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
251 to 300 of 547 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Set wrote:
Lanitril wrote:
While we're at it, let's just give everybody an extra two skill points. Lol.

I don't really think the folk who already have 4, 6 or 8 skill points really need any more than that. It's just the Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, etc. with their 2 skill points per level that seem to be falling short.

It was even more off-kilter in 3.X, where a Cleric with the Trickery Domain gained three additional class skills, which he'd never be able to use anyway...

Personally, I think that skill point progressions should mirror Hit Die progressions. 6 (cleric/fighter/etc) is lowest, 12 (rogue) is highest.

Thats too many really. once you pass 8 or 9 skill points you're kinda throwing them into fluff skills after that.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think there's anything wrong with fluff skills, necessarily. It's a good thing I think. Gives some characters a little more character. Besides, I almost never feel like I have enough skill points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I have never, before this product was announced, heard anyone suggest the Barbarian needed reworking.
I have. Mostly in the context of rage-cycling being a really weird thing. And I've certainly felt how cumbersome it can be to math everything out when I've had new players go for Barbarian or Bloodrager.
Why cant they just have a sheet of paper with raged stats or unraged stats in place before the game starts. As for rage cycling it is a class feature at higher levels.

If anything, the fact that you're suggesting the use of two character sheets for one character works in favor of the argument the Barb needs simplification.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
I am thinking the extra skills would have to go into crafting, profession or perform. Those are mostly what people calls "background" skills.

Except, you know, its not really fair when the bard is using those "extra, non-combat skills" to do combat things via versatile performance.

If there ever was a class that did not need help with skills, it is the bard.

I dont think every class is getting extra skill points so this should not affect a bard.


Arachnofiend wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I have never, before this product was announced, heard anyone suggest the Barbarian needed reworking.
I have. Mostly in the context of rage-cycling being a really weird thing. And I've certainly felt how cumbersome it can be to math everything out when I've had new players go for Barbarian or Bloodrager.
Why cant they just have a sheet of paper with raged stats or unraged stats in place before the game starts. As for rage cycling it is a class feature at higher levels.
If anything, the fact that you're suggesting the use of two character sheets for one character works in favor of the argument the Barb needs simplification.

I said nothing about two character sheets. As an example when I am in a game and certain buffs become common I would a small 3X5 notepad to note the other attack bonus damage bonus and so on. This is not barbarian specific advice.

If I have a ranger with rapid shot, deadly aim, and so on I have multiple combinations of abilities preconfigured.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Set wrote:
Lanitril wrote:
While we're at it, let's just give everybody an extra two skill points. Lol.

I don't really think the folk who already have 4, 6 or 8 skill points really need any more than that. It's just the Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, etc. with their 2 skill points per level that seem to be falling short.

It was even more off-kilter in 3.X, where a Cleric with the Trickery Domain gained three additional class skills, which he'd never be able to use anyway...

Personally, I think that skill point progressions should mirror Hit Die progressions. 6 (cleric/fighter/etc) is lowest, 12 (rogue) is highest.
Thats too many really. once you pass 8 or 9 skill points you're kinda throwing them into fluff skills after that.

I dunno what's so wrong with fluff skills. I feel like having a ton of skill ranks means you're not so keenly focused on Perception and one or two other maxed skills unless you're a skill monkey character.

Personally, I feel like if classes had more skill points per level people would be more happy to put ranks in things like Profession and Heal and Perform, things that make the character feel more rounded than just being intensely focused on a couple things. I don't feel like the Paladin having enough skill ranks that they can use more than two of their class skills would be such a bother, for example. You'd be more likely to have paladins that can answer questions about their own religion and accurately assess the motives of people they're trying Diplomacy with, for one thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree that 2 SP classes should be bumped up to 4. For example, a noble born fighter could have a point or two in diplomacy and know-nobility to represent his upbringing, in addition to perception and climb/swim.


I would grant 4 extra skill points that have to used on craft, perform, profession, or knowledge skills.

I do wish they made skill point progression based what kind of class they are...

