Time to Break Your Chains!

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Over a year ago, I went to talk to Erik about a book idea I had. The pitch was simple: "Let us do a book filled with whatever crazy ideas we have floating around in our heads". He said "no". I said, "Wait though, allow me to explain, our crazy ideas might make the game better." He said "tell me more", and Pathfinder Unchained was born.

This book is just about to be released and it is time for us to give you a good idea of the crazy ideas you will find inside. Pathfinder Unchained is a book full of rules tweaks and alternate systems you can use to mod your game, changing the way it plays. While we suspect that everyone will find their own favorite rules subsystem, just about everyone take a long look through Chapter 1, detailing alternate versions of the barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner. So to kick off our previews, I've asked designer Mark Seifter to give you some of the juiciest tidbits about the Unchained variant classes!

Barbarian: From a game-balance perspective, the original barbarian serves her role admirably, but her mechanics are math-intensive, forcing you to recalculate numerous values once she enters rage and keep track of a bevy of once per rage abilities. Worst of all, she's the most likely character of all to die in a fight due to the way that ending rage lowers her current hit points. The unchained barbarian keeps the adrenaline-pumping fun of her former self but significantly simplifies the gameplay by adjusting the final mechanics instead of the stats themselves. For example, she gains temporary hit points instead of raising and later decreasing her current and maximum health (woo, no more dying at the end of rage!). Finally, she gains stronger versions of some of the mechanically weakest rage powers like raging climber (now you get an actual Climb speed instead of a small bonus!).


Illustration by Michael J. Penn

Monk: The original monk has many disparate abilities. While these abilities may be useful, they don't always synergize, and they are extremely inflexible. The unchained monk loosens up, gaining ki powers that allow you to customize your monk to fit your vision, whether it be a kung fu genius or wuxia mystic (my favorites are the ones like ki visions that let you gain divination powers that affect the narrative out of combat!). The unchained monk also has a full base attack bonus, an all-new flurry of blows, and some martial arts style strikes that help him reach his true potential (my favorite is flying kick, which lets you perform a leaping kick out to a distance equal to your extra monk movement speed once per flurry—mobile combatant for the win!).

Rogue: The original rogue has plenty of skill points and a damage increase in the form of sneak attack, but she needed a way to rule her own niche, especially with all the other classes that have things like big skill bonuses and accuracy boosts. The unchained rogue has a powerful debilitation ability that dramatically alters her ability to hit or dodge her foe, rogue's edge, which allows her to do unique things with her favorite skills (figure out surface thoughts with Sense Motive, Bluff so well you bypass truth-telling magic, use Disable Device reactively to protect yourself from a triggered trap, and much more!), and a significant boost to some of her rogue talents (For instance, minor magic? Yeah, you get that cantrip at-will). She also gets Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat and the ability to add her Dexterity to weapon damage!

Summoner: The original summoner has plenty of innovative features, but he also lacks focus and theme. As Jason was fond of describing it "You just have this amorphous blob with ten tentacles and two butts." The unchained summoner gains an eidolon that fits among existing outsiders, gaining additional abilities but also focus and theme (and if you want ten tentacles and two butts, we've still got that—go protean all the way my friend!). Some of these outsiders gain some pretty juicy abilities, like the angel's protective aura (that double strength magic circle against evil/lesser globe combo) or constant true seeing. Additionally, he possesses the spell list originally intended for the summoner.

So there you have it. We are confident that some of these classes will find a home at your game table, even if the Eidolon no longer has two butts. Tune in next week when we move on to look at some of the exciting new options in the Skills and Feats chapter!

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Balazar Barbarians Iconics Michael J. Penn Monks Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Rogues Summoners
51 to 100 of 547 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge

On a non-mechanics related note, I wonder if they got Wayne Reynolds to create "unchained" versions of the affected Iconics?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BartonOliver wrote:
Here, please, take my money, just take it.

Agreed, take mine too. I'm throwing money at the monitor but the book isn't appearing.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kwith wrote:
BartonOliver wrote:
Here, please, take my money, just take it.
Agreed, take mine too. I'm throwing money at the monitor but the book isn't appearing.

