Anti-Unchained Screed


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Cheburn wrote:
memorax wrote:
If my specialty is Summoning then imo A class should be getting early access to at least Conjuration spells. If not why take it over a Conjurer if I'm using the same spell spell progression as that class . . . Beyond the Eidolon nothing makes it really stand out that much next to a conjurer with the right feats and spell selection.
You pretty much answered it yourself. The Eidolon is the defining class feature of a PF summoner, and the reason to play a summoner rather than a conjuration specialist wizard is that you want an Eidolon.

I've argued before that the summoner is a hybrid class, but without parents. It's a summoning class smushed up against a companion creature class. Some people want more of one or the other out of the class. Personally, when I play a summoner, I don't use the eidolon much. I prefer the flexibility of using Summon Monster.


memorax wrote:
Beyond the Eidolon nothing makes it really stand out that much next to a conjurer with the right feats and spell selection.

Don't why but this made me laugh. If a summoner = conjurer wizard with proper feats, then what the hell does a summoner with proper feats = ?


Lukas Stariha wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:
the list of rogue talents was decimated.
I'm not sure if you missed the "Unmodified Rogue Talents" sidebar, but I really don't miss anything that wasn't included there or in the Unchained talents.

    Charmer -- Gone
    Convincing Lie -- Gone
    False Friend -- Gone
    Fast Fingers -- Gone
    Guileful Polyglot -- Gone
    Hard to Fool -- Gone
    Honeyed Words -- Gone
    Obfuscate Story -- Gone (one of the most fun to roleplay talents ever)
    Peerless Maneuver -- Gone
    Snap Shot -- Gone

. . . and that's just the ones that are my favorites. Advanced talent list has even more missing.

Blech, I say. Blech on the Unchained Rogue.

They obviously want to steer people into making combat-oriented rogues.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
darth_borehd wrote:

I see Unchained as the Unearthed Arcana of PFRPG.

Something that annoys me is a trend to regard it as "Pathfinder 2.0" instead of just a collection of optional alternatives. Even the PFS now requires the Unchained Summoner instead of the APG version. Unchained classes should always be just big fat archetypes or the "alternate versions" of those classes in the same way that the samurai is the alternate class to the cavalier.

Primarily the reason why I want them to always be seen as such is that I prefer the original versions. Personally, I was underwhelmed by the classes and see them like the "special" editions of the Star Wars trilogy. Han shot first and monks do not have weak will saves. Argh.

Agree? Disagree?

The "trend" as you call it, exists mainly in your mind. Unchained! was a fix to classes that badly needed it... especially the Summoner, and for the most part gave ALTERNATIVE mechanics, not replacement ones.

The Summoner was the only changed class made mandatory for PFS. Players can still choose the CRB versions of the Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue, if they wish. The Chained! versions however incorporate a lot of what players have asked for.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

What the players asked for...maybe for the Fighter and rogue. I never saw anyone complaining about the Barbarian being weak. Or too difficult to use at the table. At least in my experience. The Monk from what I can see hear at least was not what the players wanted. The Summoner was what PFS and probably only what PFS wanted.


CWheezy wrote:
HFTyrone wrote:


The only archetype I can think of that was actually good for a "punch things" monk is Qinggong Monk thanks to its increased versatility, and the Unchained Monk can basically be a Qinggong Monk with full BAB and D10 hit die.
You actually get to use your qi abilities all the time as a regular monk instead of having like, 6 ki points at level 12 or whatever it is for unchained

Yeah you're right actually. That's a change I don't quite understand, especially considering that the Unchained Monk usually has to spend ki a bit more often.

Still I don't think it's entirely fair to call it strictly worse than archetyped monks.

Edit: wait a second I've been bamboozled! Both the monk and unchained monk receive 1/2 class level + wisdom as a ki pool. Still, it's true that the UnMonk is probably going to be spending ki a bit more often. 1* class level + Wis would probably have been more appropriate.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
memorax wrote:
What the players asked for...maybe for the Fighter and rogue. I never saw anyone complaining about the Barbarian being weak.

I've heard plenty of folks complaining about their barbarians going to instadead when they become unconcious or some effect has taken away their rage. I've seen a few players struggle to deal with rage mechanics...so yes it DID happen, and frequently.


