Time to Break Your Chains!

Rynjin wrote:

Ki Shout can be taken as a Ki power. Single target, level x d6 damage, Sonic.

Never got high enough with my Monk, but I always liked the idea of swift action cold ice strike combined with flurry of blows.

I on the other hand, HAVE gotten high enough on my Monk(s) and I can tell you it is pretty rad. =)

I think it was also mentioned that the summoner as we see it, was sent out with the wrong class spell list. Hopefully the one they intended to send out is in this book.

So, for whom was that spell list originally intended? ^^

wraithstrike wrote:

I think it was also mentioned that the summoner as we see it, was sent out with the wrong class spell list. Hopefully the one they intended to send out is in this book.

So, for whom was that spell list originally intended? ^^

Me.

(Me too.) *returns to hiding, giggling gleefully over GMs and PCs with said list*

You can't bring the wizard down without completely rewriting a TON of spells.

It's not that hard - here's the KISS method (not the best method - just the KISS method)

1. No divination spells. (I often actually do this one in any campaign with much mystery involved.)

2. No summoning creatures. (Summon monster/planar ally etc)

3. No polymorphing.

4. No save vs death spells.

5. Save vs suck spells all get new saves each round at a -5. (Similar to Hold Person - only not as easy to break due to the -5.)

Done.

As I said - this isn't a great method of doing it - but it can be done KISS style. It's going after the problem spells with a chainsaw, chopping up quite a few that aren't an issue and probably missing a few that are.

I very much like the idea of SoL spells offering new saving throws in subsequent rounds. Giving more spells an effect which you suffer even if you make the save (or perhaps fail the initial save but make subsequent ones) would also help iron out the "all or nothing" aspect of many SoL spells. Losing a round or two of actions for failing a save seems like a fitting punishment. Sitting around watching other people play for hours on end because you failed a single save seems like a torture. Of course some people really treasure that big moment when the super critical d20 rolls, but I think you can still have those moments without 1 roll SoL.

I suppose we're probably getting a bit off topic though...

Unchained is all about modding the game, so while it might seem a bit tangential, in some ways, Charon's Little Helper actually brought some extra Unchained spirit to the thread.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

You can't bring the wizard down without completely rewriting a TON of spells.

It's not that hard - here's the KISS method (not the best method - just the KISS method)

1. No divination spells. (I often actually do this one in any campaign with much mystery involved.)

2. No summoning creatures. (Summon monster/planar ally etc)

3. No polymorphing.

4. No save vs death spells.

5. Save vs suck spells all get new saves each round at a -5. (Similar to Hold Person - only not as easy to break due to the -5.)

Done.

As I said - this isn't a great method of doing it - but it can be done KISS style. It's going after the problem spells with a chainsaw, chopping up quite a few that aren't an issue and probably missing a few that are.

Not a bad method actually!

I assume it's because Gene Simmons is a wizard.

Not a bad method actually!

But why is it named KISS?

It stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid".

(And everyone knows Gene Simmons is a bard)

Hayato Ken wrote:

Not a bad method actually!

But why is it named KISS?

It stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid".

(And everyone knows Gene Simmons is a bard)

Excuse you, Doctor Love is a SKALD, you peasant!

Charon's ideas are a little rough, but there's a lot of merit in them.

4. No save vs death spells.

One option I've seen for 'save or die' was to replace it with 'save or dying' (i.e. drop to 0 hp and lose 1 hp / round until you are stabilized or healed, the actual 'dying' condition in the game).

Simulacrum is the only spell that terrifies me, as a GM, and gives me sexytime feelings, as a player.

We house ruled it back in 1st edition to only create a physical reproduction of the 'donor' creature, with no magical or special abilities (not even poison!). Still, despite not having spells or breath weapons, being able to ride simulacra of that dragon you fought last level was certainly a classier way to travel than a warhorse!

Did anyone else catch this Unchained Spoiler in the FAQs?

I love it - Rogues should be able to more reliably get sneak attack, even if other classes that have access to sneak attack cannot. Hopefully there's more stuff in Unchained to help Rogues be more consistent.

I'm also very excited for the Full Attack replacement alternative rules. I had thought up a houserule that I'm considering using, but I'll see what Unchained has to offer first.

I swear to Zod that the rogues edge concept was what I wanted Mesmerists to have as a sort of 'not-magic' to fit the implied stage-magic-esque motif they had going in conjunction with their gaze.

But it does fit well with the original skill monkey class - I just hope that it will prove viable to let Mesmerists use it similarly at range on the target of their gaze, like sleight of hand to disarm an opponent or intimidating and bluffing strange beliefs into others heads.