Try clearing your cache and re installing your browser


chaoseffect wrote:
I'm liking the sound of everything here, but oddly enough what really stood out to me was Barbarians getting temp HP while Raging. Rage cycling may have gotten even more useful. Gotta love constantly renewing buffer HP. That said I really don't think the Barbarian needed any updating, but who knows, maybe it's something I always needed but just didn't know it at the time.

I suspect in the desire to simplify Barbarian play rage cycling will either go away or become a more obvious/inherent part of the class. As much as it works by RAW and is required for a lot of the Barb's best tricks it is really weird flavor wise. I could see rage cycling being replaced with something more stream-lined.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I read that as no stupidly re-leveled wizard spells.

I figured that, but 'originally intended' by who and when? It's an odd wording that implies that the APG spell list was an accident or oversight. Which has been unaddressed for 4 1/2 years.

I mean, if it wasn't the intended spell list, there have been opportunities to errata it. This isn't rewriting the Stealth skill - rearranging a spell list fits on the same page.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The new Summoner sounds like it might be the perfect way to replicate the theme of some Final Fantasy characters.


Well, I guess I'm gonna have to restat those dragon monks I've been working on the last few weeks.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Interesting.

I still think a "simplified Barbarian" being a priority is a bit odd over a "not s$&$ty Fighter", but the Monk and Rogue stuff sounds excellent, and the Summoner sounds like...why didn't you do that in the first place?


Ross Byers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I read that as no stupidly re-leveled wizard spells.

I figured that, but 'originally intended' by who and when? It's an odd wording that implies that the APG spell list was an accident or oversight. Which has been unaddressed for 4 1/2 years.

I mean, if it wasn't the intended spell list, there have been opportunities to errata it. This isn't rewriting the Stealth skill - rearranging a spell list fits on the same page.

I don't know if this is what the section on the Summoner was pointing to, but I'd really like a Summoner who doesn't have a spell list of their own and instead gets a very specified set of spells depending on the nature of their eidolon.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I read that as no stupidly re-leveled wizard spells.

I figured that, but 'originally intended' by who and when? It's an odd wording that implies that the APG spell list was an accident or oversight. Which has been unaddressed for 4 1/2 years.

I mean, if it wasn't the intended spell list, there have been opportunities to errata it. This isn't rewriting the Stealth skill - rearranging a spell list fits on the same page.

I don't know if this is what the section on the Summoner was pointing to, but I'd really like a Summoner who doesn't have a spell list of their own and instead gets a very specified set of spells depending on the nature of their eidolon.

Oh! That'd be a neat idea. Now that you have to pick an eidolon type, you can attach baggage to that choice. Summoners are Spells Known casters, so you can give them bloodline/mystery-like bonus spells known related to their critter.

Angel summoner? Have a searing light! Devil summoner? Darkvision! Demon summoner? Rage! Protean summoner? Entropic shield!


Rynjin wrote:

Interesting.

I still think a "simplified Barbarian" being a priority is a bit odd over a "not s@#%ty Fighter", but the Monk and Rogue stuff sounds excellent, and the Summoner sounds like...why didn't you do that in the first place?

I think Fighter is getting some stuff a little indirectly. There's something that grants abilities based on combat feats, which Fighter will have more of than anybody else.

As for Summoner, I think I saw mention of the playtest having a lot of feedback of Summoner being too weak and needing better spells or something? I don't know for sure about that one.


QuidEst wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Interesting.

I still think a "simplified Barbarian" being a priority is a bit odd over a "not s@#%ty Fighter", but the Monk and Rogue stuff sounds excellent, and the Summoner sounds like...why didn't you do that in the first place?

I think Fighter is getting some stuff a little indirectly. There's something that grants abilities based on combat feats, which Fighter will have more of than anybody else.

As for Summoner, I think I saw mention of the playtest having a lot of feedback of Summoner being too weak and needing better spells or something? I don't know for sure about that one.

I wasn't talking about the spell-list, I was talking about making the "amorphous blob with 10 tentacles and 2 butts" the default instead of a Summoner who summons things, as presented here.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Interesting.

