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
301 to 350 of 547 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

Buri Reborn wrote:
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?

Apparently, yes. It's mentioned in this video.

Quote:
they unchained the spiked chain.

Sooo.... It's just a spike now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo v3 wrote:
Buri Reborn wrote:
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?

Apparently, yes. It's mentioned in this video.

Quote:
they unchained the spiked chain.
Sooo.... It's just a spike now?

Yes and no. It is a thing of terrible beauty, and at the same time a thing of beautiful terribleness.

To write of it in such a forum would inevitably diminish it and make it greater. I dare not do so.


My thoughts after this preview:

I Worry this will be like Unearthed Arcana in that it splits the player base, creating barriers between groups that use this and that optional rule. I would prefer a basic revision that becomes part of organized play and is considered official, and a separate set of optional rules.

Considering how the authoring and editing process works, I worry that it is too late for any input from the boards to be included in the book.

I'm positive about the monk and summoner changes. I worry a bit that the barbarian will be getting an upgrade; if the added hit points are made temporary hit points (a great idea in itself), the barbarian should not have rage powers that remove the AC penalty. I am looking at you, beast totem. I also worry that the rogue's MAD is not being addressed; it seems they are making the rogue more specialized and better at a few tasks rather than more overall competent. The rogue needs a very thorough overhaul, not just a few patches in sore pots. The inability for human rogues to sneak attack in dimly lit alleys must go!

I'd also wish for a much expanded skill section. It needs to be defined what counts as a distraction; is a barbarian poking you with a greatsword a distraction, or are you forced to rely on Bluff? It would be nice if a party could have a Perception specialist instead of forcing everyone to take the Perception skill and thus making the scout role less relevant.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:

My thoughts after this preview:

I Worry this will be like Unearthed Arcana in that it splits the player base, creating barriers between groups that use this and that optional rule. I would prefer a basic revision that becomes part of organized play and is considered official, and a separate set of optional rules.

Unearthed Arcana never split the player base. It just gave more options for players and GMs to explore.

PFS maybe exception to the rule, but everyone runs their games differently. House rules, adventure path changes are common place with all the pathfinder games I have played.

Change (and variety) is a good thing :)

Sovereign Court

I think the wizard and the arcanist are on fairly equal footing. But arcanist vs. sorcerer is a significant difference.

The arcanist's "spells prepared" and the sorcerer's "spells known" are the same table except for bloodline spells, but the arcanist can change his selection every day, while the sorcerer can change one spell every even level from 4 onwards. I think the advantage there lies with the arcanist.

In spells per day the sorcerer is ahead a bit, but an arcanist's Pool might balance with that.

Then, compare class skills:
Arcanist: Appraise (Int), Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Knowledge (all) (Int), Linguistics (Int), Profession (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), and Use Magic Device (Cha).
Sorcerer: Appraise (Int), Bluff (Cha), Craft (Int), Fly (Dex), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Profession (Wis), Spellcraft (Int), and Use Magic Device (Cha).

Bluff, Intimidate and Linguistics are all occasionally useful, and the sorcerer also gets a bloodline skill. But the combination of Int primary and all knowledges as class skills is really quite potent.

The real difference is in the effect of the casting stat on the skill points. 2+int skill points on an arcanist will be 6-8 skill points per level, and about 1-3 per level on a sorcerer.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

IIRC in one of the preview podcasts it was stated that Unchained says flat-out "give everyone +2 skill points/level". Skill point amounts were carried over from 3.5 in order not to blow up all the published statblocks, so it makes sense to uncouple the system from legacy chassis here as well.


Gorbacz wrote:
IIRC in one of the preview podcasts it was stated that Unchained says flat-out "give everyone +2 skill points/level". Skill point amounts were carried over from 3.5 in order not to blow up all the published statblocks, so it makes sense to uncouple the system from legacy chassis here as well.

In the Gen Con video linked above it's specified that those two extra skill points are to be used on "background" skills, like Craft, Linguistics etc.


