Anti-Unchained Screed


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

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?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Unsummoners are definitely nerfed, and I can see the arguments pro and con for unmonk and unbarbarian. But unrogue? Purely better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unchained Summoners are required in PFS because they're more balanced. Finally a summoner sitting down to a PFS table doesn't give the GM an impending sense that this session is just going to suck.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Disagree, if I had my druthers I would see unchained rogue replace rogue in the next reprinting of core. I'm happier to watch Pathfinder evolve and replace certain elements piecewise then a whole sale reversioning of the game. Pathfinder tweaked 3.5 because people still liked the fundamental product, continuing in that vein is okay by me.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:
Unchained Summoners are required in PFS because they're more balanced. Finally a summoner sitting down to a PFS table doesn't give the GM an impending sense that this session is just going to suck.

Bah! It's a bunch of FUD.

Summoners are not unbalanced. People imagine all kinds of specialized scenarios and picture a summoner or "druidzilla" or RAGEPOUNCE barbarian or whatever class winning more often than not. In actual play, it never works out. There's just too many variables you don't take into account. No class can go through an adventure path without the rest of the party.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't even own Unchained :-)

Don't plan on getting it any time soon either.


darth_borehd wrote:
I see Unchained as the Unearthed Arcana of PFRPG.

Does this mean there's finally a Pathfinder version of aspect of nature?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, the summoner as a whole isn't unbalanced compared to things like what a wizard can do (though maybe a few evolutions were too cheap, like Pounce). The original summoner's problem was that it was too easy to optimize, to the point where a player almost had to deliberately choose not make their eidolon into a massive murder-machine. Thus, you wound up with lots of optimized summoners in groups/tables that were used to fairly unoptimized gameplay.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Kind of an interesting side-effect of the "unsummoner" being the only one allowed in PFS is that you are required to buy this book in some format then. Hmm...

At any rate - this whole thing is one reason why I don't do organized play at all. I'd rather folks played what they wanted (within the confines of what my game world allows) than have things be nerfed/buffed/removed/errata'd into oblivion.


darth_borehd wrote:


Bah! It's a bunch of FUD.

Summoners are not unbalanced. People imagine all kinds of specialized scenarios and picture a summoner or "druidzilla" or RAGEPOUNCE barbarian or whatever class winning more often than not. In actual play, it never works out. There's just too many variables you don't take into account. No class can go through an adventure path without the rest of the party.

I didn't say the summoner could make it through an adventure solo. But, as a PFS GM and having many, many PFS GM friends, let me tell you summoner is high on the list of groan inducing conversation when it comes to it. Few things are more annoying then the many-limbed murder-machine flying pounce eidolon.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
darth_borehd wrote:
Redjack_rose wrote:
Unchained Summoners are required in PFS because they're more balanced. Finally a summoner sitting down to a PFS table doesn't give the GM an impending sense that this session is just going to suck.

Bah! It's a bunch of FUD.

Summoners are not unbalanced. People imagine all kinds of specialized scenarios and picture a summoner or "druidzilla" or RAGEPOUNCE barbarian or whatever class winning more often than not. In actual play, it never works out. There's just too many variables you don't take into account. No class can go through an adventure path without the rest of the party.

It's required in PFS because PFS is a different animal than an Adventure Path. I trust the campaign leadership when they believed it to be an actual problem. If you're playing an AP at home, no one can make you do anything. Use the old summoner. Do what you like.

And in the context of Organized Play,a perceived problem is almost the same as a real problem. If you have a swath of players, or worse of GMs, who cringe when they come to the table with a particular class (summoner, gunslinger, necromancer, whatever) the fact is they're having less fun, even if there isn't a 'good' reason for it. That can drive down attendance (or, if the problem is GMs, fewer tables for the players who DO show up.)

Sovereign Court

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.

Liberty's Edge

darth_borehd wrote:
No class can go through an adventure path without the rest of the party.

My arcanist who finished Kingmaker and my wizard who finished Giantslayer would both disagree.

Haven't tried a summoner, yet, although the arcanist was the occultist archetype and therefore heavily reliant on his ability to standard-action summon, much like a summoner. I imagine a summoner would have an easier time at low levels and a much more difficult time at higher levels.

Liberty's Edge

I also suggest that PFS also ban the Conjuration school of Magic. As well as Augment Summoning. And Elementsls off Summon Monster list. A Conjurers who specializes in calling Elememtals to me at least can be just as distriptive as the old summoner.


I could probably beat an ap with a synthesist summoner

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I also suggest that PFS also ban the Conjuration school of Magic. As well as Augment Summoning. And Elementsls off Summon Monster list. A Conjurers who specializes in calling Elememtals to me at least can be just as distriptive as the old summoner.

