Things I would like to see Unchained.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

As a general thing, the Fighter.

I would like to see Fighting Styles Unchained. I would like to see something besides feats added to the mix. Maybe you need to take a feat to qualify for the particular style, but then you start getting stuff for the style path you started down.

Maybe do away with the Weapon Focus tree altogether. Replace completely with the Weapons Training scheme.

I really like the new spell system from D&D 5e. Revamp Pathfinder into something that makes as much sense. Part of the D&D approach is similar to the OGL material from Unearthed Arcana. Spells with more power/spellpoints/higher level are how you get what is traditionally tied to caster level.

There may be more that come to mind, but not right now.


The fighter needs unchaining (imo) while on the other hand spells could use a vigorous "chaining". Doing that would solve a lot of the ballance issues that plague the game at high levels (again, imo).

As for other things in need of unchaining I think MOST of the prestige classes need it. They don't really seem prestigious at all and 9 times out of 10 you are better off just keeping to your favored class instead of building towards a prestige class. Personally I think such classes should be a tad more powerful compensating the players for building a certain way and losing favored class bonuses.


Link to my latest Unchained Fighter post in another thread.

For spellcasters, I wouldn't want to make huge nerfs, but I would be willing to level-bump some problem spells as well as making better defenses against them more widely available, and I would also be willing to trade some spellcasting power for more other class features (that is what makes the 6/9 spellcasting classes so cool, even if a couple of them messed up a bit in the emplementation).


Unchained cleric that made it varied depending on it's religion (via domains) would be nice plus give it class features and stuff.


xorial wrote:

As a general thing, the Fighter.

I would like to see Fighting Styles Unchained. I would like to see something besides feats added to the mix. Maybe you need to take a feat to qualify for the particular style, but then you start getting stuff for the style path you started down.

So, Combat Tricks?

Quote:
Maybe do away with the Weapon Focus tree altogether. Replace completely with the Weapons Training scheme.

You're free to ban the feat chain from your table, I suppose. Removing such an obvious feat choice will make for a broader range of builds being used. This idea doesn't seem like it would improve the fighter, though.

Quote:

I really like the new spell system from D&D 5e. Revamp Pathfinder into something that makes as much sense. Part of the D&D approach is similar to the OGL material from Unearthed Arcana. Spells with more power/spellpoints/higher level are how you get what is traditionally tied to caster level.

There may be more that come to mind, but not right now.

I am unfamiliar with 5E's spell system, and can't quite parse what you are saying here. Can you give an example?


Milo v3 wrote:
Unchained cleric that made it varied depending on it's religion (via domains) would be nice plus give it class features and stuff.

Can you give an example? Domains already grant class features.


For the Unchained Fighter ideas, I like what Path of War does.


Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Unchained cleric that made it varied depending on it's religion (via domains) would be nice plus give it class features and stuff.
Can you give an example? Domains already grant class features.

I'm not the one you're asking, but Domains only give you a little bit of class features -- for a rebuild of the Cleric (and anything else that uses Domains), I would recommend using Oracle's Mysteries as a template for what Domains and Inquisitions should be like.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I'm not the one you're asking, but Domains only give you a little bit of class features -- for a rebuild of the Cleric (and anything else that uses Domains), I would recommend using Oracle's Mysteries as a template for what Domains and Inquisitions should be like.

I disagree about the inquisitions only because the Inquisitor has a lot of class features already. Really though Clerics do get Channel Positive/Negative which is very potent, but kind of dull.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Can you give an example? Domains already grant class features.

Give each domain a progression of class features, rather than just 2, increase the number of spells associated with each domain, give it a freaking capstone relating to at least one of your domains. Reduce the "you can have any cleric spell ever" and make it so most of your spells per day are from your domains. Let you spontaneously convert spells into your domain spells.

Clerics of different religions shouldn't all be the same except for 2 class features. They need to be more varied, because right now, the cleric is a ridiculously bland class.