I still think a "simplified Barbarian" being a priority is a bit odd over a "not s+$~ty Fighter"...

I'm just going to repost something I said in the discussion thread for this product several months ago:

Vic Wertz wrote:

When Jason pitched the outline for this book, my first comments were about the proposed list of classes, and mirror many of the comments seen here: Why A and B, but not C and D?

I can assure you he had really good answers, though I can't really share most of them right now. But i will give you one: a couple of the classes that are not called out in the Classes chapter on the outline rely heavily on systems that are called out in other chapters.

Lantern Lodge

Ross Byers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I read that as no stupidly re-leveled wizard spells.

I figured that, but 'originally intended' by who and when? It's an odd wording that implies that the APG spell list was an accident or oversight. Which has been unaddressed for 4 1/2 years.

I mean, if it wasn't the intended spell list, there have been opportunities to errata it. This isn't rewriting the Stealth skill - rearranging a spell list fits on the same page.

I don't know if this is what the section on the Summoner was pointing to, but I'd really like a Summoner who doesn't have a spell list of their own and instead gets a very specified set of spells depending on the nature of their eidolon.

Oh! That'd be a neat idea. Now that you have to pick an eidolon type, you can attach baggage to that choice. Summoners are Spells Known casters, so you can give them bloodline/mystery-like bonus spells known related to their critter.

Angel summoner? Have a searing light! Devil summoner? Darkvision! Demon summoner? Rage! Protean summoner? Entropic shield!

I wonder if we'll get standardized eidolons? Remove the crazy evolution mechanics. Personally I don't mind them, but most of my players take a look and their eyes glaze over. Something akin to animal companions where you get a base "form" (like demon, protean, angel, etc) and them apply level dependent benefits.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Every time my new monk uses the flying kick, I am going to make Liu Kang sound effects.

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

30 people marked this as a favorite.

As per usual, we can never please everyone...

Couple of notes folks.

1. The summoner spell list has been a problem for years. It was supposed to be swapped out back before the book came out and at the time, we were not doing any spot erratas so the wrong list has stuck around. This is our chance to fix it along with the other problems of the class.

2. PFS will have announcements about this book. I will let them do that when they are ready.

3. The classes that did not get rebuilds have a lot of material for them in this book. There is really something for everyone, depending on what you want to add or change in your game.

I am sure most of you will really enjoy this book. I know we had a lot of fun putting it together.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Inc

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Kassegore wrote:
I wonder if we'll get standardized eidolons? Remove the crazy evolution mechanics. Personally I don't mind them, but most of my players take a look and their eyes glaze over. Something akin to animal companions where you get a base "form" (like demon, protean, angel, etc) and them apply level dependent benefits.

Sounds like some are more standard than others. Those angel perks are really good, so there might not be much room to fit in flexible abilities around them (and Angels and Archons tend to be pretty standard, physically speaking, so they shouldn't get things like tentacles or stinger tails). On the other hand, the blog promises that if you want to '10 tentacled, build-your own' monster, Protean will hook you up.

Liberty's Edge

Ross Byers wrote:
But I wonder which outsider model, if any, supports slightly less outlandish, but clearly supernatural creatures like Rummy-tum-tugger, or the eidolons of Sarkoran God-callers.

Maybe not all of the models are plainly outsider...I could easily see a "Magical Beast" or "Abomination" theme as well.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
As per usual, we can never please everyone...

Of course not. If you did, I would assume you'd made some sort of unholy pact with Asmodeus, and then a bunch of people wouldn't be pleased anyway!


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You aren't "fixing" the Fighter by adding super long feat chains, are you?


When is the release date, again?

MA

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
As per usual, we can never please everyone...
Of course not. If you did, I would assume you'd made some sort of unholy pact with Asmodeus, and then a bunch of people wouldn't be pleased anyway!

Well, this book isn't buffing Clerics to any significant degree, so Beckett is bound to be grumpy. ;-)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
1. The summoner spell list has been a problem for years. It was supposed to be swapped out back before the book came out and at the time, we were not doing any spot erratas so the wrong list has stuck around. This is our chance to fix it along with the other problems of the class.