I'm not sure that being disruptive was the largest problem. I think it was the difficulty of auditing an arbitrarily complex eidolon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I agree that the summoner nerf was unwelcome in my home games, yet being home games it isn't an issue when I GM.

The unchained monk and barbarian are neither more or less powerful, so I do see them as archtypes. I don't know how PFS handles those two class variants.

The unchained rogue is a much needed improvement. Please note that it only lists the rogue talents that were upgraded. The other rogue talents still exist and can be chosen, they just did not need the upgrade. It does raise the question about the ninja (for my home games I just give the ninja similar skill unlocks and access to the upgraded rogue talents if they were available to the ninja).

I can see the reason why PFS banned the APG summoner. It wasn't for balance, it was because too many joke eidolons were made, and ruined it for everyone. By the book, flying spaghetti monsters and monkeys with four butts and 8 arms could be made. unchained summoner was the pendulum swinging in the other direction.

I would have far preferred new options for the summoner, such as scalable eidolon creation (an eidolon for a 15 point buy PC campaign should be weaker than an eidolon in a 25 point stat array PC campaign). I would also like to see new evolutions for skillmonkey or social graces in an eidolon, allowing eidolons to be made for things other than combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
memorax wrote:
I also suggest that PFS also ban the Conjuration school of Magic. As well as Augment Summoning. And Elementsls off Summon Monster list. A Conjurers who specializes in calling Elememtals to me at least can be just as distriptive as the old summoner.

-Sigh-

Look, a Conjuration Wizard with elementals and augmented summons sat at the table.

Wizard; ''I cast summoner monster... it will go off next round''
GM; ''The enemy hits you for 20 pts of damage. Make a concentration check.''
Wizard; ''Sad face...''

Summoner sits down at the table.
Summoner; ''Oh crap, they killed my Eidolon. I summon elementals. Then they pound whatever enemy withstood my pouncing murder-machine into the floor.''
GM; ''They have some loot... yay...''


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dont even consider unchained summoner to exist , it is like bad mistake or a print error to me that i can only laugh when someone suggests, nothing more.

I go with the original.

RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

Redjack_rose wrote:
memorax wrote:
I also suggest that PFS also ban the Conjuration school of Magic. As well as Augment Summoning. And Elementsls off Summon Monster list. A Conjurers who specializes in calling Elememtals to me at least can be just as distriptive as the old summoner.

-Sigh-

Look, a Conjuration Wizard with elementals and augmented summons sat at the table.

Wizard; ''I cast summoner monster... it will go off next round''
GM; ''The enemy hits you for 20 pts of damage. Make a concentration check.''
Wizard; ''Sad face...''

Summoner sits down at the table.
Summoner; ''Oh crap, they killed my Eidolon. I summon elementals. Then they pound whatever enemy withstood my pouncing murder-machine into the floor.''
GM; ''They have some loot... yay...''

You say pouncing murder-machine like it's a bad thing.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Redjack_rose wrote:
memorax wrote:
I also suggest that PFS also ban the Conjuration school of Magic. As well as Augment Summoning. And Elementsls off Summon Monster list. A Conjurers who specializes in calling Elememtals to me at least can be just as distriptive as the old summoner.

-Sigh-

Look, a Conjuration Wizard with elementals and augmented summons sat at the table.

Wizard; ''I cast summoner monster... it will go off next round''
GM; ''The enemy hits you for 20 pts of damage. Make a concentration check.''
Wizard; ''Sad face...''

Summoner sits down at the table.
Summoner; ''Oh crap, they killed my Eidolon. I summon elementals. Then they pound whatever enemy withstood my pouncing murder-machine into the floor.''
GM; ''They have some loot... yay...''

Umm, the Summoner's "summon monster" ability is "spell-like" so it is also subject to concentration checks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:

Umm, the Summoner's "summon monster" ability is "spell-like" so it is also subject to concentration checks.

It's also a standard action, not a round cast. It also takes up none of the summoner's spell slots.


The UnSummoner is a straight nerf. That can't really be argued. Just as the UnRogue was a straight buff.

The UnBarbarian is a vast lowering of the skill ceiling and a slight raising of the skill floor, which definitely counts as a nerf (no two ways about it, the lack of Spell Sunder alone would qualify, and for people who could Rage cycle, the benefits of Temp HP are useless).

The UnMonk I would actually say got buffed, since it can now act as a front line class with Full BAB, Extra attacks, Psuedo-Pounce, and a great number of other great abilities. It's only issue now is that everything costs way too much Ki, and the Monk's Will save went from amazing to just decent (he's still a WIS based class people, come on). He also lost a few passive defenses, but I really think the offensive additions more than make up the difference.