I always thought "unchaining" cleric came from him asking his god for some intervention large or small. Granted in most cases, it should benefit the party not just the cleric directly.


I'll cast my vote for cleric as well.

I liked cleric in 3.5, but nobody had great class features back then. Now it feels like all of the new classes have fun features, but cleric is all back of the bus with domains that have two powers, and channel energy dice. Leveling up isn't fun or interesting.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Thanis Kartaleon wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Unchained cleric that made it varied depending on it's religion (via domains) would be nice plus give it class features and stuff.
Can you give an example? Domains already grant class features.

I'm not the one you're asking, but Domains only give you a little bit of class features -- for a rebuild of the Cleric (and anything else that uses Domains), I would recommend using Oracle's Mysteries as a template for what Domains and Inquisitions should be like.

It sounds like what you are looking for is the divine channeler class from The Secrets of Adventuring. (You can also get just the chapter with the divine channeler a smaller and cheaper PDF).

Grand Lodge

Druid and Ninja.

For the Druid, simplify. It is a big draw for new players, but quickly turns into a logistical mess.

For the Ninja, well, you already did the Rogue. Do that.

Also, yes, the Fighter.


Nohwear wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

^I'm not the one you're asking, but Domains only give you a little bit of class features -- for a rebuild of the Cleric (and anything else that uses Domains), I would recommend using Oracle's Mysteries as a template for what Domains and Inquisitions should be like.

I disagree about the inquisitions only because the Inquisitor has a lot of class features already.

The Inquisitor has a lot more class features than the Cleric (before adding a Domain or Inquisition to each), but overall worse spellcasting, so it balances out.

Nohwear wrote:
Really though Clerics do get Channel Positive/Negative which is very potent, but kind of dull.

Agreed on this.

What I'd really like to see for Cleric is a rebuild as 2 classes:

1. Cleric rebuilt on an Inquisitor chassis with some elements of Warpriest: 3/4 BAB, d8, 6/9 spellcasting, and class features every level.

2. Priest similar to Adamant Entertainment's Priest, hybridized with Oracle, ending up with 1/2 BAB, d6, 9/9 spellcasting, and class features sprinkled in every handful of levels by way of Domains and/or Inquisitions that have been improved to work like Oracle Mysteries.

3. Inquisitor and Warpriest become prestige classes that build off #1 above (and likewise, Paladin is replaced by a set of prestige classes that build off martial types and not necessarily either of the above). After all, what religion that isn't foolhardy is going to let some random worshipper off the street become an above-the-law behind-the-scenes enforcer or holy warrior without proving their capabilities and loyalty first?

Of course, this goes beyond Unchained 2 territory and into Pathfinder 2.0 territory . . . .


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Druid

It's called the hunter.

Grand Lodge

Milo v3 wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Druid
It's called the hunter.

Well, then we didn't need the Unchained Rogue, as we had the Slayer.

I think you miss the point.

Sovereign Court

Ninja: update to restore compatibility with unchained rogue. Nothing big here, just "maintenance".

Cleric: a fundamental re-think of "spells known". Currently clerics have a couple of annoying features;
- Clerics of totally different deities have 90% the same powers.
- When a new book comes out clerics suddenly all know new spells.

I'd like to do something more 2nd-Ed-ish, where clerics have Spheres of spells (much like wizard Schools) that fit their deity's portfolio. So clerics of different deities share only a small % of the same spell list.

Also, more class features instead of more raw power; this enables more archetypes. Traditionally wizard and clerics have difficulty with archetypes because they have so few class abilities to trade in and out.

Fighter: I'm not sure if we really should continue bothering with fighters. It might be more expedient to simply make Armor Training available as a Slayer talent.

Sorcerer: make levels 2-3 interesting somehow; currently getting to L4 is a bit of a drag. Grant signature bloodline spells as soon as you learn that level of spells. It's very annoying if a fire sorcerer is better served delaying learning fireball because he's going to get it as a bonus spell at level 7. Your signature spells should be the first spells you get access to.