I swear to Zod that the rogues edge concept was what I wanted Mesmerists to have as a sort of 'not-magic' to fit the implied stage-magic-esque motif they had going in conjunction with their gaze.

But it does fit well with the original skill monkey class - I just hope that it will prove viable to let Mesmerists use it similarly at range on the target of their gaze, like sleight of hand to disarm an opponent or intimidating and bluffing strange beliefs into others heads.

Worse case scenario we might be able to get Rogues edge through the new multi class feature on the mesmerist.

Lemmy wrote:

Hayato Ken wrote:

Not a bad method actually!

But why is it named KISS?

It stands for "Keep It Simple, Stupid".

(And everyone knows Gene Simmons is a bard)

Excuse you, Doctor Love is a SKALD, you peasant!

Class or archetype?

5E did a couple of interesting for spells.

Damage was changed to be based on the spell slot used for the spell instead of scaling with caster level. Fireball with a 3rd level spell slot is always 8d6. doesn't matter what caster level you are. But if you blow a higher level slot on it you get another d6 per slot.

The other change was lots of spells had durations changed to Concentration, while making Concentration on a spell kind of a free action. So a Wizard can pretty much only maintain 1 buff, or summoned monster or debuff at a time. He can still toss off the instants like Fireball. Prevents Buff buff buff buff, now sprint through the dungeon.

Included in the Concentration duration spells are things like; Flesh to Stone, Hold Monster and Polymorph. One good hit on the caster to break concentration and Poof, whatever was being kept out of the fight is back on a rampage.

5E did a couple of interesting for spells.

Damage was changed to be based on the spell slot used for the spell instead of scaling with caster level. Fireball with a 3rd level spell slot is always 8d6. doesn't matter what caster level you are. But if you blow a higher level slot on it you get another d6 per slot.

The other change was lots of spells had durations changed to Concentration, while making Concentration on a spell kind of a free action. So a Wizard can pretty much only maintain 1 buff, or summoned monster or debuff at a time. He can still toss off the instants like Fireball. Prevents Buff buff buff buff, now sprint through the dungeon.

Included in the Concentration duration spells are things like; Flesh to Stone, Hold Monster and Polymorph. One good hit on the caster to break concentration and Poof, whatever was being kept out of the fight is back on a rampage.

Ooh, these are pretty nice ideas. I doubt they would function properly ported into Pathfinder but it does make me a bit more interested in trying out 5E.

They also cut back on the 6th-9th-level spells per day for the full casters and brought in a basic ritual system, allowing you to spend 10 minutes or longer to cast a spell with the ritual tag (such as identify) without expending a spell slot or (in the case of the wizard) even without preparing it.

Did anyone else catch this Unchained Spoiler in the FAQs?

Haha, poor swashbucklers.

MechE_ wrote:

Did anyone else catch this Unchained Spoiler in the FAQs?

Haha, poor swashbucklers.

Yeah, thats reason 4 for bailing on the class after level 5.

Now we need an "unchained" Swashbuckler.

Now we need an "unchained" Swashbuckler.

We already have one. It's called the Daring Champion Cavalier.

Blackwaltzomega wrote:

You can't bring the wizard down without completely rewriting a TON of spells.

It's not that hard - here's the KISS method (not the best method - just the KISS method)

1. No divination spells. (I often actually do this one in any campaign with much mystery involved.)

2. No summoning creatures. (Summon monster/planar ally etc)

3. No polymorphing.

4. No save vs death spells.

5. Save vs suck spells all get new saves each round at a -5. (Similar to Hold Person - only not as easy to break due to the -5.)

Done.

As I said - this isn't a great method of doing it - but it can be done KISS style. It's going after the problem spells with a chainsaw, chopping up quite a few that aren't an issue and probably missing a few that are.

Simulacrum isn;t banned, game breaks at level 13. OOPS

Nor is Astral Projection. That's whole party immortality, basically.

Simulacrum isn;t banned, game breaks at level 13. OOPS

*Shrug* - as I said - I knew I missed a few. I came up those rules on the fly - I was just trying to prove that wizards can be nerfed successfully with mostly broad strokes. I wasn't trying to actually do it.

So yes - a successful nerf would probably need to address Simulacrum and a few others as well.

(Anyone get the impression that a lot of problem spells - like Simulacrum - were originally for the villain of the week to surprise the adventurers with a surprising new power back in 1st ed - not really intended for players - and that they've just been grandfathered in since then?)

CWheezy wrote:

Simulacrum isn;t banned, game breaks at level 13. OOPS

*Shrug* - as I said - I knew I missed a few. I came up those rules on the fly - I was just trying to prove that wizards can be nerfed successfully with mostly broad strokes. I wasn't trying to actually do it.