Did they not understand that when a barbarian dies from rage loss hp, they would have been dead anyway if they were not raging?

Its a pretty simple concept.


CWheezy wrote:

Did they not understand that when a barbarian dies from rage loss hp, they would have been dead anyway if they were not raging?

Its a pretty simple concept.

I imagine it's still traumatic for a fairly new player to hear "oh, you got knocked out...well, you die...sorry".

That doesn't change the fact that the barbarian has relatively few issues compared to something like the fighter and thus probably shouldn't have been unchained, but the sudden death thing was still an issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowblind wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

Did they not understand that when a barbarian dies from rage loss hp, they would have been dead anyway if they were not raging?

Its a pretty simple concept.

I imagine it's still traumatic for a fairly new player to hear "oh, you got knocked out...well, you die...sorry".

That doesn't change the fact that the barbarian has relatively few issues compared to something like the fighter and thus probably shouldn't have been unchained, but the sudden death thing was still an issue.

Personally I kinda like the sudden death thing. Made much more thematic sense than temp HP. I mean, they are not magic. Rage is literally an adrenaline rush. Sudden death after rage is like... you have had a tough fight, your on your last leg. The only thing keeping you going is your white hot blinding anger. You finally killed your opponent. Your anger spent, your smile, then breathe ypur last. I mean, its like an awesome version of the samurai capstone. Thematically it just awesome. The temp HP thing seems kinda meta gamey and weird. Not nearly as cool.


HFTyrone wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
HFTyrone wrote:


The only archetype I can think of that was actually good for a "punch things" monk is Qinggong Monk thanks to its increased versatility, and the Unchained Monk can basically be a Qinggong Monk with full BAB and D10 hit die.
You actually get to use your qi abilities all the time as a regular monk instead of having like, 6 ki points at level 12 or whatever it is for unchained

Yeah you're right actually. That's a change I don't quite understand, especially considering that the Unchained Monk usually has to spend ki a bit more often.

Still I don't think it's entirely fair to call it strictly worse than archetyped monks.

Edit: wait a second I've been bamboozled! Both the monk and unchained monk receive 1/2 class level + wisdom as a ki pool. Still, it's true that the UnMonk is probably going to be spending ki a bit more often. 1* class level + Wis would probably have been more appropriate.

The hungry ghost archetype loosens up a monk's ki straitjacket quite a bit, and there are other archetypes and vows which do so to a lesser extent.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
CWheezy wrote:

Did they not understand that when a barbarian dies from rage loss hp, they would have been dead anyway if they were not raging?

Its a pretty simple concept.

There's always that buffer between 0 and negative Con, though. It's relevant more often than I'd expect and outside of crits, critters don't usually hit for a lot more than that per strike until raise dead is affordable.

Sometimes you fight enemies that will keep going after downed foes, but that's the exception rather than the rule.

Dark Archive

darth_borehd wrote:
Philo Pharynx wrote:
Unsummoners are definitely nerfed, and I can see the arguments pro and con for unmonk and unbarbarian. But unrogue? Purely better.
I was underwhelmed the unchained rogue too. Most of the skill unlocks were not that useful, the finesse training is only useful if you have a high dex, and the list of rogue talents was decimated.

Why in the heck would you have a rogue without high Dex? confused.jpg

CWheezy wrote:
HFTyrone wrote:


The only archetype I can think of that was actually good for a "punch things" monk is Qinggong Monk thanks to its increased versatility, and the Unchained Monk can basically be a Qinggong Monk with full BAB and D10 hit die.
You actually get to use your qi abilities all the time as a regular monk instead of having like, 6 ki points at level 12 or whatever it is for unchained

What? Unchained Monk has exactly as much ki as the regular monk. In fact, they get their pool even sooner (3rd level instead of 4th.)

I agree that normal monk+archetypes > unchained monk, but if DTT is any indication, unchained monk will get archetype love going forward too.


Psyren wrote:

....