Also, Diplomacy as a class skill.

Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer: 4+Int skill points. Basically, all classes that don't have Intelligence as a primary stat should get this many skill points. As a side effect you now lose more from dumping Int.


I would like to have an unchained cleric, though only for a bigger variety between deities, not for a bunch of extra class feats (they don't need that).
I'd also like a more generalized Druid and Paladin.

I really don't want an unchained fighter though, the class in it self is fine. The problem is that there's too few good feats: Where Barbarians gets rage and rage powers, Slayers gets studied target and the Rangers gets spells (etc), the Fighter gets another feat. This is fine. But what happens is that all of them gets the best feats. So all the extra feats that the Fighter gets are just the second best feats (as he already picked the best) while the rest gets good class feats instead.
So I'd say that more and better feats and feat chains would benefit the Fighter more, something like the style feats.


The big prob with the cleric was the original design.... it was made too martial. The existing cleric is more like what an inquisitor should be (albeit with reduced spellcasting).

The baseline cleric should be a divine wizard albeit slightly less squishy to reflect his inner faith/strength... light armour only, no shield, small selection of simple weapons.

D8 HD and 3/4 BAB could stay..... but I would reduce spont healing/harming to x/day or for maybe 1-2 types of spell and sort out the mess that is channeling. This then gives you some room for other abilities. I dont see the prob with clerics having access to all spells.

A D6 'priest' class is overwhelmingly needed.

The greatest irony is the fact that the unarmoured, unweaponed robe wearing holy man (ie D6 class) is really easily the most relateable divine class that we have, but the one Paizo refuses to make!!!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Play a Cleric, don't wear armor. Even with few points AC less you're still one of the most powerful classes in the game. I shudder to think what would happen if you take away the not-so-really-op class features of Cleric and instead bump her casting (because what else could you do).


Gorbacz wrote:
Play a Cleric, don't wear armor.

And what would be the point in that?!?!

Class design is all about balance and trade offs..... if you trade off all the clerics armour and dont give anything back, that by the absolute definition is poor class design!

At least with the Ecclesitheurge they gave it a go..... sadly they got the balance wrong, hence why its a poor archetype. Same thing with the Cloistered Cleric.... although that really is dire!

In order to do it properly you have to go D6....


Milo v3 wrote:

Clerics of different religions shouldn't all be the same except for 2 class features. They need to be more varied, because right now, the cleric is a ridiculously bland class.

This is another problem..... there are some domains that have domain spells that the cleric already gets!! LOL

Grand Lodge

Iroran Paladin does that.

Sacred Fist Warpriest does that.

Do wish there was a Cleric archetype that was similar in function.


Gah, had a lot typed out, then the site went on maintenance. Luckily I tend to copy everything I write just for these cases...

First, as others have said, the Cleric. He's bland. You never gain anything new, other than a Domain feature at level 4, 6 or 8, depending on your choice of domain. As suggested, make something that scales with the Cleric or "unlocks" at certain levels, like Oracle Revelations. There aren't any immediate ways to make a fun build out of the class, unless you go with a weird variant channeling.

Maybe the Inquisitor could use some restrictions. It's a good class, but it's got so many abilities it feels like a hodge-podge of leftovers from other classes. I've never met an Inquisitor with a cool flavour to it, they're always just pseudo-Paladins. I posted something similar on Reddit, but I think you could pull the class apart into two different classes: Maybe a full martial like the Paladin, with things like Bane, Judgment, and some support spells, like the Paladin's list. Then there's the trickster type that's more in line with the Rogue: Solo Tactics, Teamwork feats, Cunning Initiative, and current spell progression. If they ever did a second Advanced Class Guide, this would be a great hybrid with the Rogue: similar to the Slayer's Sneak Attack dice, but trades in full-BAB and medium armour for spells and teamwork feats. As of right now, I find it hard to determine whether the Inquisitor wants to be a skill monkey with things like Monster Lore, or a pseudo-hard-hitter like the Paladin.