If I remember, those extra skill points were for craft, perform, profession, and a new skill called lore.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Rynjin wrote:
I have never, before this product was announced, heard anyone suggest the Barbarian needed reworking.

I have two different players using rage classes (a Viking and a bloodrager, respectively) and between this and their shared love of enlarge person (mythic in the latter case)...

I for one welcome new rage mechanics. :)

Silver Crusade Contributor

QuidEst wrote:
It also looks like Rogue is going to be competent in melee without needing a ton of feat investment. Anybody else seeing nice potential for a nine-tailed kitsune build?

quivers excitedly

I've been wanting to do so for so long...

stares at release date

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
If I remember, those extra skill points were for craft, perform, profession, and a new skill called lore.

Well, that sounds awfully familiar...


There are no new ideas, after all. :)


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.

I would argue that is the wizard that need a rework to tone it down.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nicos wrote:
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.
I would argue that is the wizard that need a rework to tone it down.

*Lil Jon Voice* "Tone down for what?!"

Nah, but seriously. People are already combatting the new Summoner, and we don't really even know for sure that it's going to be weaker.

Dark Archive

I think allowing the Rogue a new form of skill protectionism/exceptionalism is going to go a long way to making that class viable post 3.x skill system.

For me the big question is - Are these skill specializations going to be any good or have an impact on play? The Sense Motive and Bluff changes sound nice but the Disable Device not so much (maybe because traps are garbage in 3.X games).

Have to wait an see on this one. I haven't bought a Paizo hardcover in a few years - may need to pick this one up.

Verdant Wheel

TOZ wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
If I remember, those extra skill points were for craft, perform, profession, and a new skill called lore.
Well, that sounds awfully familiar...

This is Paizo's messageboard = all of your ideas are belong to Paizo.

What is Lore? Is it like Knowledge (Pop Culture)?

Kalindlara have you finally ascended?


rainzax wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
If I remember, those extra skill points were for craft, perform, profession, and a new skill called lore.
Well, that sounds awfully familiar...

This is Paizo's messageboard = all of your ideas are belong to Paizo.

What is Lore? Is it like Knowledge (Pop Culture)?

Kalindlara have you finally ascended?

The example they gave for Lore, if I recall correctly, was a guy how just knows everything there is to know about owlbears.

Verdant Wheel

Dead Phoenix wrote:
The example they gave for Lore, if I recall correctly, was a guy how just knows everything there is to know about owlbears.

owlbears lol okay

Shadow Lodge

rainzax wrote:
This is Paizo's messageboard = all of your ideas are belong to Paizo.

Why else did you think we moved the houserule documents to Google Docs?


Personally, I have found the idea that the Barbarian requires too much math to be *hilarious* ever since I played a Sorcerer/Paladin/Dragon Disciple/Oracle up to Level 20/Tier 10 archmage. I had three pages of small font spreadsheets and a stack of index cards with spell descriptions to help me manage all the different combinations of buffs and damage boosters that the character could have running at one time.

I guess rage cycling is kind of silly though.


Kalindlara wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
It also looks like Rogue is going to be competent in melee without needing a ton of feat investment. Anybody else seeing nice potential for a nine-tailed kitsune build?

quivers excitedly

I've been wanting to do so for so long...

stares at release date

Have you seen this yet?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
rainzax wrote:
This is Paizo's messageboard = all of your ideas are belong to Paizo.
Why else did you think we moved the houserule documents to Google Docs?

If at any time you posted actual content to the forums, that content legally belongs to Paizo, regardless of you moving it from the forums to a private document later.


Nicos wrote:
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.
I would argue that is the wizard that need a rework to tone it down.

The wizard class is actually pretty awful, all things considered. The wizard's spells are an entirely different story.

Verdant Wheel

because you wanted a figgy cookie named in your honor?