Liberty's Edge

Meh, Acadamae Graduate and Sacred Summons do a lot to invalidate the summoner's specialness. Combine it with Summon Good/Neutral/Evil Monster, and Clerics and Arcane classes become really good at summoning, without being as tied to the concept as the summoner.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaouse wrote:
The UnSummoner is a straight nerf. That can't really be argued.

Actually, they kind of nerfed the wrong thing.

  • The change of Pounce to a three point evolution was a needed change.
    However,
  • The eidolon was not broken (aside from above).
  • The spell list didn't really need the nerf it got.

    What they did not nerf was that "Summon Monster" ability - This is what was really broken. 1/minute per level PLUS a standard action is a bit too good.

  • Sovereign Court

    Lord Fyre wrote:
    Kaouse wrote:
    The UnSummoner is a straight nerf. That can't really be argued.

    Actually, they kind of nerfed the wrong thing.

  • The change of Pounce to a three point evolution was a needed change.
    However,
  • The eidolon was not broken (aside from above).
  • The spell list didn't really need the nerf it got.

    What they did not nerf was that "Summon Monster" ability - This is what was really broken. 1/minute per level PLUS a standard action is a bit too good.

  • The spell list was changed because it gave them access to high level spells before even a Wizard would have them, especially strange, off-theme ones like Dominate Monster.

    Additionally, players with little shame would buy spell items off their list for massively reduced prices.

    Liberty's Edge

    Well when a class is called Summoner. I sure as hell want to be more than just a Conjurer with the serial numbers filed off. So I don't see anything wrong with Summoner's "summon monster" ability taking a standard action instead of a round cast. Nor taking up a Summoner spells slot. If my area of expertise is summoning creatures well it should be easier not like everyone else ability. Otherwise beyond the Eidolon I see no reason to take the class over a Conjurer. While I'm at it ban extend spell from PFS as well because my Conjurer is also going to probably wanting to keep his elementals around longer.

    I'm not saying the class is without it's flaws. Summon Monster VIII at 6th level. Is powerful but then again works with a class specializing in Summoning. Give me a better reason then "it's broken because it's too good at summoning" My response is always going to be "well it's supposed to be"


    I feel like Unchained was a mixed bag, but the Unchained Rogue and Monk more than made up for it in my opinion. The unchained monk especially keeps me hopeful for further improvements to otherwise "underpowered" (read: absolutely abysmal) classes.

    I'm personally hoping for a Gunslinger Unchained, where someone finally realizes guns are a huge pain in the keister to use and that mandatory feat taxes are the devil.

    Liberty's Edge

    Yar I agree, personally my biggest interest with the class is the Summoning Ability. I dislike the Eidolon. Anytime I sit down to make a Summoner I inevitably end up going for the Master Summoner just so I can drop the Eidolon without feeling like I'm giving up a huge part of my class features.

    Though since most people tend to dislike Master Summoner I usually just try for an Occultist Arcanist or something similar.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Looking ore at it... I am glad they made the Spiritualist... so I dont have to deal qith the Unchained Summoner.


    ... You'd rather something that has very little, if any customization, then deal with... a nerfed summoner?


    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.


    Redjack_rose wrote:
    ... You'd rather something that has very little, if any customization, then deal with... a nerfed summoner?

    I just like the flavor for the Spiritualist and the cool incorporalness.

    And I love Dragon Age it it makes for some cool Demons ala DA. That anf I like the psychic magic. Psy is nifty to me


    That definitely seems cool. I just wouldn't equate the Spiritualist to the Summoner. Two separate beasts.


    HFTyrone wrote:
    I feel like Unchained was a mixed bag, but the Unchained Rogue and Monk more than made up for it in my opinion. The unchained monk especially keeps me hopeful for further improvements to otherwise "underpowered" (read: absolutely abysmal) classes.

    Unchained monk is only better than like, a core + apg(non zen archer) monk.

    It is way worse than archetyped monks

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    The only reason at least to me that we even received unchained was because of 5E. Up until then the unwritten and unspoken rule that nothing was wrong with the game. Along comes the announcement of 5E suddenly along comes the same for PF Unchained. To make matters worse while it offers new material it's anything but unchained to me. The Monk is slightly better. The Summoner a nerf. The Fighter I kind of like but nothing spectacular either. Only the rogue was the real winner. Usually when I see new material from Paizo I don't feel like they think outside of the box. Firmly inside of it IMO. Unchained was them almost going out of their comfort zone. Almost. Otherwise I still maintain it was a counter to 5e. Mind you I like the new action economy and skill system. Mostly everything else a very solid meh on my part.