Martials get 6+Int
Spellcasters get 4+Int
Skill Monkeys get 8+Int

I wonder how well the new rage mechanic will work on the Bloodrager.

Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Set wrote:
Lanitril wrote:
While we're at it, let's just give everybody an extra two skill points. Lol.

I don't really think the folk who already have 4, 6 or 8 skill points really need any more than that. It's just the Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer, etc. with their 2 skill points per level that seem to be falling short.

It was even more off-kilter in 3.X, where a Cleric with the Trickery Domain gained three additional class skills, which he'd never be able to use anyway...

Personally, I think that skill point progressions should mirror Hit Die progressions. 6 (cleric/fighter/etc) is lowest, 12 (rogue) is highest.
Thats too many really. once you pass 8 or 9 skill points you're kinda throwing them into fluff skills after that.

Perfect. You SHOULD be able to take fluff skills.

Shadow Lodge

Dragon78 wrote:

I would grant 4 extra skill points that have to used on craft, perform, profession, or knowledge skills.

I do wish they made skill point progression based what kind of class they are...

Martials get 6+Int
Spellcasters get 4+Int
Skill Monkeys get 8+Int

That would lead to some confusion. Is a Cleric a Martial or a Spellcaster? How about a Bard?

Honestly, and this really should have been done from the start, I think they really should have bumped everyone up to 4+Int minimum. Classes that already had that or higher, no change. And sort of like the Barbarian is the exception for the BaB = HD thing, there would be an exception here, too, in the Wizards and Int based casters (Witch) would stay at 2+Int for skill points.

The main issue is really just Clerics, Fighters, and Paladins. Clerics and Paladins had too many essential class skills needed to do their basic job effectively, while also being very Feat starved and lacking any means of boosting their essential skills. Both are also very MAD classes that generally leave Int as a dump stat.

Fighter is mostly in the same boat, but it's less that they lack the skill points to effectively do their job as it is they just have no room for anything else, and in their case, their "job" is 90% in combat focused.

So, in order to buy "fluff" skills, they basically are required to make themselves significantly less effective doing their actual "roles" job, like a Cleric or Paladin that doesn't know anything about Religion or the planes of heavens and hells or a Fighter that can scare people, but can't jump, climb, and/or swim in armor or maneuver around the field without getting smacked in the face.

The truth is, no matter what, no one is going to have "enough skills", and that's a good thing. It should be a choice between putting ranks into this or into that for everyone. I'm just saying that the Cleric, Fighter, and Paladin have it unproportionately worse than basically everyone else.

I also agree on the idea of the Fighter and Barbarian "fixes". I've never once heard of the Barbarian being an issue, even amongst brand new players, and see Rage Cycling as a feature, not a bug. But, the only indication we have is that simple math is either hard or confusing, and that's what is being fixed. But it's not broken?

As for the Fighter, or rather the lack of, for one thing, an entire new system is something that's probably not going to do anything for practical usage, and Paizo has a pretty terrible record of throwing out basic, (as in not entirely complete), new subsystems, and then never touching them again.

Secondly, from the sounds of it, this Fatigue system, will probably not be very good for the game as a whole. Especially if you have a pretty mixed party that needs to decide between wasting buffs, if it's more casters than Fighters, which is pretty common, it sounds like it's going to be one more thing that's going to make the PLAYER of the Fighter feel screwed over, (that is because the are rarely ever going to be able to sit down and rest up).

Lastly, as a "fix" I honestly just see it causing even more problems, as Fighters are not the only "martials" out there, and many others are also Feat starved. Melee Cleric, Bloodragers, Magi, etc. . ., either the entire system is going to also have to cater to them, (in which case that means it IS NOT a Fighter "fix" at all), or it' only going to address the Fighter in any reasonable way, and cause yet another level of issue for everyone involved.

Especially in areas like PFS, if it's anything close to what I'm expecting it t be, it's going to cause many more issues than it actually solves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:


That would lead to some confusion. Is a Cleric a Martial or a Spellcaster? How about a Bard?