So yes - a successful nerf would probably need to address Simulacrum and a few others as well.

(Anyone get the impression that a lot of problem spells - like Simulacrum - were originally for the villain of the week to surprise the adventurers with a surprising new power back in 1st ed - not really intended for players - and that they've just been grandfathered in since then?)

It always seemed to me like the older editions expected the DM to exercise more authority over how broken stuff worked. That's why so many of Pathfinder's grandfathered options are broken - they weren't made for the modern age of FAQs and precise RAW.

But, it's been a long time, and I was so young back then. I could be misremembering...

Anyway, beside that, I'm looking forward to see the blog spot about magic.

It always seemed to me like the older editions expected the DM to exercise more authority over how broken stuff worked.

And just more authority over whether the players got the broken stuff. I know that in 2nd ed wizards didn't get new spells into their spellbook every time they leveled. They had to find them.

Don't want your players to have Simulacrum? Don't let them find the spell anywhere.

*Shrug* - as I said - I knew I missed a few. I came up those rules on the fly - I was just trying to prove that wizards can be nerfed successfully with mostly broad strokes. I wasn't trying to actually do it.

It seems like you failed then to me.

Here is why there are so many broken spells in Pathfinder when they were known to be way too good in earlier editions:

They don't care because someone will always say "You can just houserule!"

They don't know what is strong in their own game.

Old things are perfect and cannot be changed.

The "you can just houserule" is the biggest one though. No other tabletop game designer gets that kind of leeway in their game. I think if more tabletop gamers held the designers accountable you wouldn't see things like simulacrum, but oh well.

Charon's Little Helper wrote:

*Shrug* - as I said - I knew I missed a few. I came up those rules on the fly - I was just trying to prove that wizards can be nerfed successfully with mostly broad strokes. I wasn't trying to actually do it.

It seems like you failed then to me.

Here is why there are so many broken spells in Pathfinder when they were known to be way too good in earlier editions:

They don't care because someone will always say "You can just houserule!"

They don't know what is strong in their own game.

Old things are perfect and cannot be changed.

The "you can just houserule" is the biggest one though. No other tabletop game designer gets that kind of leeway in their game. I think if more tabletop gamers held the designers accountable you wouldn't see things like simulacrum, but oh well.

The reason why there are so many problem spells left intact from the older editions is the same reason we're getting Unchained in the first place. They weren't Paizo's ideas. :)

When Pathfinder was first being produced, the company was extremely conservative with its changes. They were selling on backwards compatibility and anti-change sentiment, and they knew it. That's why so many changes were either straight add-ons (wizard school powers, faster feat progression) or tweaks (various wording edits, rage as rounds per day rather than uses per day).

Pathfinder Unchained has always been presented as an alternative to that - what they would have done without being "chained" to 3e expectations. It also lets them deal with issues the community has always struggled with - rogues being weak, monks being the opposite of mobile, etc.

What we would need is a Magic Unchained product that strips the 3e compatibility out of the Spells chapter. Fixes for planar binding and simulacrum, among others. Maybe some of Mr. Jacobs' ideas about cure spells as necromancy and cure deadly wounds. Who-knows-what else. Maybe if reactions to this book are positive enough, we'll see such a product. :)

Gods, I hope so.

That is a great sentiment but paizo continued to release very broken spells in subsequent books, such as Aroden's Spellbane.

Or blood money.

But wait, does the unchained is advertised as to have a revision of spells?, the only thing I see on spell is this one

"Exotic material components ready to supercharge your spellcasting."

Wait - I must be missing something - why is Spellbane broken? (I rarely play that high level so I haven't seen it in action.)

I will say - most of the non-grandfathered broken spells have come from APs (like blood money) or companions where I can only guess they're subject to somewhat less oversight than the main books.

And isn't the fluff of Blood Money that it's a lost spell which the players can't get? I thought that it was the modern version of the "villain of the week to surprise the adventurers with a surprising new power" - with a note basically telling the GM not to allow player access.

And yet we have to deal with it in organized play as it is PFS legal. XP

What we would need is a Magic Unchained product that strips the 3e compatibility out of the Spells chapter. Fixes for planar binding and simulacrum, among others. Maybe some of Mr. Jacobs' ideas about cure spells as necromancy and cure deadly wounds. Who-knows-what else. Maybe if reactions to this book are positive enough, we'll see such a product. :)

I'd like to see the Undercasting concept from Occult Adventures put into "mainstream" usage. It could even be made broader, I imagine, to make it apply to a wider range of spells (and spell effects) that keep them more in scale with level.

And yet we have to deal with it in organized play as it is PFS legal. XP

I went back to Pathfinder Adventure Path #5: Sins of the Saviors to look up the original.