    I can't blame people for going elsewhere if they don't like the new Summoner. Why should anyone have to put up with a class that IMO is less useful and flavourful then before. I don't play fighters anymore. I don't like most of the archetypes. Their nothing wrong with that either it's a personal preference.

    Liberty's Edge

    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.

    That's my problem with complaints about the class. They see something they don't like but not the context. By the time a Summoner gets Summon Monster VII. It's high level and every other caster class is doing the same. It's not like Summoner got that big of a boost compared to others. Haste was a little early. That's about it. I still think some in the hobby expected a Conjurer with the serial numbers filed off. If I wanted to okay that I would make that. Not interested in a rehash arcane class.


    I think that the problem with the class is that it pretty much forces you into what is a fairly optimized build. The summoner's spell list is basically buffs, battlefield control and a smattering of power options from all over the place. The Eidolon is crappy at basically everything other than being a highly mobile pouncing ball of teeth and claws. Shockingly enough, when a new player comes along tries out the summoner they tend to stumble upon game breaking power and an excellent spell selection by accident, because that's just about all the class is good for (full casters at least require some effort to snap the game in two).


    Redjack_rose wrote:
    That definitely seems cool. I just wouldn't equate the Spiritualist to the Summoner. Two separate beasts.

    Eh, they're not as different as all that. The spiritualist is sort of like a summoner who foregoes summoning monsters for a more varied spell list and a cooler (at least at low levels) eidolon. I especially like the incorporeal state, allowing my level 1 phantom to float through enemies in no real danger-- at least, until the enemy boss cast spiritual weapon and killed it. Sigh.


    The problem with the early spells was haste at character level 4. Also, it was getting all the good spells off of the 9 level caster lists at almost the same levels as the 9 level casters, but it as allegedly a 6 level caster.


    Knight Magenta wrote:
    The problem with the early spells was haste at character level 4. Also, it was getting all the good spells off of the 9 level caster lists at almost the same levels as the 9 level casters, but it as allegedly a 6 level caster.

    The thing to keep in mind, though, is that getting spells at a lower level isn't always a good thing. Sure, if you're a summoner it's nice to get dominate monster at all (normally a 9th level spell, which you have none of) and especially nice that you get it a whole level earlier than the wizard does. But bear in mind that because it's a 6th level spell for you, the save DC (assuming a +5 to your casting stat, though of course by level 16 it's probably higher) is 21. The wizard, when he gets it, casts the same spell with the same casting modifier at a save DC of 24-- and with a spell for which the save is all that matters, casting it at a -3 DC hurts.

    Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    One of the major problems people have with the original summoner spell list is the early spell level access allows oddities with magic items that have maximum spell levels - potions and wands. Summoner allows potions of things like stoneskin and wands of things like teleport. Those interactions were almost certainly unanticipated.

    Potions, especially, are very cheap and could allow PCs access to effects they were never supposed to have at level 2-3.


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

    Early spell access is more of an issue for buffing spells like Haste, for which the spell level is irrelevant because the intended targets usually have no reason to want to save against it.

    RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    David knott 242 wrote:

    Early spell access is more of an issue for buffing spells like Haste, for which the spell level is irrelevant because the intended targets usually have no reason to want to save against it.

    But then the summoner can take "Craft Wand" and make those Spell Level 4 spells (at least on his list) available to everybody. :)

    This is essentially what ryric just said.


    CWheezy wrote:
    HFTyrone wrote:
    I feel like Unchained was a mixed bag, but the Unchained Rogue and Monk more than made up for it in my opinion. The unchained monk especially keeps me hopeful for further improvements to otherwise "underpowered" (read: absolutely abysmal) classes.

    Unchained monk is only better than like, a core + apg(non zen archer) monk.

    It is way worse than archetyped monks

    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.


    HFTyrone wrote:
    CWheezy wrote:
    HFTyrone wrote:
    I feel like Unchained was a mixed bag, but the Unchained Rogue and Monk more than made up for it in my opinion. The unchained monk especially keeps me hopeful for further improvements to otherwise "underpowered" (read: absolutely abysmal) classes.

    Unchained monk is only better than like, a core + apg(non zen archer) monk.

    It is way worse than archetyped monks

    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.

    And worse Ki issues.

    Also the Monk.of the Seven winds is pretty good for mobile combat.

    Liberty's Edge

    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. A summoner should not or ever be a reskinned Conjurer. Wizards still have more variety. It's not as if other arcane casters don;t have access to craft wands. I think that's the main issue omo. If the Summoner would have had the regular nine levels of casting as a Wizard their would probably no complaints imo. Or not as many. Then why bother taking it. Beyond the Eidolon nothing makes it really stand out that much next to a conjurer with the right feats and spell selection.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    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.


    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

    1 to 50 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.