| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know there's been talk about this before, but is it likely there will be more Unchained classes?
If there are, would the Unchained Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, and Summoner be included in the same book as, say the Unchained Alchemist, Bard, Cavalier, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Gunslinger, Inquisitor, Magus, Oracle, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard.
Would we then have Unchained Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Investigator, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler, and Warpriest?
Would we need Unchained versions of the Kineticist, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Psychic, and Spiritualist or are they already like Unchained classes?
Finally, how would this affect prestige classes - in fact, are they even needed with the various class archetypes and hybrids?
I doubt we'll see unchained versions of anything not core or APG
If we make the gunslinger hit regular AC we should probably look at spellcaster to-hit too. Because the same issues apply there except a lot of touch spells can be even nastier with riders.
I think an unchained cavalier might be warranted too. The class feels like a lot like a variant fighter at times and its only real defining features are orders and challenges and most of the options there don't do much to make the class stand out.
And it arguably doesn't even do its standard gimmick (mounted combat) any better than a ranger or hunter can.
Touch is meant to be balanced by misfire chance.
I think the designers would need very good reasons to make any new Unchained classes, except maybe the Fighter witch most people keep asking for. Unchained classes exist as a fix or balance to any under/over porforming class and most classes are pretty fine. With Gunslingers it's probably unlikely, most people and feed back (at least that I've encountered) put it at balanced. The Fighter once had a thread dedicated to making an unchained version so that seams the more likely. But anything could happen.
I don't think fighers need to be unchained as the primary problem with them is the quality of combat feat trees which is an all martial problem. I would complain about the quality of weapon training 2-4 but Weapon Masters Guide solved that well enough.
. . . And an Armor Master's Handbook is on the way. Still would be a good idea to give Fighter 2 more skill ranks per level, though.
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.
This thread seems to be indicating a need (or at least a demand) for a Cavalier Unchained. (And I could have sworn to having heard somewhere on these boards that Cavalier would have been the next class Paizo would have Unchained if they had more room.)
Touch is meant to be balanced by misfire chance.
Unchained Gunslinger gets to ignore misfire by aiming at armor (no longer ignores armor) as their special ability?
Seriously, would love that unchained version.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would very much enjoy seeing both Fighter and Cleric getting the Unchained treatment. They could be so much better with actual class features.
Really if people what gunslinger (and alchemist) to get fixed up there needs to be a book released that's filled with NOTHING but tiny or smaller monsters. The only reason hitting touch ac is such a big deal is because Paizo makes everything with high CR big. It would also help make combat maneuvers more viable.
On a more related note, I'm not against a sorcerer unchained. Make it like the oracle, getting to choose which thematic powers you want, 4 skills + int per level, multiple class skills gained, get bonus spells on even levels, if you ask me the oracle is a divine version of what the sorcerer should have been mechanically.
Also can clerics have something to gain on even levels? Aside from 8 (sometimes 6/10) there's absolutely nothing gained aside from HP, a tiny amount of skills, maybe saves, and caster level. Also 1 extra DC to channel energy. Really, I want to love the class but between every other level being empty and prepared casting I find it hard to pick clerics over oracles every time.
Redoing Sorcerer and other things to be more like Oracle would be awesome. This is really more like how Clerics should have been (re)done, with Domains more like Mysteries. But if we do all that, we're fast approaching Pathfinder 2.0 territory (not that this would necessarily be a bad thing, but I can see why it would scare some people, including the people who have to do the work).
* * * * * * * *
Edit: Cavalier (and Samurai) thoughts: Right now, the Cavalier/Samurai orders are really odd -- how can all of these various special purpose orders be all transnational? Order of the Lion commands that you serve your sovereign -- but each nation has its own sovereign (except for the few that don't have a monarchy), so this automatically pits various parts of the Order of the Lion against each other.
Wonder if the upcoming Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Path of the Hellknight will at least have Cavalier Orders corresponding to the Hellknight Orders.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics have loads of incredibly powerful and versatile class features that blow half the classes in the game out of the water.
Nine levels of them, to be precise.
Compare the class features of a Cleric to that of an Oracle. Both get 9 levels of spells, but only one gets interesting class abilities at every few levels. The other gets scaling group heal and domain abilities at two, exactly two, levels. One is fun to play and level, the other... is a Cleric.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I'm not saying that Clerics need to be as powerful as wizards, but perhaps a few more special class features? Literally nothing a Cleric has is unique.