As you can see, some changes were made to bring it into Pathfinder. While it couldn't stay as written, what with xp costs and such, the upgrades may not have been wise.

It might still be under the villain-only assumption, which makes the PFS leadership's decision a little shaky. (We live in a world where this is legal and mutation warrior is not, after all.)

Kalindlara wrote:

What we would need is a Magic Unchained product that strips the 3e compatibility out of the Spells chapter. Fixes for planar binding and simulacrum, among others. Maybe some of Mr. Jacobs' ideas about cure spells as necromancy and cure deadly wounds. Who-knows-what else. Maybe if reactions to this book are positive enough, we'll see such a product. :)

I'd like to see the Undercasting concept from Occult Adventures put into "mainstream" usage. It could even be made broader, I imagine, to make it apply to a wider range of spells (and spell effects) that keep them more in scale with level.

There might be some balance issues. I'll leave that to others to argue about, though. :)

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw an archetype or something at some point. Maybe new arcane/divine spells made with undercasting in mind.

That is a great sentiment but paizo continued to release very broken spells in subsequent books, such as Aroden's Spellbane.

I mean, it's a ninth-level spell, and it's strong, yes, but only negates a choice few spells; it's actually pretty balanced, honestly.

It's also not from a PRD book - it didn't even come from a big book at all, so really calling it part of the basic game at all is highly questionable.

Blood Money is the same way.

The PRD books are generally pretty balanced - if anything, things are more likely to be a bit UNDERpowered in the PRD books than they are OP.

Anything else - Campaign Settings, Player's Companions, etc. - due to being put out at faster rates and not being subject to Open Playtesting are going to have a few really wonky things here and there. The level of balance is much better than what you might expect from manuals put out on a monthly basis, but there's always going to be a bit more variance in balance than in Big Books.

CWheezy wrote:

That is a great sentiment but paizo continued to release very broken spells in subsequent books, such as Aroden's Spellbane.

I mean, it's a ninth-level spell, and it's strong, yes, but only negates a choice few spells; it's actually pretty balanced, honestly.

I actually feel the exact opposite way. I find Aroden's Spellbane to be the most imbalanced spell because it allows a smart caster to completely foil the tactics of other spellcasters (AKA the only challenge for this Wizard) without removing their own spellcasting ability.

'Oh, only this spell, this spell, and this spell could kill me? Might as well bane those.'

Wait - I must be missing something - why is Spellbane broken? (I rarely play that high level so I haven't seen it in action.)

Because careful selection of spells makes you a god.

For example, if you select mage's disjunction, greater dispel magic, and antimagic field you've basically taken out a huge chunk of the 'anti-caster' spells. It's debatable whether or not a metamagic version of spell still counts as the original, but if it does, then one could cast a widened antimagic field after aroden's spellbane and have a little bubble of functioning magic inside a field of antimagic. If not, you can still select antimagic field and widened antimagic field for the spellbane. Really good for a caster that polymorphs a lot because once you cast your polymorph spell, you'll fill the emanation space of the spellbane meaning any martial that fights you will be in the are of the antimagic field so he won't have any magical effects (AC 20 ish at 15th level? Pfft, you're dead).

Or you can use it to specifically counter the party's tactics. Such as if a player heavily favors the use of certain spells, Aroden's spellbane can stop that cold.

Really good for a caster that polymorphs a lot because once you cast your polymorph spell, you'll fill the emanation space of the spellbane meaning any martial that fights you will be in the are of the antimagic field so he won't have any magical effects (AC 20 ish at 15th level? Pfft, you're dead).

This is no longer the case.

Tels wrote:

Really good for a caster that polymorphs a lot because once you cast your polymorph spell, you'll fill the emanation space of the spellbane meaning any martial that fights you will be in the are of the antimagic field so he won't have any magical effects (AC 20 ish at 15th level? Pfft, you're dead).

This is no longer the case.

I already knew about that FAQ, and while it's very clear in how it works, there is one aspect that isn't quite as clear. That being, a Wizard who is medium size casts the spell, it is now centered on him at the time of casting. If he polymorphs into a Large sized dragon, does the radius of the emanation grow to match? Or does it stay the same as when he originally cast it?

The question the FAQ answers says "has up an effect," which is more inclusive than "casts/creates an effect." I'd be hard-pressed to see an alternative reading other than it applying to the creature's current size, regardless of the size at casting.

An emanation spell functions like a burst spell, except that the effect continues to radiate from the point of origin for the duration of the spell.

...when a creature uses an emanation or burst with the text “centered on you,” treat the creature’s entire space as the spell’s point of origin, and measure the spell’s area or effect from the edges of the creature’s space.

Since it is continuing to radiate from the point of origin, it would change with the creature.