I feel the Magus could use some toning down. Maybe I'm a bit bitter after seeing an extremely well-built example pretty much tear through Eyes of the Ten, but I think he has too many options available to him.

The Ranger, Fighter and Slayer could use some help, I think. I've played a Slayer to level 8, and he just isn't as exciting, and I'd like to see some more unique things, rather than just mashing Rogue Tricks together with Ranger Combat Styles. Studied Target is just slightly too "meh," in my opinion.
Similarly, Fighters are also on the bland side, and could use some innovation. Not sure how, though. Maybe let him trade bonus feats for pseudo-class abilities from other classes, sort of like how an Occultist gets pseudo-spells with his Focus Powers.
I've never seen the draw of Rangers, personally. Awesome under certain circumstances (in his terrain or versus his enemies), but otherwise a worse Fighter, other than his fighting style. He gets some utility spells at level 4 and a weak animal companion, but they aren't enough to save him. The Hunter did a good job of fixing this, but if you wanted to keep his full-BAB and d10 intact, I'm not sure what to adapt. Removing his spells, but giving a full-powered animal companion would be a step in the right direction, but that might be too much, and doesn't solve his blandness. Maybe a more flexible Favored Enemy/Terrain, or throw that out altogether and find something else.

Maybe not something for Unchained, but I really like how the RPG “Thirteenth Age” handles Bards. They’re not silly people who bring lutes to a battlefield, but they feel more like battlefield commanders and strategists. They don’t have Bardic Performance, but they do have “Battle Cries” that trigger under certain circumstances: when they roll an even, odd, hit, or miss on their attack roll (or a configuration thereof, such as an odd miss, or a 16+, for instance), they can bark a command to another player. They can give others temporary hit points, another save versus an ongoing spell effect, make other people engage to or disengage from an enemy, or give them a boost to their AC. It makes them much more flexible and appealing to me, IMHO. Again, not necessarily something for an Unchained Bard, but maybe something like an expansive archetype (like the Ninja), or a new class altogether.


I suspect this is really getting more into Pathfinder 2.0 territory than unchained,but:

Basically revise the cleric and wizard classes, which are some of the most powerful in the game, but also probably the most boring. Basically tone down the power level of the classes and up the class features, and maybe make them more specialized. I am thinking something like the sphere system for arcane casters, and maybe have the cleric spell list more closely tied with domains.

At the same time, go through the current spells with a fine toothed comb and nerf or remove problematic spells, or adjust their spell level. Close the various loop holes and mitigate the ability of caster classes to obsolete non casting heavy classes, or completely wreck and GM's narrative ability.

Otherwise I would just revamp or expand on some the of the current unchained rules, and maybe tweak fighters. Although I don't know if there tweaks really need to anything major enough to be considered "unchaining"


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd kind of would liked to see Unchained classes themselves be unchained. For something that exclaimed "Within these pages, the designers of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game unleash their wildest ideas, and nothing is safe." none of the classes in the book would have been out of place in any other book. I just don't see anything particular shocking, wild, daring, unusual, or outlandish about any of the unchained classes. Maybe I missed something though.


Scythia wrote:

I'll cast my vote for cleric as well.

I liked cleric in 3.5, but nobody had great class features back then. Now it feels like all of the new classes have fun features, but cleric is all back of the bus with domains that have two powers, and channel energy dice. Leveling up isn't fun or interesting.

This is how I feel about ALL full casters.


Malwing wrote:
Scythia wrote:

I'll cast my vote for cleric as well.

I liked cleric in 3.5, but nobody had great class features back then. Now it feels like all of the new classes have fun features, but cleric is all back of the bus with domains that have two powers, and channel energy dice. Leveling up isn't fun or interesting.

This is how I feel about ALL full casters.