Cleric:
9-level divine casting: Shared by Druids, Oracles, and Shamans
Cleric spell list: Shared by Oracles and Shaman FCB
Simple weapons and medium armor: Shared by Oracles and Shamans
3/4 BAB, d8 HD, strong Will and Fort: Shared by Druids, Shamans, Magi, Inquisitors, Skalds, Warpriests, and Occultists
Domain: Shared by Druids, equivalent to Wizard arcane school
Channel Energy: Shared by specific Oracles, Shamans, Necromancy Wizards, Paladins, Antipaladins, and Warpriests
So much of this.
Pretty much all of the thunder of the cleric has been stolen under the radar by the Shaman. Spirits were meant to be a spinoff of Oracle's mystery, but the way I see it they're more like Domains. You get 2 of them (not simultaneously though), and you gain the "extra spell slot" from either of them (rather than choosing 1 from 2 Domains).
And that spell list? Yowza!
Compare the class features of a Cleric to that of an Oracle. Both get 9 levels of spells, but only one gets interesting class abilities at every few levels. The other gets scaling group heal and domain abilities at two, exactly two, levels. One is fun to play and level, the other... is a Cleric.
I think Pathfinder may have went a little overboard in toning the Cleric down from 3.5 to now. You can't tell by looking at the charts, but there's alot of tiny, incremental changes that added up just enough to make the class underwhelming. Losing heavy armor, certain spells taking a hit (Divine Power etc.), not many useful ways to use Channel Energy like Turn Undead in days of old. And they didn't get a "facelift" like other classes did in transition, resulting in a severe lack of class features and/or interesting abilities.
Clerics could use a little more polish on domains while losing a lot of the mid tier combat capability now that warpriest is a thing.
I think cleric, bard, fighter, sorcerer, samurai, swashbuckler, and ninja could use an unchained version.
I think that with the exception of Alchemist and Oracle, all of the "Ultimate" classes need an unchained version. Not because they're weak but because there's not a lot of variety to them. Every witch character is built around hexes. every cavalier is built around mounted charges or trying to pretend it's not a cavalier. Every gunslinger is absolutely built exactly hte same. Every magus is a shocking grasp cheese-loaf. These classes just have 100% obvious "best" build, surrounded by a lo of vastly sub-par builds that are usually only barely functional.
They might as well just be stat blocks in a codex, for all the variety they have going with them.
Well , im no fan of unchained stuff , with that said i would like to see the bard and spiritualist in their unchained versions.
I don't think fighter needs an unchained version so much as an errata. Weapon masters handbook definitely helped, but I think that all fighter really needs is 4 skill points per level, good will save, and for Weapon Training to begin at first level. Pretty much every full bab class has some kind of damage and/or hit boosting feature at 1st level. Fighters need this too.
Okay, maybe a new unchained write up may help. Alternate to good will save could be improving bravery similar as to how trapsense was improved to danger sense.
Actually, given how it scales Weapon Training fits right at 1st level and would make it scale to +5 instead of +4 which is more consistent with other scaling abilities. And it wouldn't disrupt anything mechanically since it's an add on rather than an actual change, and the Advanced Weapon training options would have more of a bonus to work with.
Touch is meant to be balanced by misfire chance.Unchained Gunslinger gets to ignore misfire by aiming at armor (no longer ignores armor) as their special ability?
Seriously, would love that unchained version.
Touch AC is also currently only in the first range increment (Early Firearms as default) unless you spend increasing amounts of Grit? I really do not want to be 10-20 ft away from the Wyrm to get an easier to hit chance for my Pistol and then get nommed on... (Early Rifles are slightly better, but well within Move range)
I suppose there's the "If we are Unchaining so many classes, you may as well write PF-2.0?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder 2.0 is not necessarily a bad thing if it is as compatible with 1.0 as D&D 3.5 was with 3.0 -- especially if done by gradual changes to avoid jarring players loose. Although I can't help but salivate over the thought of an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds . . . .
Sorcerer is another class that needs an Unchained version for reasons other than being weak, although it is a lot easier to mess up than Cleric: The main reasons are organization (the overwhelming majority of Wildbloodlines should NOT be archetypes, but Psychic SHOULD BE) and a whole lot of trap options that require careful inspection to spot (for instance, some Bloodlines have all Bloodline feats that are either junk or impossible for a single-class Sorcerer to qualify for unless they go Epic), and Bloodline powers and archetypes are VERY uneven.
Another thing that needs to be Unchained, oddly, is something that came out in Pathfinder Unchained itself: Variant MultiClassing. The quality of these is also extremely uneven -- some of them are pretty good demonstrations of the way to go (Magus and Wizard, and even Fighter is okay), while some are just junk (Gunslinger and Witch, and even Monk is mostly junk except in a very few specific builds, like putting on top of an Unarmed Strike/Unarmored Ninja build).
Pathfinder 2.0 is not necessarily a bad thing if it is as compatible with 1.0 as D&D 3.5 was with 3.0 -- especially if done by gradual changes to avoid jarring players loose. Although I can't help but salivate over the thought of an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds . . . .
If they happen to make an Unchained version of all the classes and put them together in one book, I think that could be an unofficial 2.0. Pathfinder is pretty good at updating and tweaking core materials as issues come up.
The main reason to do a 2.0, I think, would be to clean up the old errata and put it all in one nice, new place.
I focused on Unchained here because there are already threads on 2.0. I also know there's a lot of hope for an Unchained Fighter.
It would just be nice to have all the classes in one book.
Clerics are the standout for me..... the fundamental design is just so BLAH!
With the advent of Warpriests and Inquisitors, there really is no need for a cleric to remain a D8 HD....it holds the entire class back IMO
Probably worth mentioning that one of the "unchained" rules for skills was just to increase everyone to a minimum of 4 skill points. So that fix for fighter is kind of in the book, just not in a class constrained way.
Cleric is a quite boring class indeed. I considered playing one to cover the healer role, but it's really hard to make up something interesting.
Right now he has basically three class features: Spells (main feature), domain powers (secondary one) and channel energy (also secondary one). But technically, he has another one - buffed martial combat. If you reduce cleric to d6 and 1/2 BAB, you mostly take this option away, rendering the class even less appealing.
I could imagine a cleric without much martial battling, but then the spell list would need a major overhaul. There are several 'self only' buffs and only few damage spells, fitting the old 3.0 cleric, but not this new cleric.
Oracle is a great implementation of a divine full caster. But I wouldn't want yet another air / earth / fire / ice / good / evil / ... package class. Perhaps clerics should be tied very closely to their deity, with a strong code of conduct rewarding and penalizing behaviour, and powers designed to specifically aid the deity's cause.
This why i was against the warpriest even coming into existence it did not fill any new roles. it just a cleric with less spell casting. it could have easily been just some kind of archtype. {. . .}Clerics are the standout for me..... the fundamental design is just so BLAH!
With the advent of Warpriests and Inquisitors, there really is no need for a cleric to remain a D8 HD....it holds the entire class back IMO
And reportedly (elsewhere on these boards, although a while ago, so maybe the metagame has evolved), Warpriest has to work hard to get significantly ahead of a well-built standard battle Cleric in the martial department, and Inquisitor also gives it a serious run for its money.
It's actually hard to make Cleric archetypes, because they have so little to replace. So you get good ideas like the Evangelist, which needs Charisma for its Bardic Performance functions, ending up having to shoot itself in the foot in its other Charisma function, that is, Channeling (because regardless of what you think of this from a balance point of view, what else can you replace?).
I would have rather had the Cleric class built on a hybrid of Inquisitor and Warpriest chassis (although unfortunately these weren't around when needed for this), with actual Inquisitor being a prestige class, and a d6, 1/2 BAB Priest class (like the one from Adamant Entertainment, but without being tied to the Knowledge Domain) being made for the 9/9 divine casting (further modification wanted: the Cleric Domains and Warpriest Blessings are mostly rather bland -- if they were instead like mini-Mysteries, now we'd be talking).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i really think they need to unchain the alternate classes.
the ninja should really be approached as a rogue/monk hybrid class
and the samurai really needs more options
Honestly I'd be happy with a bonus feat every now and then based on your god. I mean wizards get bonus feats every 5 levels and they just have to make it relate to magic for crying out loud.
If they made Stamina a *standard* feature of fighters, I suspect that the need for an 'unchained' version would diminish dramatically.