Ambrosia Slaad wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
QuidEst wrote:
It also looks like Rogue is going to be competent in melee without needing a ton of feat investment. Anybody else seeing nice potential for a nine-tailed kitsune build?

quivers excitedly

I've been wanting to do so for so long...

stares at release date

Have you seen this yet?

That book is amazing, but the problem is essentially that not all GMs allow 3rd party content.


Matrix Dragon wrote:

Personally, I have found the idea that the Barbarian requires too much math to be *hilarious* ever since I played a Sorcerer/Paladin/Dragon Disciple/Oracle up to Level 20/Tier 10 archmage. I had three pages of small font spreadsheets and a stack of index cards with spell descriptions to help me manage all the different combinations of buffs and damage boosters that the character could have running at one time.

I guess rage cycling is kind of silly though.

It's not the math, its the requirement for nearly completely separate character sheets.

However, no one requires as much math as a damned Transmuter. Druids? Transmutation Wizards? Polymorhping Sorcerers? Ugh, you practically need a character sheet for each spell you cast.

Shadow Lodge

Tels wrote:
If at any time you posted actual content to the forums, that content legally belongs to Paizo, regardless of you moving it from the forums to a private document later.

Yes. That's why further work was done on Google Docs. My point entirely.


TOZ wrote:
Tels wrote:
If at any time you posted actual content to the forums, that content legally belongs to Paizo, regardless of you moving it from the forums to a private document later.
Yes. That's why further work was done on Google Docs. My point entirely.

How much stuff was directly posted before you moved it though?


Tels wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:

Personally, I have found the idea that the Barbarian requires too much math to be *hilarious* ever since I played a Sorcerer/Paladin/Dragon Disciple/Oracle up to Level 20/Tier 10 archmage. I had three pages of small font spreadsheets and a stack of index cards with spell descriptions to help me manage all the different combinations of buffs and damage boosters that the character could have running at one time.

I guess rage cycling is kind of silly though.

It's not the math, its the requirement for nearly completely separate character sheets.

However, no one requires as much math as a damned Transmuter. Druids? Transmutation Wizards? Polymorhping Sorcerers? Ugh, you practically need a character sheet for each spell you cast.

Yea, tell me about it. That character I mentioned was so absurdly complex because he was abusing this mythic power that gave him a BAB equal to his caster level... but only when he polymorphed himself. He was ALWAYS polymorphed into something.

Grand Lodge

Tels wrote:
How much stuff was directly posted before you moved it though?

Tracking back, I'm not seeing anything since version 2. Haven't found what we did with version 1.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
If I remember, those extra skill points were for craft, perform, profession, and a new skill called lore.

So my earlier guess was correct, except for lore. I did not know about that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like the lore option. Clerics know about their deity, Sorcs about their bloodline, and Fighters about Chelish opera.

Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
QuidEst wrote:
I really like the lore option. Clerics know about their deity, Sorcs about their bloodline, and Fighters about Chelish opera.

That's the idea!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is Perform going to be an option for the flavor skill? On one hand I really want my Swashbuckler to be able to serenade swooning ladies without giving up her ability to see things, but on the other hand that would be very exploitable by bards.


I hope Perform is included. The only reason I play Monk or Brawler is to beat people up while playing the flute.


That still let the fighter with inferior out of combat options compared to everyone else.

Sovereign Court

Arachnofiend wrote:
Is Perform going to be an option for the flavor skill? On one hand I really want my Swashbuckler to be able to serenade swooning ladies without giving up her ability to see things, but on the other hand that would be very exploitable by bards.

Two free skill points per level that I can spend on maximising two Perform skills makes the core Bard with Versatile Performance very happy indeed, and all the other Bards green with envy.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

10 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
This is Paizo's messageboard = all of your ideas are belong to Paizo.

That's not accurate. "Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Inc the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media." You are not losing the copyright to the things you post—you're just letting us use them as well. And in nearly all cases, the sole use we will make of that content is to display it to others in the context of the messageboards.