I actually really enjoyed leveling up on my Gravewalker Witch. I admit once I had taken all the revelations I wanted, my Lunar Oracle was less fun to level beyond the spells, which are never a bad thing. I agree with Scythia though that the Cleric is particularly hard up on being interesting in Pathfinder. I've pretty much ignored the class now in favor of Shaman.


Anzyr wrote:
I'd kind of would liked to see Unchained classes themselves be unchained. For something that exclaimed "Within these pages, the designers of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game unleash their wildest ideas, and nothing is safe." none of the classes in the book would have been out of place in any other book. I just don't see anything particular shocking, wild, daring, unusual, or outlandish about any of the unchained classes. Maybe I missed something though.

Well to some extent those classes still have to operate alongside all of the other existing classes, and need to use the same overall rules. and still be recognizable as Rogue, etc. That is going to limit just how far you can unchain something.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Silver Surfer wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Play a Cleric, don't wear armor.
And what would be the point in that?!?!

You're playing your stylistic choice (not-warrior Cleric) while still being a tier1 zomgbbqwtf powerful. Isn't that what you want?

Or perhaps what you want is a Cleric that gets cool toys for not being able to wear armor and swing a mace. Well, problem is, Clerics are tier 1 universe-bending full spellcasters with a crazy (if somewhat less wacky than arcane casters) spell list. The whole breastplate and weapon thing is icing and gravy over their core class feature.

Silver Surfer wrote:

Class design is all about balance and trade offs..... if you trade off all the clerics armour and dont give anything back, that by the absolute definition is poor class design!

Honestly, no armour is a tiny tradeoff when you can blow up reality at mid levels. That's like ... making a Wizard archetype that can't use ranged weapons. Yeah, maybe, you could give it +2 to two skills and 3/days of some misc spell-like ability and that would be a solid tradeoff. Because as it stands, Clerics are so powerful that you need to be REALLY careful about what toys you give them above and beyond full caster + auto knowledge of an ever-expanding spell list.


Unchained Sorcerer, Samurai, Cleric, Swashbuckler, Bard, and Fighter.


Anzyr wrote:
Malwing wrote:
Scythia wrote:

I'll cast my vote for cleric as well.

I liked cleric in 3.5, but nobody had great class features back then. Now it feels like all of the new classes have fun features, but cleric is all back of the bus with domains that have two powers, and channel energy dice. Leveling up isn't fun or interesting.

This is how I feel about ALL full casters.
I actually really enjoyed leveling up on my Gravewalker Witch. I admit once I had taken all the revelations I wanted, my Lunar Oracle was less fun to level beyond the spells, which are never a bad thing. I agree with Scythia though that the Cleric is particularly hard up on being interesting in Pathfinder. I've pretty much ignored the class now in favor of Shaman.

Looking at the whole picture, I feel bored with full casters most of the time but cleric has a special place in my heart for feeling like blank space. The first domain power is often my most forgotten one, I really think domain spells should be spontaneously cast instead of cures as a default because how it is right now makes it feel like domain spells don't matter that much. The rest just feels bland. when I do go for a full divine caster I usually go straight for Oracle because mystery powers are so much more interesting. I'll have at least every other level to look forward to.


Gorbacz wrote:


You're playing your stylistic choice (not-warrior Cleric) while still being a tier1 zomgbbqwtf powerful. Isn't that what you want?

But here in lies the problem..... the cleric as it stands is not well suited to be a "pseudo-D6" caster....its spell list, abilities and profile entails it getting in the mix.... Hence the armour!! This is reinforced by its lack of feats.

"Lack of armour doth not a D6 caster make!"

The classic example is the Ecclesitheurge..... a hopelessly confused archetype. Cant be like a cleric but cant do the job of a D6 caster either.

Gorbacz wrote:


Honestly, no armour is a tiny tradeoff when you can blow up reality at mid levels.

No, no and no!! AC is always useful..... in one way or another all classes try and get theirs up the best they can. When you have archers able to shoot arrows for 80-100 hp at the higher levels.... its a must!