Since I'm the one who brought this up in this thread, thank you for the clarification. I'm definitely glad the Summoner list is being addressed - I understand its problems.

I was just unaware that the summoner spell list was an oversight from before the publication of the book - I had been under the impression that the spell list was intended and the intervening years had simply revealed it to be a mistake. Thus, I didn't understand that line in the blog. Now I know.

I did not intend to sound displeased. First of all, I consider you and the rest of the design team my friends (well, except Mark. I'm sure he's a cool guy, but I've never met him face to face.) Second, you have control over how much freelance work I get.

Designer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
You aren't "fixing" the Fighter by adding super long feat chains, are you?

Nah. But wouldn't it be cool to get more out of taking those existing super long chains if you're willing to shell out the feats for them? Because I think so!

Liberty's Edge

Mark Seifter wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
You aren't "fixing" the Fighter by adding super long feat chains, are you?
Nah. But wouldn't it be cool to get more out of taking those existing super long chains if you're willing to shell out the feats for them? Because I think so!

That depends... will I get more out of them than I would if I spent the same feat slots on other, shorter chains or one-off feats?

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Mark Seifter wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
You aren't "fixing" the Fighter by adding super long feat chains, are you?
Nah. But wouldn't it be cool to get more out of taking those existing super long chains if you're willing to shell out the feats for them? Because I think so!

So... maybe buffing some of the feats themselves? Just spitballin' here.


Well, as I understand it, the fatigue thingy they've mentioned works off of your BAB and what feats you have.

Fighters have pretty much nothing going for them but BAB and Feats, so it seems pretty logical that they are getting more out of the fatigue system than anyone else can by default, although we'll have to see how this improves their versatility.

Still, that combined with the Fighter getting some appealing archetypes in the last few books could be nice...


The Eldritch Guardian combined with one of the many great archetypes that stack with it is already a perfectly viable Fighter, it can only go up from here.

What I really want to see is a way for my EG/Brawler Fighter to mimic Dimensional Anchor. That would be beautiful.

Shadow Lodge

I dont mind super long feat chains for fighter if they are fighter niche AND they are useful, in 3.5 we had "combat form" feats which were really good and required quite some levels of fighter


Interesting point that could use some consideration; can you open up your Flurry of Blows with a Flying Kick to hit somebody standing your fast movement distance away and then lay into them with your other attacks?

Because that's quite a nice way to make fast movement and flurry of blows support each other without pigeonholing monks in to Pummeling Style. If that was intentional, well done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Interesting point that could use some consideration; can you open up your Flurry of Blows with a Flying Kick to hit somebody standing your fast movement distance away and then lay into them with your other attacks?

Because that's quite a nice way to make fast movement and flurry of blows support each other without pigeonholing monks in to Pummeling Style. If that was intentional, well done.

I believe you can flying kick and then full-attack. I have to believe that's intentional. I wouldn't be surpised if they open a chain up so that you can split up your movement between attacks for multi-charge pounces.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xethik wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Interesting point that could use some consideration; can you open up your Flurry of Blows with a Flying Kick to hit somebody standing your fast movement distance away and then lay into them with your other attacks?

Because that's quite a nice way to make fast movement and flurry of blows support each other without pigeonholing monks in to Pummeling Style. If that was intentional, well done.

I believe you can flying kick and then full-attack. I have to believe that's intentional. I wouldn't be surpised if they open a chain up so that you can split up your movement between attacks for multi-charge pounces.

I'm getting this image of an elderly shaolin monk goomba-stomping a bunch of goblins' heads as stepping stones to reach and drop-kick the bigger monster leading them, and it makes me happy.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I read that as no stupidly re-leveled wizard spells.

I figured that, but 'originally intended' by who and when? It's an odd wording that implies that the APG spell list was an accident or oversight. Which has been unaddressed for 4 1/2 years.

I mean, if it wasn't the intended spell list, there have been opportunities to errata it. This isn't rewriting the Stealth skill - rearranging a spell list fits on the same page.

