A whole book of "unchained" classes


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since fighter thread #42,168 there seems to be a lot of consensus that a large number of classes have been designed under different paradigms since the release of the CRB.

We've seen the rogue, monk, and barbarian get the treatment, but many people want to see the fighter get a remake in the same vein, as well as things like paladins of any deity (like a pseudo-cleric that still isn't a warpriest, idk I'm not they); clerics that get d6 HD, 1/2 BAB, and focus on spellcasting; plus plenty of other mechanical niches that have yet to be filled.

There are also other simple class rebuilds from the previous edition that don't exist, like the battle sorcerer (medium BAB, can wear medium armor, less spells per day), and prestige class variants of the ranger and paladin.

Is there any chance Paizo would be interested in another release akin to Unchained that would give us these options, and possibly new ones?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

well the unchained classes are really only a minor part of the book. For another unchained book...they would need a whole lot of other optional stuff. If it's just classes, I don't see it as likely.


I dont like unchained stuff much myself , but i do admit i would like to see a unchained bard , just to see what it can do , while i also like the current one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly... They would more likely overnerf poweerful classes and nerf martial classes than do them any good. Stealth-nerf Barbarian and Overnerf Summoner is enough for me.


Just pick up or Paizo can print the Talented classes. That would do the trick.


Lemmy wrote:
Honestly... They would more likely overnerf poweerful classes and nerf martial classes than do them any good. Stealth-nerf Barbarian and Overnerf Summoner is enough for me.

Short of going back to its 3.5 version, it's possible to nerf the Fighter?


Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Honestly... They would more likely overnerf poweerful classes and nerf martial classes than do them any good. Stealth-nerf Barbarian and Overnerf Summoner is enough for me.
Short of going back to its 3.5 version, it's possible to nerf the Fighter?

Where there's a will there's a way, have you seen this recent archetype?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I would like a book of unchained classes such as samurai, ninja, sorcerer, bard, cleric, etc. Also some of the NPC classes because I would like to see an expert class that is actually good at it's chosen field of interest.

Also "Monsters unchained" would be cool as well.


sunderedhero wrote:
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Honestly... They would more likely overnerf poweerful classes and nerf martial classes than do them any good. Stealth-nerf Barbarian and Overnerf Summoner is enough for me.
Short of going back to its 3.5 version, it's possible to nerf the Fighter?
Where there's a will there's a way, have you seen this recent archetype?

...

This archetype is so g+&~!@n awful I wonder why anyone would bother to even create it... But publishing it? Holy s+!#! That takes guts!


I think that archetype is meant to NPCs really , not players.

With this said , even then i think it lacks real flavor.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

At least they gave him 4+int skill points. Though we could just keep asking for an unchained fighter that gets that many skill points and perception as a class skill;)


sunderedhero wrote:
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Honestly... They would more likely overnerf poweerful classes and nerf martial classes than do them any good. Stealth-nerf Barbarian and Overnerf Summoner is enough for me.
Short of going back to its 3.5 version, it's possible to nerf the Fighter?
Where there's a will there's a way, have you seen this recent archetype?

Wait, you mean the Fighter didn't already have those features? Darn, I thought that was his role...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

For an unchained fighter it be cool if weapon training granted more then a bonus to hit and damage. Maybe it would allow you to use combat maneuvers without provoking and/or grant bonuses with that weapon. Some weapon specific combat tricks/technics would be cool as well. Basically stuff you can pull of with a weapon that depends or level(1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th) and the weapon used.


Dragon78 wrote:
For an unchained fighter it be cool if weapon training granted more then a bonus to hit and damage. Maybe it would allow you to use combat maneuvers without provoking and/or grant bonuses with that weapon. Some weapon specific combat tricks/technics would be cool as well. Basically stuff you can pull of with a weapon that depends or level(1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th) and the weapon used.

I know there are already a million and one ideas, and threads, for what unchained fighter should look like. In my opinion, mild ideas like this are better. Especially if you aren't introducing new actions other than, "I hit things." In a lot of ways the simplistic nature of "I hit things" is one of Fighter's strengths, and adding new tricks or techniques in more of a Style Strike or Power Attack way that can be used with other things is a more compelling argument to me.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
The Mortonator wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
For an unchained fighter it be cool if weapon training granted more then a bonus to hit and damage. Maybe it would allow you to use combat maneuvers without provoking and/or grant bonuses with that weapon. Some weapon specific combat tricks/technics would be cool as well. Basically stuff you can pull of with a weapon that depends or level(1st, 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th) and the weapon used.
I know there are already a million and one ideas, and threads, for what unchained fighter should look like. In my opinion, mild ideas like this are better. Especially if you aren't introducing new actions other than, "I hit things." In a lot of ways the simplistic nature of "I hit things" is one of Fighter's strengths, and adding new tricks or techniques in more of a Style Strike or Power Attack way that can be used with other things is a more compelling argument to me.