CWheezy wrote:
HFTyrone wrote:


The only archetype I can think of that was actually good for a "punch things" monk is Qinggong Monk thanks to its increased versatility, and the Unchained Monk can basically be a Qinggong Monk with full BAB and D10 hit die.
You actually get to use your qi abilities all the time as a regular monk instead of having like, 6 ki points at level 12 or whatever it is for unchained

What? Unchained Monk has exactly as much ki as the regular monk. In fact, they get their pool even sooner (3rd level instead of 4th.)

I agree that normal monk+archetypes > unchained monk, but if DTT is any indication, unchained monk will get archetype love going forward too.

A bunch of things that were free for the normal monk now require Ki points. The monk wasn't exactly overflowing with Ki points before (without optimization tricks), so almost everything requiring Ki really hurts.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Barbarian wasn't fixed because it was considered broken or overpowered, it was because it was considered not very new player friendly. So this was an attempt to simplify it.

Play wise it's probably the most complex class in the core rulebook. Granted, those complications are seldom going to seem confusing or weird to people who post here, who are operating with a better grasp of the rule knowledge than newer players and groups.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:


I've heard plenty of folks complaining about their barbarians going to instadead when they become unconcious or some effect has taken away their rage. I've seen a few players struggle to deal with rage mechanics...so yes it DID happen, and frequently.

That may very well be. I never really saw it on the boards. Nor outside of it. More often it was hearing complaints about Monks, Rogues and Fighters. Barbarians maybe having too many powers to choose from. I don't really consider complaints about dying after raging being valid. As it's written in the class description about raging. If players are unwilling to read what a class can do properly it's not poor class design. It's player laziness imo.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

I'm curious if anyone's implemented any of the skill systems in Unchained and if that caused and cascading effects with other rules.


Snowblind wrote:
Psyren wrote:

....

CWheezy wrote:
HFTyrone wrote:


The only archetype I can think of that was actually good for a "punch things" monk is Qinggong Monk thanks to its increased versatility, and the Unchained Monk can basically be a Qinggong Monk with full BAB and D10 hit die.
You actually get to use your qi abilities all the time as a regular monk instead of having like, 6 ki points at level 12 or whatever it is for unchained

What? Unchained Monk has exactly as much ki as the regular monk. In fact, they get their pool even sooner (3rd level instead of 4th.)

I agree that normal monk+archetypes > unchained monk, but if DTT is any indication, unchained monk will get archetype love going forward too.

A bunch of things that were free for the normal monk now require Ki points. The monk wasn't exactly overflowing with Ki points before (without optimization tricks), so almost everything requiring Ki really hurts.

Exactly. Poison resistance, for example. It was fantastic in the old monk. Now, it @&*^ing sucks.


Christopher Dudley wrote:
I'm curious if anyone's implemented any of the skill systems in Unchained and if that caused and cascading effects with other rules.

Only one rogue-ish character in my game has them, I wanna say Acrobatics and Perception are her selected skills. No issues of any kind so far.

Dark Archive

Cerberus Seven wrote:


Exactly. Poison resistance, for example. It was fantastic in the old monk. Now, it @&*^ing sucks.

So don't take it. You still have a good fort save, and potions are a thing. Fighters and Barbarians do just fine without poison immunity.

Meanwhile they get plenty of things the old monk didn't, like Style Strikes (e.g. Flying Kick), plus you can get up to 6 attacks at level 6, all at full BAB.


Psyren wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:


Exactly. Poison resistance, for example. It was fantastic in the old monk. Now, it @&*^ing sucks.

So don't take it. You still have a good fort save, and potions are a thing. Fighters and Barbarians do just fine without poison immunity.

Meanwhile they get plenty of things the old monk didn't, like Style Strikes (e.g. Flying Kick), plus you can get up to 6 attacks at level 6, all at full BAB.

I'm not sure you got the point I was trying to make. Monks used to be flat immune to poison, didn't even need that one point of ki in the pool either. Now, they need to take a ki power to combat poison, which requires a standard action to use, needs a ki point to power it, and only affects one such toxin in their system (neutralize poison normally affects ALL such elements in the target body). If they're going to be required to spend ki left and right now without their pool size increasing, such expenditure should at least be beneficial in a timely and efficient manner. And don't get me started on the way they chopped up the default benefits of ki pool in order to make you buy them individually, which was just completely unnecessary in so many ways. If I didn't know any better, that move would make me think some of the Devs are aiming for a job at EA.