I don't know if this is what the section on the Summoner was pointing to, but I'd really like a Summoner who doesn't have a spell list of their own and instead gets a very specified set of spells depending on the nature of their eidolon.

Oh! That'd be a neat idea. Now that you have to pick an eidolon type, you can attach baggage to that choice. Summoners are Spells Known casters, so you can give them bloodline/mystery-like bonus spells known related to their critter.

Angel summoner? Have a searing light! Devil summoner? Darkvision! Demon summoner? Rage! Protean summoner? Entropic shield!

I love the orginal summoner class (and the primal companion hunter archetype) but they aren't exactly balanced. However, I think going full Angel Summoner is a bit crazy.

The other classes might not want to feel like BMX Bandit.


Jiggy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
You aren't "fixing" the Fighter by adding super long feat chains, are you?
Nah. But wouldn't it be cool to get more out of taking those existing super long chains if you're willing to shell out the feats for them? Because I think so!
So... maybe buffing some of the feats themselves? Just spitballin' here.

*crosses fingers for a not terrible version of Combat Expertise*


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I read that as no stupidly re-leveled wizard spells.

I figured that, but 'originally intended' by who and when? It's an odd wording that implies that the APG spell list was an accident or oversight. Which has been unaddressed for 4 1/2 years.

I mean, if it wasn't the intended spell list, there have been opportunities to errata it. This isn't rewriting the Stealth skill - rearranging a spell list fits on the same page.

I don't know if this is what the section on the Summoner was pointing to, but I'd really like a Summoner who doesn't have a spell list of their own and instead gets a very specified set of spells depending on the nature of their eidolon.

Oh! That'd be a neat idea. Now that you have to pick an eidolon type, you can attach baggage to that choice. Summoners are Spells Known casters, so you can give them bloodline/mystery-like bonus spells known related to their critter.

Angel summoner? Have a searing light! Devil summoner? Darkvision! Demon summoner? Rage! Protean summoner? Entropic shield!

I love the orginal summoner class (and the primal companion hunter archetype) but they aren't exactly balanced. However, I think going full [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw]Angel Summoner[/url is a bit crazy.

The other classes might not want to feel like BMX Bandit.

I assume the idea isn't so much that you summon angels as you summon one particular angel. From there, it might be kinda neat if the Summoner's got a kinda narrow spell list himself, but your angel/demon/protean/whatever bro proceeds to grant you access to some specific spells through your bond.

Considering how ridiculously powerful the Summon Monster SLA was for summoners, I wouldn't be surprised if the class was more like a stand user from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure than Mr. Summon A Horde of Monsters And Let Them Sort It Out like before. You don't so much have all the monsters you can grab at your beck and call as you are 6/9ths-caster with a powerful outsider companion you can summon for aid.


I hope there will be other choices for Summoner's Eidolon other then outsiders because magical beast, fey, dragons, etc. based ones would be awesome. I am not saying that the Eidolon's type changes just that there are other options for there form.

Dark Archive

I want more! Give me the book!!!!!


I'm ready for this book right now.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
would love to know whether or not these rules are going to be utilized for PFS
Tarrintino wrote:
So, can anyone comment on how much (if any) of this book will be used in PFS?
Once the content review teams get their reports submitted to Mike and John, and they have had time to formulate a decision on what to allow, you will get your answer.

I will just mention that I would put this book down as "very well received" by people who have had early access to it for, uh... various reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So these aren't alternate ways of playing these classes at all.

These are upgraded versions of the classes (or a nerf in the case of Summoner).

So will ALL FUTURE GAME MATERIAL take into account these upgrades?

For example, will we see more material for Unchained Rogue, Monk, etc?


Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
Ross Byers wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I read that as no stupidly re-leveled wizard spells.

I figured that, but 'originally intended' by who and when? It's an odd wording that implies that the APG spell list was an accident or oversight. Which has been unaddressed for 4 1/2 years.

I mean, if it wasn't the intended spell list, there have been opportunities to errata it. This isn't rewriting the Stealth skill - rearranging a spell list fits on the same page.