You two should check out the Weapon Master's Handbook when it comes out. ^_^


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I saw it, not exactly what I was looking for. I just think that things like power attack and improved combat maneuvers should be built into the class or maybe the combat system itself not as a feat.


I'd be interested in another Unchained book, giving some classes a chance to be changed, and maybe a few more optional rule alterations.

Fighter - Replace things like bravery and armor training with a fighter specialty. They could choose from abilities that grant Bonus again fear(like bravery), bonus against spells, causes a higher cast defensively check, 4 skill points a level and more class skills, ect. Maybe also let him swap out feats faster like the Brawler.

Ranger - At least give them an archetype that lets them not lose combat feats when using heavy armor.

Samurai - Maybe make him more like the 3.5 Knight. All about defense, and give him a good will save instead of fort.

Altered casting defensively rules that make you oppose the opponents CMD.

Dwarves get heavy armor proficiency as a racial trait.


People also want to see an even more "unchained" version of the classes that have already been "unchained", so I'm not sure where this whole spiral will lead.
I'd think nowhere good, but I'm one who didn't feel the need for the first Unchained to begin with.


Spike Chained Monk.

Rogue Unchained from Sneak Attack.


I'd like to see Archetypes Unchained: instead of having a humongous number of archetypes for some classes and a few with almost none, have Martial Paths (for Fighter, etc.) and Bloodlines/Arcane Schools (like Sorcerer/Wizard already has, but more fleshed out) that you can choose from and that condense most of the archetypes into a-la-carte selections.

Edit: For Clerics, flesh out Domains to get some of the flavor of 1nd Edition Spheres but with more even mechanics, and split the Clerit into a d6 1/2 BAB 9/9 caster class and a d8 3/4 BAB 6/9 caster class built on a hybrid of Inquisitor and Warpriest chassis.


Taking a look at Bestiary 5; Tsukumogami and Tulpa have things that could go well with a Summoner Archetype and/or Alternate Class.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I have always felt that clerics should get spontaneous casting for there domain spells.


^I think D&M 3.5 had an Epic feat for this.


We could Unchain all the CRB classes into a single book, and call it Pathfinder 2.0


If they do an Unchained Wizard, I'd have it a rule that you have to have a spell of the previous level in that school before learning a higher-level spell in that School -i.e. before your wizard can cast Invisiblity, he (or she) has to have both a Illusory cantrip and a 1st-level Illusion spell in his (or her) spellbook (or Spell Mastery).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
I have always felt that clerics should get spontaneous casting for there domain spells.

There was a 3.5 variant in PHB2 that allowed this, but got rid of spontaneous cure/inflict casting.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

Yeah, I remember but that rule doesn't officially exist in Pathfinder.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dekalinder wrote:
We could Unchain all the CRB classes into a single book, and call it Pathfinder 2.0

Basically yeah. Unchained is a big book of options, only a small portion of which was really dedicated to altering specific base classes. I am not sure there is really room for a sequel.

Maybe a magic unchained that produced a whole series of different casting mechanics and revises the spell lists and magic using classes, simply because that sort of revision is large enough that it kind of needs its own book. But otherwise what I think people really want is a Pathfinder 2.0.


MMCJawa wrote:
Dekalinder wrote:
We could Unchain all the CRB classes into a single book, and call it Pathfinder 2.0

Basically yeah. Unchained is a big book of options, only a small portion of which was really dedicated to altering specific base classes. I am not sure there is really room for a sequel.

Maybe a magic unchained that produced a whole series of different casting mechanics and revises the spell lists and magic using classes, simply because that sort of revision is large enough that it kind of needs its own book. But otherwise what I think people really want is a Pathfinder 2.0.