I'm not saying unchained monk didn't get some nice things, far from it. I'm saying that they ALSO made a few pretty crappy choices for how to 'tweak' existing monk features and abilities when they released the new class.


Cerberus Seven wrote:
Psyren wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:


Exactly. Poison resistance, for example. It was fantastic in the old monk. Now, it @&*^ing sucks.

So don't take it. You still have a good fort save, and potions are a thing. Fighters and Barbarians do just fine without poison immunity.

Meanwhile they get plenty of things the old monk didn't, like Style Strikes (e.g. Flying Kick), plus you can get up to 6 attacks at level 6, all at full BAB.

I'm not sure you got the point I was trying to make. Monks used to be flat immune to poison, didn't even need that one point of ki in the pool either. Now, they need to take a ki power to combat poison, which requires a standard action to use, needs a ki point to power it, and only affects one such toxin in their system (neutralize poison normally affects ALL such elements in the target body). If they're going to be required to spend ki left and right now without their pool size increasing, such expenditure should at least be beneficial in a timely and efficient manner. And don't get me started on the way they chopped up the default benefits of ki pool in order to make you buy them individually, which was just completely unnecessary in so many ways. If I didn't know any better, that move would make me think some of the Devs are aiming for a job at EA.

I'm not saying unchained monk didn't get some nice things, far from it. I'm saying that they ALSO made a few pretty crappy choices for how to 'tweak' existing monk features and abilities when they released the new class.

I've always liked the "build-a-bear" style class customization, as more options is always a good thing. I agree that on the Ki side the unchained monk is almost strictly inferior due to their (equally) small pool and frequency of use. On the other hand some (definitely not all) of the monk's biggest flaws have been addressed.

Full BAB and D10 hit die are just what the doctor ordered, especially for human monks who before couldn't grab certain feats with a "BAB +1" prerequisite at first level. On top of that, flying kick at 5th level gives the monk the ability to move before making a full attack, which solves the greatest flaw of any martial class. I don't think it's fair anymore to say the monk has a damage problem or a maneuver problem, so at the very least it's brought up to par with what people expect out of martials: killing things.

It still has issues though. Still probably the nastiest MAD class, getting DEX or WIS to damage would have done wonders to help fix this. There's the tiny ki pool, really, it's puny, and the UnMonk has to spend ki very often unless they take "Extra Ki" feats. Amulet of Mighty Fists is still disgustingly expensive and takes up an amulet slot, and will probably chew up all of the Monk's gold at several points when he wants to upgrade it. Monk melee weapons do not receive unarmed damage progression: this one seemed like a no-brainer.


MMCJawa wrote:

Play wise it's probably the most complex class in the core rulebook.

whoa. What? There is no way this is true. Most complicated class is druid first, then the other casters.


CWheezy wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Play wise it's probably the most complex class in the core rulebook.

whoa. What? There is no way this is true. Most complicated class is druid first, then the other casters.

I'd actually argue that the magus gives druids a very good run for their money. Spellcombat / spellstrike potentially every round, with the player having the option to pop arcane pool for bonuses and varying their attack penalty to gain a boost on concentration checks is nuts. Then add in all the potential buff spells they can have up and how different the spells they cast as part of their full-attack routine can get and the details to keep up with get even crazier.


I was referring specifically to core, but it is pretty close between magus and druid. I think druid takes it overall though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Snowblind wrote:
CWheezy wrote:

Did they not understand that when a barbarian dies from rage loss hp, they would have been dead anyway if they were not raging?

Its a pretty simple concept.

I imagine it's still traumatic for a fairly new player to hear "oh, you got knocked out...well, you die...sorry".

That doesn't change the fact that the barbarian has relatively few issues compared to something like the fighter and thus probably shouldn't have been unchained, but the sudden death thing was still an issue.

The Unchained Barbarian did not displace the standard Barbarian from PFS play.. It only offered a diffrent set of options. The only case where the Unchained! version of a class became the only PFS legal version was the Summoner. I really doubt however, that many will chose the CRB Rogue over the UnChained! Rogue unless they're playing the Core campaign.


darth_borehd wrote:

I see Unchained as the Unearthed Arcana of PFRPG.

