can hit hard and have good defenses against level appropriate challenges, and casters have weaker defenses (generally) but can flat out end entire encounters with a single casting of the right spell at the right time (looking at you color spray). They have basically the same impact on a battlefield, but the caster needs to control his awesomeness via careful resource management.

It is a myth that martials and casters are balanced around the idea that casters start out weak and martials start out stronger but taper off as the casters grow; that's not how the game's balanced at all.

Sorry I am going to have to disagree. The resource management is part of what makes them weaker. Just as a barbarian can be stronger then the fighter because of his rage, if the barbarian is out of rage the fighter can be better then the barbarian. It is the same thing with the casters. The wizard could end a fight in a round but can also be killed by a goblin in a round. The Martials could be to but the goblin would have to critical.

Personally these are my opinions from long years of playing. I could be completely off base but not from what I have seen.

51 to 100 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / PaizoCon / General Discussion / Paizocon, any news? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.