A good Core Player Handbook UNCHAINED would probably be the size of the curent CRB, but without any DM/GM material... and the Core GameMaster Guide UNCHAINED would probably be pretty thick as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Thread Breath of Life time:

While doing some looking up stuff for a potential Sorcerer-based build, I have come to the conclusion that we really do also need a Sorcerer Unchained. Various weird things happen like Wildblooded Bloodlines (which are counted as archetypes but shouldnt be) or archetypes replacing abilities that are prerequisites for later abilities in a Bloodline (for instance, Wings of Heaven in the Celestial Bloodline is a prerequisite for part of the corresponding capstone ability, but boht the Empyreal Bloodline and the Eldritch Scrapper archetype replace this without adjusting the capstone to compensate). Also, the current organization of Bloodlines and Wildblooded Bloodlines is terrible, at least in the on-line resources (I don't have the printed resources, but I imagine it must be even worse in those) -- as a counterexample, Cleric (and Druid) Domains and Subdomains are much easier to find, at least in the online resources.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

I'd love to see Wildblooded as anything other than an archetype.


I'd love for the Sorc to actually have an archetype.
Wildblood is just an excuse to save space for new bloodlines, and Crossblood is an excuse to power boost every arcane caster but the Sorc.

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

They've got a few, hidden away in various sources.

I'm rather fond of the tattooed sorcerer archetype myself. ^_^


Alternate Arcane Bloodlines, to go with Wizard School specializations.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Nutcase Entertainment wrote:
Alternate Arcane Bloodlines, to go with Wizard School specializations.

So, an abjuration bloodline, a transmutation bloodline, etc. Correct?

I'd be OK with this. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

I would prefer a bigger overhaul on the sorcerer.
-More bloodline powers would be awesome.
-4+Int skill points and more class skills.
-Maybe a list of powers to choose from like the oracle.
-Maybe more class skills gained from your bloodline.
-Save and/or skill bonuses vs the creature type/subtype that you gain your powers from.

Also include more then the core bloodlines, well at least the ones in the APG.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Yeah, sorcerer desperately needs 4+ skill points. I like the powers-in-order method they have now, although giving them the wildblooded options as choices rather than an archetype would be great.

The rest of that would just be gravy. ^_^


3 people marked this as a favorite.

My big fix for sorcerer is to bump up their Bloodline spells by two levels each.

The bloodline spells should be gotten early, not late.


^If you bumped the Bloodline Spells one level earlier, this wouldn't require any huge changes, but if you bumped them 2 levels earlier, you would also have to bump them down by 1 spell level to make them castable when you get them.

+1 on 4 + IntMod skill ranks per level, except for Sage Sorcerer (and by the way, Sage and Empyreal Sorcerer should be archetypes rather than Bloodlines). But then again, all the classes that currently have 2 + IntMod skills per level that are not Int-based casters should get 2 more skill ranks per level (I'm looking at Fighter especially).

Speaking of Bloodline Powers (and Arcana), the current quality of those is REALLY uenven.

Edit #1: Bloodline Feat list quality is also really uneven.

Also would like to see a Sorcerer class feature at levels 5n + 1 (other than the increments of Bloodline spells).

Edit #2: Also, fix the Eldritch Scrapper archetype. To be viable, it needs the 9th level Bloodline Power of the Abyssal or Orc Bloodlines or the misleadingly-named Pit-Touched Wildblooded Archetype, but it replaces the 9th level Bloodline power, and Rules as Written you can't use it with a Wildblooded Bloodline anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nox Aeterna wrote:

I think that archetype is meant to NPCs really , not players.

With this said , even then i think it lacks real flavor.

Aye, its the kinda of Archetype you'd give a cohort. Especially if you've got some DM who is like "There is no way you could carry 30,000 copper pieces, 10,000 silver and a two-ton golden statue out of that dungeon! Its too heavy!"

"You're right DM, I can't carry it out. However Nobert over there can. Particularly after Merciul the Magnificate has his rogue sapper companion Crowbar strip all the bits and pieces of metal off everything. Oh and we're taking the front door too."


Sorcerers have one class feature apart from spells. That feature is available via feat chain, VMC, and an Arcanist archetype that keeps half its own class feature, and the Arcana is a one-level crossblooded dip for two. It'd be nice for them to get something that isn't automatically available to every other class. (Which is why I don't mind Wildblooded as archetypes... At least it's something they get to themselves.)


The bloodline arcana I believe is only accessible by taking levels in the class, and progresses based on class level. Maybe the arcanist can kinda get them, but certainly not to the same extent.


^Blood Arcanist gets everything a Sorcerer would get except bonus class skill (usually not a big deal), bonus feats (usually not a big deal), or bonus spells (Arcanist has alternate ways to get most of these, unless they are not on the Sorcerer/Wizard list).

The Bloodline Development Arcanist Exploit lets you do something similar if you also gain the same Bloodline by another means. An example of this would be if you went into Dragon Disciple -- this particular example requires dipping into a spontaneous arcane spellcasting class (or a spontaneous casting class if you are a Kobold with Scaled Disciple), because even though an Arcanist casts spontaneously, the Arcanist has to prepare the spells to be cast spontaneously.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

I disagree on Sorceror's needing more skill points.