Something that annoys me is a trend to regard it as "Pathfinder 2.0" instead of just a collection of optional alternatives. Even the PFS now requires the Unchained Summoner instead of the APG version. Unchained classes should always be just big fat archetypes or the "alternate versions" of those classes in the same way that the samurai is the alternate class to the cavalier.

Primarily the reason why I want them to always be seen as such is that I prefer the original versions. Personally, I was underwhelmed by the classes and see them like the "special" editions of the Star Wars trilogy. Han shot first and monks do not have weak will saves. Argh.

Agree? Disagree?

Most of the book, yes. However, I think the classes should definitely be considered rewrites of the originals, and the originals discarded. The summoner got much needed nerfs, the monk and rogue got much-needed buffs, and the Barbarian got much better mechanics (like 'not dying if you get KO'd' and 'rage stacks with everything').

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

CWheezy wrote:

Did they not understand that when a barbarian dies from rage loss hp, they would have been dead anyway if they were not raging?

Its a pretty simple concept.

I think it's because they would like those extra hit points to matter, and not just be a glorified version of the Ferocity ability. It's counter-intuitive that having extra HP doesn't actually make you more survivable.

(That is, if I'm a barbarian with 100 HP, and I rage to get up to 120 HP, in both cases I'm dead after roughly 120 points of damage.)

It's not WORSE that not having the ability, it just isn't better, and it's presented in a way that makes it look better.


Zhayne wrote:
Most of the book, yes. However, I think the classes should definitely be considered rewrites of the originals, and the originals discarded. ... the Barbarian got much better mechanics (like 'not dying if you get KO'd' and 'rage stacks with everything').

And had most of the best rage powers nerfed, reworked, or just outright removed.


Ross Byers wrote:

I think it's because they would like those extra hit points to matter, and not just be a glorified version of the Ferocity ability. It's counter-intuitive that having extra HP doesn't actually make you more survivable.

It does make you more survivable, specifically because you can act. Being able to fight normally instead of being functionally dead is a pretty big difference IMO.


CWheezy wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:

I think it's because they would like those extra hit points to matter, and not just be a glorified version of the Ferocity ability. It's counter-intuitive that having extra HP doesn't actually make you more survivable.

It does make you more survivable, specifically because you can act. Being able to fight normally instead of being functionally dead is a pretty big difference IMO.

Add in superstitious and a barbarian would suicidally refuse healing.

Without spell sunder, the barbarian is weaker, but I an more likely to play an unchained barbarian than the regular one.

Dark Archive

Cerberus Seven wrote:
Psyren wrote:
Cerberus Seven wrote:


Exactly. Poison resistance, for example. It was fantastic in the old monk. Now, it @&*^ing sucks.

So don't take it. You still have a good fort save, and potions are a thing. Fighters and Barbarians do just fine without poison immunity.

Meanwhile they get plenty of things the old monk didn't, like Style Strikes (e.g. Flying Kick), plus you can get up to 6 attacks at level 6, all at full BAB.

I'm not sure you got the point I was trying to make. Monks used to be flat immune to poison, didn't even need that one point of ki in the pool either. Now, they need to take a ki power to combat poison, which requires a standard action to use, needs a ki point to power it, and only affects one such toxin in their system (neutralize poison normally affects ALL such elements in the target body). If they're going to be required to spend ki left and right now without their pool size increasing, such expenditure should at least be beneficial in a timely and efficient manner. And don't get me started on the way they chopped up the default benefits of ki pool in order to make you buy them individually, which was just completely unnecessary in so many ways. If I didn't know any better, that move would make me think some of the Devs are aiming for a job at EA.

I'm not saying unchained monk didn't get some nice things, far from it. I'm saying that they ALSO made a few pretty crappy choices for how to 'tweak' existing monk features and abilities when they released the new class.

No, I got what you're saying. What I'm saying is that you hardly need to spend ki on that, so pointing to that and saying they have less ki than before makes no sense. Even if your campaign world is Poisonland III: The Poisoning, none of the other martial classes are poison immune either, just buy potions and/or boost your fort save (like you were probably going to do anyway.)