Malwing wrote:


Looking at the whole picture, I feel bored with full casters most of the time but cleric has a special place in my heart

Its a bit tragic really.... it was one of the original 3... it should NEVER be forgotten! :))

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Silver Surfer wrote:
No, no and no!! AC is always useful..... in one way or another all classes try and get theirs up the best they can. When you have archers able to shoot arrows for 80-100 hp at the higher levels.... its a must!

Useful. Not required. When you can heal yourself, cast entropic shield to gain miss chance, and plenty of other options, you don't need any other compensation for wanting to be an armor-less cleric.


The skill system in Unchained looked like fun.

I'd have liked to see this:

Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer: 4+Int skill points.

...offered, as an easy upgrade to existing/ongoing systems.


TriOmegaZero wrote:


Useful. Not required. When you can heal yourself, cast entropic shield to gain miss chance, and plenty of other options, you don't need any other compensation for wanting to be an armor-less cleric.

Noooo..... high AC has one exceptional advantage - unbeatable action economy.

Yes I could cast...w,x,y and z to get mine up but then as a cleric pretending to be a D6 caster that completely defeats the purpose! I've just spent 4 rounds!

It really is basic common sense I'm afraid.... like I said, when you ignore the fundamentals of class design and trade offs, bad things happen.

D6 divine is the way forward

Shadow Lodge

I can no longer understand the word salad that is your post. Good day sir.


TOZ wrote:
I can no longer understand the word salad that is your post. Good day sir.

Likewise good sir.


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

Hmm, I've said this before, but what I'd like to see unchained would be...

Weapon Unlocks: Like Skill Unlocks, but for weapon groups, granting you new techniques to use in battle at +5, +10, +15, and +20 BAB with each weapon category as a feat, fighter gets them early and for free when they choose Weapon Training. Things like shattering the ground with an earthbreaker to create an area of difficult terrain, ignore a target's natural armor or armor bonus to AC with a single strike of your rapier, reduce someone's armor or natural armor bonus to AC with a devastating blow of your greatsword, and so on and so forth. Special stunts or techniques. Honestly, I would prefer a unique set for each weapon, just to make things beyond crit range and damage worth considering when looking at weapons, but that might be a bit much to expect.

Pathfinder Unarmored: Basically, an alternate ruleset for playing in a game where you want the difference between being armored and unarmored to be your character's style, not actual efficacy. Right now, unless your class prevents you in some way from wearing armor, or you have some very particular build in mind, it's just dumb to not wear armor. Which, yeah, is certainly realistic, but sometimes I want my bare-chested half-orc viking, dammit. Without having to be a monk or a caster. I've pondered something along the lines of having your Constitution be an armor bonus to AC and getting a scaling bonus tied to your BAB or something along those lines...but I don't know. It's definitely something I'd like to see. It also works well for more primitive games or games set in exotic locales where armor isn't supposed to be as present, or mostly as hide armor, which is flavorful, but also acts as a nerf to the PCs who aren't arcane casters...

Combat Maneuvers Unchained: CMDs are too high for many monsters, requires too many feats to pull off, and then if it wasn't enough that larger monsters not only get a size bonus to their CMD and a large bonus to Strength (which seems unnecessary since bigger things can lift more even at the same Strength), some combat maneuvers are just completely impossible against them unless you're just as big. Additionally, I think you should totally be able to 'trip' flying enemies, basically forcing them to make a Fly check or start falling. It's still targeting the limbs supporting them above the ground, so same general principle.

Crossbows and Guns, Safeties Off: Yeah, I think they should consider reworking them. Crossbows and guns both get no bonus to damage (barring special class features), are way too slow to reload, and so on and so forth. And why is it you can get compound bows with a more powerful draw, but not crossbows? And, of course, guns treating attacks as touch attacks within a certain distance seems to cause a lot of people problems.