Paraphrasing Sean K Reynolds, we're not about to go looking through the forums for people's ideas to fill in some blank space in an existing book—our authors are perfectly capable of writing their own material and doing so faster than it would take to search through boards for a good idea, develop it, and note the author's name in the credits. (And pay the author, which we would do if we did that... which we don't.)

That said, please stay on topic in the product discussion forum. If you'd like to talk more about this, we can do so elsewhere.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:
(And pay the author, which we would do if we did that... which we don't.)

Wait... You don't pay authors?!

I knew Paizo staff only worked there because of the threat of being devoured by a T-Rex!

XD

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I find that to be a compelling reason to not turn in two weeks notice. At least, not in person.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

James Jacobs's avatar makes so much more sense now.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now I will show you my true form...RRROOOAAAARRRR:)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfox wrote:


Considering how the authoring and editing process works, I worry that it is too late for any input from the boards to be included in the book.

The book releases in a few weeks: it's probably already in Paizo's warehouse. Even if it isn't, it has certainly been already printed. The 'editing process' doesn't have much to do with it at this point.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
This is Paizo's messageboard = all of your ideas are belong to Paizo.

Mr. Wertz has already alluded to this above, but that part of the TOS has to be there because if it wasn't some smartass could come post something potentially valuable on the message board and then sue Paizo for transmitting it without his permission. You'll find it's standard boilerplate on the terms of every major message board and social media platform there is for that reason.


16 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
(And pay the author, which we would do if we did that... which we don't.)

Wait... You don't pay authors?!

I knew Paizo staff only worked there because of the threat of being devoured by a T-Rex!

XD

That explains why they nerfed Crane Wing; people kept escaping from the T-Rex so Paizo couldn't get any work done.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
(And pay the author, which we would do if we did that... which we don't.)

Wait... You don't pay authors?!

I knew Paizo staff only worked there because of the threat of being devoured by a T-Rex!

XD

That explains why they nerfed Crane Wing; people kept escaping from the T-Rex so Paizo couldn't get any work done.

Holy s##@!!! It all makes sense now!

Archnofiend! You're brilliant!

Verdant Wheel

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hey it's all good folks.

My comment to TOZ's comment celebrates the complications that arise from the intersection between Simultaneous Invention and Intellectual Property. As a non-stake-holder, my ambitions stretch no further than my own game table, as I scroll-clicked past the fine print in creating a username for these message-boards.

In any case I apologize for the thoughtlessness. Why I am excited for this product is exactly because it challenges cornerstones long held about what D&D "is" and "is not" - this sort of experimental space is an exciting alternative to (if precursor for?) a second edition to the game. I will never forget how quickly my 3.0 books were rendered obsolete and curse Wizards forevermore. It took me a long time to "convert" to Paizo but am glad to finally be here (running Council of Thieves currently and having a blast using post-Core material and soliciting veterans for advice) because this company actually listens to it's customer base.

Cheers.


We all live in the Postmodernist era, where the reproduction (and reinvention) of ideas is common place.

Appropriation and sharing ideas is common place. The concept of 'stealing ideas' and authorship is a sentiment of the past.

The structuralist theorist Roland Barthes predicted the death of the author over 45 years ago.

I have exchanged Pathfinder house rules concepts with Rainax before without any concern of copyright and authorship and I'm better off for it.


About the barbarian; it has traditionally benefited greatly from 2-handed weapons. I wonder if it still does, and if not I wonder if I really care either way.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
It's not the math, its the requirement for nearly completely separate character sheets.

It's funny. People keep saying this. And yet... there are scads of statblocks in adventure after adventure that add only a few lines of "when not ranging" stats at the end. Rage doesn't actually change very much, at least not if you're not spelling out every derived number that the character could possibly have. Statblocks are amazing if you spend a little while learning how to use them.

Not that I'm opposed to seeing alternate barbarians... this book might be fun in general. I just don't think the problem is as serious as folks are taking it. If it were, we'd have to make alternate versions of pretty much every buff/debuff spell in the book, and do away with ability score damage etc.

101 to 150 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.