Yes, I agree neo-Diamond Body sucks. But when an option sucks, you don't take it. Taking the bad option, spending ki on it and then complaining that you have less ki is counterproductive.


Disclaimer: Assumes unchained action economy and automatic bonus progression.

Unchained rogue: more fun to me than chained rogue.

Unchained barbarian: more fun for me than chained barbarian.

Unchained summoner: It feels like a real class now as opposed to published homebrew. It lost build fun, but I could actually enjoy playing it unlike the chained summoner. So it is more fun for me.

Unchained monk: Ehhhhh the full bab thing helps far less when you can move and flurry in the new action economy. Unchained flurry plus elbow smash is better than chained flurry and has +2 to hit. But a lot of free stuff now cost ki and is optional, the new cool stuff cost tons of ki too. The new action economy fixes SR by keeping it off when you lower it. The nerfed will save also hurts. So all in all unchained summoner is less fun for me than even crb monk. It gets worse with fancy archetypes. A lot of the new monk's best selling points just don't matter in the new action economy.

Note: the revised action economy is more fun and better for the game.


Zhayne wrote:
darth_borehd wrote:

I see Unchained as the Unearthed Arcana of PFRPG.

Something that annoys me is a trend to regard it as "Pathfinder 2.0" instead of just a collection of optional alternatives. Even the PFS now requires the Unchained Summoner instead of the APG version. Unchained classes should always be just big fat archetypes or the "alternate versions" of those classes in the same way that the samurai is the alternate class to the cavalier.

Primarily the reason why I want them to always be seen as such is that I prefer the original versions. Personally, I was underwhelmed by the classes and see them like the "special" editions of the Star Wars trilogy. Han shot first and monks do not have weak will saves. Argh.

Agree? Disagree?

Most of the book, yes. However, I think the classes should definitely be considered rewrites of the originals, and the originals discarded. The summoner got much needed nerfs, the monk and rogue got much-needed buffs, and the Barbarian got much better mechanics (like 'not dying if you get KO'd' and 'rage stacks with everything').

Meh , each person will play the game they want to play , on my table there is a much higher chance of the entire unchained book being trashed than of me changing anything because of it.

While i might consider in case a player directly asks about his PC and his PC alone, like the case of a unchained rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:

I see Unchained as the Unearthed Arcana of PFRPG.

Something that annoys me is a trend to regard it as "Pathfinder 2.0" instead of just a collection of optional alternatives. Even the PFS now requires the Unchained Summoner instead of the APG version.

I dunno whether there's really a trend. It was a popular book when it came out and appearantly a good share of the community considers it important. Personally I really enjoyed reading it, but in my home games I'd allow both the Core and Unchained version. A normal summoner might have to eat some houserules or restrict himself, though.

The regular forum participants and their opinions are not representative for Pathfinder players in general. I'd guess a majority didn't even hear about Unchained yet.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Rhedyn wrote:
Add in superstitious and a barbarian would suicidally refuse healing.

Actually no. A superstitious barbarian doesn't have to make a save against healing magic. Read the spell text, the save is only for undead.


Yes, they do have to save. It gives the option of making a save, so you MUST

Anyway since healing is really bad in pathfinder, the benefits of superstition HEAVILY outweigh the negatives.

Besides, channel positivist energy you don't have to save against, and cure spells are save for half, so you still get healed even if you save. Not a big deal at all.


avr wrote:

The original summoner's 'early' spells came at most one character level early and often later. Memorax mentioned SM VIII as a 6th level spell; well, summoners get 6th level spells from character level 16, wizards & clerics get 8th level spells from character level 15.

The only real oddity was haste at character level 4, and that mainly because at low character levels every one is a big difference. Otherwise the original summoner's spell list was IMO better thought out than the unsummoner's.

There was also the issue of the interaction of those spells with metamagic rods. That opened the door to several shenanigans. The spell nerf is a good thing.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
CWheezy wrote:
Yes, they do have to save. It gives the option of making a save, so you MUST

The option is only available for undead.