Proficiencies Unbound: I think the current weapon proficiency system has a number of problems...mostly that some weapons are exotic just for being 'foreign', while others are exotic because they're oddball weapons, but ultimately not weapons usually worth spending a feat on, and some actually are. Furthermore, I think it's pretty ludicrous that using a quarterstaff as a double weapon is considered simpler than using a shortsword. One idea I've considered is similar to the weapon unlock system, where most weapons can be used as simple weapons, but don't gain all their advantages - for example, a quarterstaff could be used as a two-handed weapon, but not a double weapon - with more abilities being unlocked with martial weapon proficiency, and even more abilities being unlocked with exotic/superior weapon proficiency; rather than allowing you to use exotic weapons, it allows you to use a weapon in exotic ways. I'm sure there are other possibilities too, even the possibility of a radical redesign of how weapons work...

Feats Unbound: An alternative feat system primarily designed to chop down the labyrinthine feat trees. Possibly a system that provides fewer feats, but ones that scale or upgrade themselves into better versions, or ones with less stringent prerequisites, and possibly many of them made into abilities that don't require a feat to perform, but rather an ability that anyone (or perhaps anyone who meets the feat prerequisites) can pull off.

Spell Lists Unbound/Bound: An alternative spell system where spell lists are less restrictive in some ways, yet more so in other ways. Rather than a default spell list, I envision several lists of connected spells that a caster chooses to be on their list. Rather than cherry-picking the best spells, casters choose categories, possibly even branching categories that require other categories beforehand, each containing thematically linked spells representing the caster's research or further insight into their god's abilities or further understanding of the power in their blood or whatnot.


Casters should be made much squishier..... it makes sense that if a lump of muscle hits with a 2H broadsword on some old bloke in robes then he is at worst dead in one go or at the best significantly hindered in casting.

There should not be as many ways magic wise to boost AC....


Yet you're the one complaining that casters should get perks for giving up armour? Be consistent.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Unchained Paladin, with options and codes for all 3 good alignments.

Unchained Antipaladin, with stuff for all 3 evil alignments.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
I'd kind of would liked to see Unchained classes themselves be unchained. For something that exclaimed "Within these pages, the designers of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game unleash their wildest ideas, and nothing is safe." none of the classes in the book would have been out of place in any other book. I just don't see anything particular shocking, wild, daring, unusual, or outlandish about any of the unchained classes. Maybe I missed something though.
Well to some extent those classes still have to operate alongside all of the other existing classes, and need to use the same overall rules. and still be recognizable as Rogue, etc. That is going to limit just how far you can unchain something.

So then what are they being "unchained" from?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luthorne wrote:

Hmm, I've said this before, but what I'd like to see unchained would be...

Weapon Unlocks: Like Skill Unlocks, but for weapon groups, {. . .}

Integrate this with your Proficiences Unbound section later.

Luthorne wrote:
Pathfinder Unarmored: Basically, an alternate ruleset for playing in a game where you want the difference between being armored and unarmored to be your character's style, not actual efficacy. Right now, unless your class prevents you in some way from wearing armor, or you have some very particular build in mind, it's just dumb to not wear armor. Which, yeah, is certainly realistic, but sometimes I want my bare-chested half-orc viking, dammit. {. . .}

You can sort of get this with a really high Dex character (where armor restricts your maneuverability too much even if you are proficient in it), although arguably it might not be enough.

Luthorne wrote:
Combat Maneuvers Unchained: CMDs are too high for many monsters, requires too many feats to pull off, and then if it wasn't enough that larger monsters not only get a size bonus to their CMD and a large bonus to Strength {. . .} Additionally, I think you should totally be able to 'trip' flying enemies, basically forcing them to make a Fly check or start falling. It's still targeting the limbs supporting them above the ground, so same general principle.

Agreed, although calling what you do to flying creatures "tripping" might confuse some people. Sure, you ought to be able to snag creatures that are dependent upon wings for flying. (For those that don't depend upon that, you might not be able to sanag them, but you should still be able to Reposition them.)