Honestly, and this really should have been done from the start, I think they really should have bumped everyone up to 4+Int minimum. Classes that already had that or higher, no change. And sort of like the Barbarian is the exception for the BaB = HD thing, there would be an exception here, too, in the Wizards and Int based casters (Witch) would stay at 2+Int for skill points.

The main issue is really just Clerics, Fighters, and Paladins. Clerics and Paladins had too many essential class skills needed to do their basic job effectively, while also being very Feat starved and lacking any means of boosting their essential skills. Both are also very MAD classes that generally leave Int as a dump stat.

Fighter is mostly in the same boat, but it's less that they lack the skill points to effectively do their job as it is they just have no room for anything else, and in their case, their "job" is 90% in combat focused.

So, in order to buy "fluff" skills, they basically are required to make themselves significantly less effective doing their actual "roles" job, like a Cleric or Paladin that doesn't know anything about Religion or the planes of heavens and hells or a Fighter that can scare people, but can't jump, climb, and/or swim in armor or maneuver around the field without getting smacked in the face.

The truth is, no matter what, no one is going to have "enough skills", and that's a good thing. It should be a choice between putting ranks into this or into that for everyone. I'm just saying that the Cleric, Fighter, and Paladin have it unproportionately worse than basically everyone else.

I also agree on the idea of the...

I think deciding that a subsystem will be bad for the game as a whole when it has even been released or even PREVIEWED strikes me as a bit presumptuous. All we have right now is a name and a very very basic explanation of how it might work. Lets actually get the system before we dismiss it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Personally, I feel like if classes had more skill points per level people would be more happy to put ranks in things like Profession and Heal and Perform, things that make the character feel more rounded than just being intensely focused on a couple things. I don't feel like the Paladin having enough skill ranks that they can use more than two of their class skills would be such a bother, for example. You'd be more likely to have paladins that can answer questions about their own religion and accurately assess the motives of people they're trying Diplomacy with, for one thing.

You can do that by spreading skill points around. The trained skill bonus comes in very handy for that.

If one of the rogues things is skill points (currently its their only thing) then if you're already giving away enough skillpoints to get all the good skills and get over into fluff then you've left even less reason to be a rogue then. Not all skills are created equal, so there's some serious diminishing returns there. after 8 or 10.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dm Beckett wrote:
I also agree on the idea of the Fighter and Barbarian "fixes". I've never once heard of the Barbarian being an issue, even amongst brand new players, and see Rage Cycling as a feature, not a bug. But, the only indication we have is that simple math is either hard or confusing, and that's what is being fixed. But it's not broken?

I think its deliberate. They want to see if they can improve something thats not broken , get something thats busted to work, and slow down something thats working TOO well.


Arachnofiend wrote:
If anything, the fact that you're suggesting the use of two character sheets for one character works in favor of the argument the Barb needs simplification.

I use slashes with the player folio boxes (they're huge!) for barbarians and other multimodal features like lycanthropy and whatnot. I can keep both sets of statistics quite often side by side. The exception tends to be attacks where I will take an additional line to do whatever additional math is necessary. Changes after that are a matter of adjustments. I've never found wholesale recalculation necessary. Temporary buffs get jotted beside the relevant portion. I can understand people not wanting to put that kind of work into a character sheet. However, given just how often the game can change your stats, you either quickly learn to adapt or play something else. That they're introducing a version that's simpler on paper is cool, though.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

If you didn't want to do math you should have gone to fighter college


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Blackwaltzomega wrote:

Personally, I feel like if classes had more skill points per level people would be more happy to put ranks in things like Profession and Heal and Perform, things that make the character feel more rounded than just being intensely focused on a couple things. I don't feel like the Paladin having enough skill ranks that they can use more than two of their class skills would be such a bother, for example. You'd be more likely to have paladins that can answer questions about their own religion and accurately assess the motives of people they're trying Diplomacy with, for one thing.

You can do that by spreading skill points around. The trained skill bonus comes in very handy for that.