Cure Light Wounds wrote:
An undead creature can apply Spell Resistance, and can attempt a Will save to take half damage.
CWheezy wrote:

Anyway since healing is really bad in pathfinder, the benefits of superstition HEAVILY outweigh the negatives.

Besides, channel positivist energy you don't have to save against, and cure spells are save for half, so you still get healed even if you save. Not a big deal at all.

Personally I think this tenet that "healing in combat sucks" is plain silly. And again, see the spell text. Save for half applies only when the spell is used to damage.

However, this has nothing to do with the thread.


Not really, healing in combat generally isn't effective, because most healing spells can't heal you for more damage than you can take in a round, meaning that you've basically gone net negative. Note that the spell "Heal" is an exception, as it is by far the most effective healing available, so going negative with it is almost impossible.

It's better to either kill an opponent, decreasing the amount of damage you take in a round, or apply battlefield control to keep the opponent from effectively doing damage. This is also what plays into caster martial disparity, as enemy units at hull HP are virtually indistinguishable form enemy units at 1 HP, dealing the same damage just as effectively. So it is often more effective to apply battlefield control (like a caster) than it is to apply straight damage (like a martial) when it comes to combat. Even at the point when a Full-attack OHKOs an enemy, a full caster is often able to eliminate/cripple several more enemies in the same round. That's what the issue is all about.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zaister wrote:

The option is only available for undead.

Quote:


(harmless): The spell is usually beneficial, not harmful, but a targeted creature can attempt a saving throw if it desires.

Nope! you gotta know the magic section dude!

Superstitious barbarians must save against cure spells while raging, the end


Personally, I was delighted to see the rogue debilitating strike options; adding some debuff options to the rogue is an absolutely great idea.

However, I was less than impressed with the rogue's finesse ability. It effectively further undermines the non twf finesse rogue builds and provides another example of martials only being allowed to specialise in one or two weapon types. For my current emerald spire game, I allowed the rogue to utilise a mixture of unchained rogue and rogue glory by drop dead studios, which is an awesome product.

On a side note, I personally wish ALL weapons used dex to hit (hand eye coordination and reacting to an opening) and str for damage (speed/power of stab/slash/smash/draw), but that's just my opinion.

I do like the unchained summoner, as I didn't like that eidolons existed as only extensions of their owner and where unlike anything in the multiverse. It feels more now like they are an allied creature with their own place in the world.

Monk, I would have dropped the fort save and kept the will as mind and speed has always seemed more important than hardiness. But I didn't really care about the class anymore, as the brawler now exists and is everything I'd ever wanted in a hand to hand fighter.

The barbarian is really easy now, and doesn't require a second character sheet. It's missing the +2 Fort Save buff that it should have maintained, and the design team really should have had a sidebar about how to officially convert all rages go the new system and to what extent these stack.

However, my favourites so far are the action economy, automatic bonus progression and the limited magic (although with scaling dcs). Makes mages more linear, as weak spells stay weak unless invested in using reagents or metamagic (although I would still probably use spheres of power in any future homebrew campaign).

Sovereign Court

Kaouse wrote:
Not really, healing in combat generally isn't effective, because most healing spells can't heal you for more damage than you can take in a round, meaning that you've basically gone net negative. Note that the spell "Heal" is an exception, as it is by far the most effective healing available, so going negative with it is almost impossible.

In general I totally agree.

However - you can certainly have outlier characters/groups. A channeling healbot - especially an Oracle - can be extremely awesome in a more defensive oriented group. This is because fights with more defensive oriented groups tend to go longer with much less damage taken each round, so there's less damage that they have to replace to be worth the action.

However - from what I've seen my home group is one of the few defensively minded groups who play Pathfinder. Probably because the whole group has to lean that way. One glass cannon and everyone has to shift to higher offense so that character doesn't die horribly. I prefer defensive groups myself - as it makes the combat less swingy, and you avoid the 'rocket tag' that so many complain about.

Dark Archive

Kaouse wrote:

Not really, healing in combat generally isn't effective, because most healing spells can't heal you for more damage than you can take in a round, meaning that you've basically gone net negative. Note that the spell "Heal" is an exception, as it is by far the most effective healing available, so going negative with it is almost impossible.