Luthorne wrote:
Proficiencies Unbound: I think the current weapon proficiency system has a number of problems...mostly that some weapons are exotic just for being 'foreign', while others are exotic because they're oddball weapons, but ultimately not weapons usually worth spending a feat on, and some actually are. Furthermore, I think it's pretty ludicrous that using a quarterstaff as a double weapon is considered simpler than using a shortsword. One idea I've considered is similar to the weapon unlock system, where most weapons can be used as simple weapons, but don't gain all their advantages - for example, a quarterstaff could be used as a two-handed weapon, but not a double weapon - with more abilities being unlocked with martial weapon proficiency, and even more abilities being unlocked with exotic/superior weapon proficiency; rather than allowing you to use exotic weapons, it allows you to use a weapon in exotic ways. I'm sure there are other possibilities too, even the possibility of a radical redesign of how weapons work...

Been toying with the idea of this myself, but some weapons have a minimum level of proficiency before you can have basic proficiency with them. So Simple Weapons have minimum proficiency 1, and classes that give Simple Weapon Proficiency give proficiency 1 with these weapons (or in the case of something like Wizard, with a subset of them). Martial Weapons have minimum proficiency 2, and classes that give Martial Weapon proficiency give proficiency 2 with these weapons. Exotic Weapons have higher minimum proficiencies; classes and races that give proficiency in these weapons or treat them as Martial Weapons award discounts on proficiency with these weapons. This should really be expanded to regional differences -- the concept exists in rudimentary form for Elves and Half-Orcs that can have alternate weapon proficiency/familiarity racial traits, but seems to have been completely ignored for Humans, who have many different nationalities and martial traditions in nations that are predominantly Human.

Luthorne wrote:
Feats Unbound: An alternative feat system primarily designed to chop down the labyrinthine feat trees. Possibly a system that provides fewer feats, but ones that scale or upgrade themselves into better versions, or ones with less stringent prerequisites, and possibly many of them made into abilities that don't require a feat to perform, but rather an ability that anyone (or perhaps anyone who meets the feat prerequisites) can pull off.

I had the idea above to work this into the Fighter class description. Arguably, this is needed to some extent for other classes, but then the Fighter should get this even more.

Luthorne wrote:
Spell Lists Unbound/Bound: An alternative spell system where spell lists are less restrictive in some ways, yet more so in other ways. Rather than a default spell list, I envision several lists of connected spells that a caster chooses to be on their list. Rather than cherry-picking the best spells, casters choose categories, possibly even branching categories that require other categories beforehand, each containing thematically linked spells representing the caster's research or further insight into their god's abilities or further understanding of the power in their blood or whatnot.

I had a related idea: Prune the spell lists to Core Arcane, Core Divine (might also need a Core Nature), and Core Psychic, and then add specialty spell lists that classes could pick up, in some cases choosing between several of these. Spells would also get specialty benefits, that you can access only if you are a specialist in those spells, which you can get by school specialization (such as that of Wizard arcane schools) or by getting the spells added to your spell list when they are already on your spell list, usually when a Bloodline, Domain, Mystery, or Patron gives you spells that are already on your spell list. Spells also have a default level set according to the Core Arcane/Divine/Psychic/whatever list that is the ruling level for the purposes of magic item creation cost/time, etc., even if you get early access to the spells (no more Summoner cheap Haste shenanigans, etc.), and this ruling level also applies to getting specialist benefits (if you get early access to a spell, you have to cast it at the higher level to get the specialist benefits, but on the other hand, if you get it late access, you get even better specialist benefits). Also, Bloodlines, Domains, Mysteries, and Patrons would not give just one spell of each level, but several (including Cantrips/Orisons/Knacks), but with the aforementioned specialty benefits, getting bonus spells that are already on your list would not be a cruel joke, but could actually be a good thing.


Mostly i ignore unchained completely for what they did to the summoner and at most at my table you may ask for a unchained rogue , that is about it.

With that said , i will second that i would like to see a unchained bard.

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Things I would like to see Unchained. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.