They have magic. It's a built-in incentive NOT to learn stuff - just use magic to solve your problems instead! There are very, very few skills that can't be duplicated with a max investment of 1 skill point and a spell to boost it, or simply replaced outright.

If a sorc wants more skill points, have him invest in intelligence and actually make an effort. But you don't need Bluff ranks when you have Glibness, you don't need Craft Ranks if you can Wieldskill or just craft a new Headband, you don't need Stealth ranks with invisibility, etc etc etc.

Having magic is an incentive NOT to have skill ranks. The argument that spellcasters should have MORE skill ranks makes NO sense to me.

==Aelryinth


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber

With that kind of logic Aelrynth, then rangers should get less skill points because they can fight, get a animal companion, and have spells.


Dragon78 wrote:
With that kind of logic Aelrynth, then rangers should get less skill points because they can fight, get a animal companion, and have spells.

You are correct.

The ranger throws a gigantic wrench into the game as far as narrative balance is concerned. Instant Enemy also makes them the most versatile in combat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Only rangers?

We can start to list a vast , vast number of classes , that using Aelryinth logic should all start losing their skill points , everyone back to 2+INT mod.

AND a important note , using his logic , it doesnt matter your spell list either , since sorcs dont even have stuff like glibness , but he says it is an example of why they dont need bluff.


Lemmy wrote:
Honestly... They would more likely overnerf poweerful classes and nerf martial classes than do them any good. Stealth-nerf Barbarian and Overnerf Summoner is enough for me.

How did the nerf the Barbarian. I was playing an unchained Barbarian just the other week and while you lose some the gains more than make up for it. So I got +2 to hit instead of +4 str, yes loss of 1 damage with two handed weapon but the +2 to hit is untyped bonus now, no longer a morale bonus. Thought that sucked at first since the courageous weapon didn't work anymore but getting our bards inspire courage on top my rage, that was good. Then I took accuracy stance, it give you +1 to hit goes up every 4 level like power attack. This means I'm power attacking with no penalty really vs the regular barbarian. Used to use Reckless abandon to do this but the AC penalty hurt too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aelryinth wrote:

I disagree on Sorceror's needing more skill points.

They have magic. It's a built-in incentive NOT to learn stuff - just use magic to solve your problems instead! There are very, very few skills that can't be duplicated with a max investment of 1 skill point and a spell to boost it, or simply replaced outright.
{. . .}

Your argument would hold true for an Arcanist, Magus(*), Wizard, or any of the Int-based Psychic spellcasters -- those get lots of skill ranks because they have to have a high Intelligenc, which they then put much of into their spellcasting, reflected in only 2 + IntMod skill ranks per level. For other spellcasters, their spellcasting doesn't come from their Intelligence, leaving it more free to do other things, even though it usually isn't boosted as high in the first place. Remember that spontaneous spellcasters get a much more limited selection of spells, while divine spellcasters usually get less of the problem-solving spells(**) outside of the healing/bad status removal department, so they need to be more creative, which includes use of things other than spells to solve problems.

(*)Except Eldritch Scion archetype of Magus, which in addition to some other bug fixes that we still haven't gotten, also needs more skill ranks per level.

(**)Find the Path is a glaring exception, but that spell should be bumped up a couple of levels and made blockable anyway.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Dragon78 wrote:
With that kind of logic Aelrynth, then rangers should get less skill points because they can fight, get a animal companion, and have spells.

This is absolutely correct. Rangers should have fewer skill points then they do. They ABSOLUTELY should have fewer skill points then fighters do.

Rangers have magic, and huge skill boosts. Their 6 skill points/level is a legacy thing from 3e, when Stealth got split into Hide and Move Silently, and Search and SPot were two skills as well. Since a good ranger needed survival, wild empathy, spot, hide in Shadows, move silently and lore (nature), they got promoted from 4 skill points/level to 6.

Pathfinder has folded those skills backwards. Rangers have magic to fill in the gaps. They definitely should be rolled back to 4, and fighters, with no magic at all, should be sitting at 6. Fighters have no magic to do their work for them, they have to do it all for themselves.

So, yes, the logic is ABSOLUTELY there. Rangers barely deserve more skill points then paladins because of lack of heavy armor prof, and that's a big stretch. Mostly, it's pure legacy.

==Aelryinth

1 to 50 of 89 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder RPG / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / A whole book of "unchained" classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.