Nope.
Honestly I'd be happy with a bonus feat every now and then based on your god. I mean wizards get bonus feats every 5 levels and they just have to make it relate to magic for crying out loud.
Amen!!
Its not hard.. change the cleric to a D6 class
In return:
Bonus domain (1 of the 3 domains can be prepared normally)
5 bonus feats
Now that is the most unimaginative, lazy bit of unchaining I can do... but even that is a good move in the right direction!!
Honestly I'd be happy with a bonus feat every now and then based on your god. I mean wizards get bonus feats every 5 levels and they just have to make it relate to magic for crying out loud.Amen!!
Its not hard.. change the cleric to a D6 class
In return:
Bonus domain (1 of the 3 domains can be prepared normally)
4 bonus featsNow that is the most unimaginative, lazy bit of unchaining I can do... but even that is a good move in the right direction!!
Give the domains some powers at level 14/16 and I'd honestly be okay with the HD decrease.
Whats more interesting is that if you look around 3PP/Homebrew stuff (especially on the forums)....D6 divine designs are probably the most widely attempted out of all!
There has been a gaping need for years.....
Whats more interesting is that if you look around 3PP/Homebrew stuff (especially on the forums)....D6 divine designs are probably the most widely attempted out of all!
There has been a gaping need for years.....
Any good spontaneous versions out there? Because I love spontaneous casting.
I want:
Unchained Unchained Monk
Unchained Fighter
Unchained Wizard
Unchained Cleric
Unchained Ranger
Unchained Paladin
Unchained Sorcerer
Unchained Magus
Unchained Alchemist
Unchained Cavalier
Unchained Inquisitor
Unchained Witch
Unchained Arcanist
Unchained Bloodrager
Unchained Brawler
Unchained Investigator
Unchained Shaman
Unchained Skald
Unchained Slayer
Unchained Swashbuckler
Unchained Warpriest
Unchained Gunslinger
Unchained Ninja
Unchained Samurai
Unchained Kineticist
Unchained Medium
Unchained Mesmerist
Unchained Occultist
Unchained Psychic
Unchained Spiritualist
Unchained Guns
Unchained Vancian magic
Unchained Combat maneuvers
Unchained Skills
Unchained notarized letter that all GMs must allow DSP psionics or they can't legally call their game pathfinder :P
*I am using the same standard that necessitated the unchained barbarian
I don't think fighers need to be unchained as the primary problem with them is the quality of combat feat trees which is an all martial problem. I would complain about the quality of weapon training 2-4 but Weapon Masters Guide solved that well enough.
Weapon Master Handbook, while interesting and well written did very little to adress the actual problems of the fighter class because as a companion line product it could NOT do that. Something was tweaked, but all things considered the problems with the fighter class remain unchanged. The fact is what the fighter needs first and foremost is a different focus on what a fighter should be: currently it's treated as the class for "bob the man at arms" while other classes give you Conan, Lancelot, Aragorn or Dartagnan. Instead the fighter needs to be a class of weapon and armor masters, with those even other martial classes should be considered mere dabblers if confronted with the fighter because they have other advantages over the fighter in other areas (rage, divine patronage, skill at tracking and killing certain creatures), intead the fighter feels like some sort of half hearted upgrade of the warrior NPC class.
To this day it's a great mystery to me why the devs decided the barbarian (arguably the strongest martial class) needed unchaining while the fighter was left alone and the only mechanic that could somewhat benefit the class was made optional (and as PFS shows it's not implemented unlike what happened with the new unchained classes).EDIT: As far as other things that need unchaining I support the unchaining of the cleric and of 99% of the prestige classes (there need to be some kind of payoff for people who specialize their character that way, instead they come off weaker than the original classes). I also think the thing PF needs above all is a complete revision of the spells created for the game. Almost all of the martial/caster imballance comes from certain spells giving far too much than they should, but tweak things like touch AC, no save allowed, duration times, casting times (proceeding on a case to case basis) and suddenly things look a lot more ballanced, and since this affects monsters and NPCs too it doesn't create huge problems for encounter ballance.
So, in short, unchain the fighter please. Companion books are nice but unless they introduce some overpowered feats (ala beast totem line of rage powers -> pounce) they won't change the overall weakness of the class nor solve its many other problems.
What in the world do want to unchain about the unchained monk?