I don't know if this is what the section on the Summoner was pointing to, but I'd really like a Summoner who doesn't have a spell list of their own and instead gets a very specified set of spells depending on the nature of their eidolon.

Oh! That'd be a neat idea. Now that you have to pick an eidolon type, you can attach baggage to that choice. Summoners are Spells Known casters, so you can give them bloodline/mystery-like bonus spells known related to their critter.

Angel summoner? Have a searing light! Devil summoner? Darkvision! Demon summoner? Rage! Protean summoner? Entropic shield!

I love the orginal summoner class (and the primal companion hunter archetype) but they aren't exactly balanced. However, I think going full Angel Summoner is a bit crazy.

The other classes might not want to feel like BMX Bandit.

Are you implying that it's currently any different?

Silver Crusade

Arachnofiend wrote:
Big Lemon wrote:
As long as the ability to add Dex to damage works as a incremental thing (like the old Duelist's INT to AC), I can get on board with it.
It'll probably be a Rogue Talent. Not all Rogues are dex-based after all, plus that would delay it to level 2, meaning that classes that might benefits from dex-to-damage would be discouraged from dipping for it because they either have their own means that comes online faster or have class features that they really don't want to delay by two levels.

If that's the fix they could have just published it as a rogue talent in any given book.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Lamontius wrote:
would love to know whether or not these rules are going to be utilized for PFS
Tarrintino wrote:
So, can anyone comment on how much (if any) of this book will be used in PFS?
Once the content review teams get their reports submitted to Mike and John, and they have had time to formulate a decision on what to allow, you will get your answer.
I will just mention that I would put this book down as "very well received" by people who have had early access to it for, uh... various reasons.

Sometimes I really miss having some of those reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Money take it!!!


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:

The Eldritch Guardian combined with one of the many great archetypes that stack with it is already a perfectly viable Fighter, it can only go up from here.

What I really want to see is a way for my EG/Brawler Fighter to mimic Dimensional Anchor. That would be beautiful.

Mutation Warrior/Martial Master/Eldritch Guardian is mechanically pretty solid but you have to admit it's not what you would think of when you say "Fighter".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Paizo! How can you...

Oh wait actually I'm pretty happy with this preview. Carry on.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

The Eldritch Guardian combined with one of the many great archetypes that stack with it is already a perfectly viable Fighter, it can only go up from here.

What I really want to see is a way for my EG/Brawler Fighter to mimic Dimensional Anchor. That would be beautiful.

Mutation Warrior/Martial Master/Eldritch Guardian is mechanically pretty solid but you have to admit it's not what you would think of when you say "Fighter".

Well it does look like an Excel spreadsheet, but isn't this what whole d20 is all about? ;-)

Paizo Employee Lead Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

I love the orginal summoner class (and the primal companion hunter archetype) but they aren't exactly balanced. However, I think going full Angel Summoner is a bit crazy.

The other classes might not want to feel like BMX Bandit.

100 points to you for those references. I love that show...


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm skeptical of tying eidolons to existing outsiders on a thematic basis, mostly because I've tired of how PF/D&D has handled existing outsiders. I'll probably find it better if the associations are loose, especially with things like alignment restrictions.

I'm in a wait and see mode for the barbarian and what is has to offer.

The rogue and monk fixes sound pretty cool- I'm cautiously optimistic and hoping that the execution will be good.


Rynjin wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

The Eldritch Guardian combined with one of the many great archetypes that stack with it is already a perfectly viable Fighter, it can only go up from here.

What I really want to see is a way for my EG/Brawler Fighter to mimic Dimensional Anchor. That would be beautiful.

Mutation Warrior/Martial Master/Eldritch Guardian is mechanically pretty solid but you have to admit it's not what you would think of when you say "Fighter".

I see what you mean, but what I think of when I say "Fighter" is basically already available via the Slayer so I'm pretty happy with all the Fighter archetypes that open up oddball character options. Still would certainly not mind if Mr. Everyman became a valid concept for the Fighter, though.

51 to 100 of 547 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Paizo Blog: Time to Break Your Chains! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.