If one of the rogues things is skill points (currently its their only thing) then if you're already giving away enough skillpoints to get all the good skills and get over into fluff then you've left even less reason to be a rogue then. Not all skills are created equal, so there's some serious diminishing returns there. after 8 or 10.

Yes and no. If you're a caster, for example, it's basically assumed you WILL keep Spellcraft maxed so that you can identify all the magic items you come across and be able to know what enemy casters are up to, and be able to craft really well.

That's great if you're a wizard or witch or magus, who is sort of expected to have about six skill ranks per level thanks to their high intelligence bonus, but it's a pretty raw deal for the cleric and sorcerer who have no good reason to focus in intelligence and have their already paltry skill total cut in HALF by this assumption. If you keep perception maxed so you don't get bushwhacked by high-stealth critters or those traps you really NEED to notice later in the game, that's it for a lot of sorcerers. Spellcraft and Perception, and nothing else.

Personally, I feel like the rogue would justify himself a lot better if his thing with skills isn't "I get way more than everyone else!" but "My class features let me use skills in ways you guys can't!" Having a lot of skills never protected the Rogue's niche, because the Bard moonwalked all over him in that regard by having skills and SPELLS, which were often better than maxed-out skills.

From the sounds of it, the Rogue Unchained will have more skill trick-type abilities than the classic Rogue, which is a good thing. I think it's a better game if everyone has the skill points that it's not a question of "OK, what do I have room for after I invested in perception (and spellcraft, if I'm a caster)," but the Rogue, who never grapples with that question, is instead unlocking new and unique ways to use those skills.

Like, more classes might take Sleight of Hand with a bigger skill pool, but only the Rogue can use it to disarm opponents instead of making a CMB check. Maybe you'd see more classes with Sense Motive, but only the Rogue can...I dunno, turn it into an insight bonus to AC or stuff like that.

Grand Lodge

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Knowledge skills are fluff now? News to me.

Shadow Lodge

MMCJawa wrote:
I think deciding that a subsystem will be bad for the game as a whole when it has even been released or even PREVIEWED strikes me as a bit presumptuous. All we have right now is a name and a very very basic explanation of how it might work. Lets actually get the system before we dismiss it.

I wasn't sure if you realized, but it looks like you quoted everything but the actual discussion on the subsystem of my post. But, it's less me saying that it IS bad, and more me expressing my concern, especially when we do have plenty of examples on how these sorts of things are handled in the past.

Being that it, (the Fighter fix), is not toted as a selling point for the book, that it is a subsystem, and that it really isn't even aimed at fixing the outside-of-combat problem for the class makes me find the entire "fix" aspect very questionable, though I would like to be proven wrong.

Also, the fact is that the book is based on the premise of "if you could do whatever you wanted, what would it be", and not "lets fix the long term issues of PF", and that this book is expressly not PF 2.0 or Pathfinder Arcana Unearthed, that means that "needs most" is not the priority as what is the wonkiest you can come up with to make the class play like you envisioned it. Not in itself bad, but I just need to remind myself that this was not intended to be a book of fixes, beyond perhaps the Summoner, as much as almost a What If sort of book, and not get my hopes up for something that wasn't actually promised.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Knowledge skills are fluff now? News to me.

They can be. If you take the idea that "gods are not just for Clerics" and want to have, for example, a Ranger that is religious (and well, actually informed), it's very flavorful to put ranks into Know Religion, even if it doesn't really help you mechanically that much, (most Undead are pretty obviously undead).

Or a Dwarven Fighter (Flint Fireforge style) that actually wants to be able to know things about ancient craftsmanship could take Know Engineering to do that. Outside of a few PFS scenarios and siege engines, it's kind of a useless skill except for flavor.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Knowledge skills are fluff now? News to me.

Some of them are. Architecture engineering, Nobility, nature usually (its a wolf... you're gonna get bit) , history, and geography (can't spend 2gp on a map now can I)


Maps more often than not just give mods to either survival or knowledge (geography). I personally think it's dumb, but it's what I've observed.