It's better to either kill an opponent, decreasing the amount of damage you take in a round, or apply battlefield control to keep the opponent from effectively doing damage. This is also what plays into caster martial disparity, as enemy units at hull HP are virtually indistinguishable form enemy units at 1 HP, dealing the same damage just as effectively. So it is often more effective to apply battlefield control (like a caster) than it is to apply straight damage (like a martial) when it comes to combat. Even at the point when a Full-attack OHKOs an enemy, a full caster is often able to eliminate/cripple several more enemies in the same round. That's what the issue is all about.

What you have to remember is that players at real tables are not the omniscient special-agents that message boards make them out to be. Yes, it's better to one-shot or control enemies such that they can't do more damage, but you may end up faced with a foe against which the specific BFC, blast or other measure you've prepared is ineffective. A cure however is useful against any opponent that deals hitpoint damage. It can even, contrary to the wisdom in this thread, be useful against monsters who outdamage the healing it provides - so long as said monster is then forced to need an extra round to bring down your ally. And since both Clerics and Oracles can spontaneously heal, they can convert whatever less-than-useful spell they had prepped into tempo advantage for their side.

And tempo advantage is exactly how it should be considered. Think of Magic the Gathering - healing spells aren't great there either, but healing yourself to buy the winning turn in which your Serra Angel (read: the Fighter) smashes face one last time is useful.

Silver Crusade

FaceInTheSand wrote:
On a side note, I personally wish ALL weapons used dex to hit (hand eye coordination and reacting to an opening) and str for damage (speed/power of stab/slash/smash/draw), but that's just my opinion.

That's just what martials need, more MADness...


Isonaroc wrote:
FaceInTheSand wrote:
On a side note, I personally wish ALL weapons used dex to hit (hand eye coordination and reacting to an opening) and str for damage (speed/power of stab/slash/smash/draw), but that's just my opinion.
That's just what martials need, more MADness...

Yeah seriously. I like the idea of Dex-based accuracy and damage with certain types of weapons, but as an option and not a requirement.


To be honest, to me, the unchained barbarian is in every way superior to the old version, by virtue of versatility of build. Prior iterations it was silly to take anything but a 2handed weapon. With a flat + to hit and damage, you can build to dual wield, or something like a berserking wild elf that builds into slashing grace or something without straining yourself too badly.


CWheezy wrote:
I could probably beat an ap with a synthesist summoner

There's a thread for that.

Never did get a report of success.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Isonaroc wrote:
FaceInTheSand wrote:
On a side note, I personally wish ALL weapons used dex to hit (hand eye coordination and reacting to an opening) and str for damage (speed/power of stab/slash/smash/draw), but that's just my opinion.
That's just what martials need, more MADness...

Yeah, but ideally everyone should be MAD. Like, Cha modifies DCs, Int modifies spells known (no class would be able to know all spells, but its be like "int+2*level" for wizards and clerics and "level + int" for sorcerers and oracles), and Wis modifies number of spell slots - something like that. I'm fed up with the disparity between MAD and SAD classes, and rather than trying to have a "x to y" type feat chain for everything that end up just making SAD casters even more SAD, just make everyone and everything MAD.


HFTyrone wrote:
Isonaroc wrote:
FaceInTheSand wrote:
On a side note, I personally wish ALL weapons used dex to hit (hand eye coordination and reacting to an opening) and str for damage (speed/power of stab/slash/smash/draw), but that's just my opinion.
That's just what martials need, more MADness...
Yeah seriously. I like the idea of Dex-based accuracy and damage with certain types of weapons, but as an option and not a requirement.

For me, its all or nothing. It's weird that there are 4 feat/chains to get dex to damage with increasingly wide ranges of weapons (scimitars, all slashing, all piercing and one handed if certain other conditions are met) and none to get dex to damage with bows, which use dex to attack as standard (I am aware of level 5+ gunslingers and bolt aces allowing crossbow dex to damage). It kind of blurs the line about what stats are supposed to represent (accuracy vs brute force).

Although, again I would totally like everyone and everything to be MAD.

51 to 100 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Anti-Unchained Screed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.