Contributor

BigNorseWolf wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Knowledge skills are fluff now? News to me.
Some of them are. Architecture engineering, Nobility, nature usually (its a wolf... you're gonna get bit) , history, and geography (can't spend 2gp on a map now can I)

You clearly don't fight enough fey if Knowledge (nature) is a fluffy skill to you.


Or Monstrous Humanoids.

The monster group with about twice as many creatures as the second largest group.


Alexander Augunas wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Knowledge skills are fluff now? News to me.
Some of them are. Architecture engineering, Nobility, nature usually (its a wolf... you're gonna get bit) , history, and geography (can't spend 2gp on a map now can I)
You clearly don't fight enough fey if Knowledge (nature) is a fluffy skill to you.

I just fight enough demons that ALL the arrows I buy are cold iron.


What also might need some work is the Sorcerer class. I've found it has trouble keeping up with the Wizard. Lord only knows it CANNOT compete with the Arcanist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Keep up in what way?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Buri Reborn wrote:
Keep up in what way?

Effectiveness. A well played Wizard often has more influence on the world around them than even the best played Sorcerer. This isn't purely from a combat only perspective. A wizard increases his spells known every time he gets a hold of a spell book or has access to other wizards. Every time he learns a new spell, that's another thing he can do to influence the world.

From a purely combat perspective, the Sorcerer and Wizard are often fairly equal if both are played correctly. A well player Sorcerer often has the right spell for the job because he knows how to pick his spells or adpat a spell to do the job 'well enough'. The same is true for a Wizard.

But it's where the combat ends, specifically, that the Wizard vastly outpaces the Sorcerer. The Sorcerer simply can't change his kit from day to day which lets the Wizard fulfill many roles when he needs to.

The Arcanist is in the same boat as the Wizard. Able to completely change his spell selection each day will make the Arcanist *always* a more powerful caster, in the long run, than a Sorcerer. A well played Sorcerer may be equal to a well played Wizard and Arcansit during combat, but combat isn't the only aspect of the game.


Schrodingerism, I suppose. The Sorcerer isn't as good as the Wizard and the Arcanist because the Sorcerer is a much more specialized class, usually focusing in on a few signature spells she will cast every day. This definitely doesn't make the Sorcerer a bad class and I think it's just fine for people who want to play a more specialized caster.


Well, yeah... that's the inherent opportunity cost to be able to have spell slots coming out of your ears. There are pages of spell knowledge. That's their whole point. That's inherently what you sign up for when you play a sorcerer. I don't see it as a problem. They get their own benefits over wizards. Mind you, you can still get some great mileage out of paragon surge in this regard. Which, doing in a standard action what takes a wizard a day to do (assuming no open slots) has its own rewards. If they move the sorcerer to be just another variant of wizard you'll see me literally flipping tables.


Yeah, I entirely agree. The steps it would take to make a Sorcerer equal to a Wizard would make the Sorcerer less desirable to the people who prefer Sorcerers over Wizards.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Berselius wrote:
What also might need some work is the Sorcerer class. I've found it has trouble keeping up with the Wizard. Lord only knows it CANNOT compete with the Arcanist.

It has been my experience player skill is a key factor here. I have never seen a sorcerer not be played effectively, nor lag so far behind a wizard that it appears to need any extra help, and from what I have heard of the arcanist it is more "paper strong" than it is "game strong". I am not saying it is not a powerful class, but all of the claims of how strong it would be certainly appear to be exaggerated.


lol whoever told you the arcanist is paper strong doesn't know what they're talking about. Quick Study is broken as hell. This from someone who plays an Arcanist in PFS and spends her entire arcane reservoir on that one exploit.


Arachnofiend wrote:
lol whoever told you the arcanist is paper strong doesn't know what they're talking about. Quick Study is broken as hell. This from someone who plays an Arcanist in PFS and spends her entire arcane reservoir on that one exploit.

You are taking my words out of context. I am saying it is not as strong as people said it would be, and I don't really see how quick study is broken. It is "ok", but far from "game wrecking", and if it cant' wreck games then I don't think its broken(as in over powered).


It is as strong as people said it would be, and Quick Study is very broken. The ability to spend six seconds pulling up any wonder spell you have on your spell book completely nullifies the one disadvantage Wizards actually have.


Arachnofiend wrote:
It is as strong as people said it would be, and Quick Study is very broken. The ability to spend six seconds pulling up any wonder spell you have on your spell book completely nullifies the one disadvantage Wizards actually have.

Going off of memory: You pull your spell book out(move action). You switch spells(full round action). You cast the spell(likely a standard action).

There may be another ability that allows for quick study to work as a free action, but right now that look like 2 rounds of combat to cast a standard action spell, and most people that play casters well tend to have a spell that can work anyway so this should not be coming up a lot.

How is it broken?


If you are out of combat, then it is not much of an issue unless you are on a very short timer, and those 15 minutes really matter.


The only inherent balancing factor is that to really blend both sorcerer and wizard in the arcanist you are a bit MAD. However, it's super easy to get 2 extremely handsome ability scores rather than 1 min/maxed one. The wizard's downfall of being locked in is removed in that exploit.


The wizard has a way to fill in a blank slot in one minute, and wizards, like most casters hardly ever need the perfect spell. They just need one that will work, and they normally have those, so worrying being locked in is rarely an issue.

Unless someone does something like choose all "fire" spells for RP reasons, or choose only illusion spells this issue does not really come up enough to matter.

I will restate that. In my experience as player and GM I hardly see them without something that is "good enough". Maybe I should start a thread asking how common this is to see if my experiences are the outlier.


I would like a bloodline heavy version of the sorcerer with more class skills and skill points and a lot more abilities minor and major that fits the theme of it's bloodline.


Perhaps. I find that unless you stick to the classics, you tend to fall short somewhere. That's boring, imo.


wraithstrike wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I have never, before this product was announced, heard anyone suggest the Barbarian needed reworking.
I have. Mostly in the context of rage-cycling being a really weird thing. And I've certainly felt how cumbersome it can be to math everything out when I've had new players go for Barbarian or Bloodrager.
Why cant they just have a sheet of paper with raged stats or unraged stats in place before the game starts. As for rage cycling it is a class feature at higher levels.

Rage cycling is the most nonsensical thing in pathfinder.

It makes absolutely no sense.

It needs to be removed or to be replaced with something that actually makes sense. I would not permit rage cycling if I were to GM, and no GM I play with would allow it either.


Yet, it's an explicit part of the class at high levels.


Buri Reborn wrote:
Perhaps. I find that unless you stick to the classics, you tend to fall short somewhere. That's boring, imo.

Yeah, if you are going with a themed caster, then I would say quick study is a good escape card. I was actually thinking of playing weather or lightening based sorcerer, but might use an arcanist instead so the party does not suffer for my RP'ing.


Half elf paragon surge is still a fantastic combination. That is, of course, assuming you see the character as a half elf.


Re: Paragon Surge

Less so given this faq. Still good, but not as bafflingly amazing as it once were.


I'll reiterate my post: it's still a fantastic combination.


Dragon78 wrote:
I would like a bloodline heavy version of the sorcerer with more class skills and skill points and a lot more abilities minor and major that fits the theme of it's bloodline.

So basically, you are asking for the Bloodlord base class?

:)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Knowledge skills are fluff now? News to me.

Knowledge skills aren't said to be fluff, in a talk they said they were making a new skill Lore to fill the fluff knowledge role. Which will function like a super specific version of knowledge.


Milo v3 wrote:
Knowledge skills aren't said to be fluff, in a talk they said they were making a new skill Lore to fill the fluff knowledge role. Which will function like a super specific version of knowledge.

Is this in Unchained?


In my advanced copy, I saw that they unchained the spiked chain.

It is now both the weakest and simultaneously the most powerful weapon in Pathfinder.

251 to 300 of 547 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.