Society Unchained

Monday, April 27, 2015

Ever since its announcement nearly a year ago, players and GMs alike have been speculating about what would appear in Pathfinder Unchained. It was only a short step from there to start wondering what would appear in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. We started exploring this same question early in the book's production, and even then it was clear that some sections would not be a good fit for the campaign, others would absolutely play a role, and many others would require closer study. With the generous assistance of the Pathfinder Design Team and numerous volunteers, we were able to weigh the pros and cons and finalize what our Pathfinders might see in the field.

We'll start by discussing some of the sub-systems that likely come as no surprise to anyone, largely because they would require massive character rebuilds, severely impact how the game works for someone who just has the Core Rulebook, or require us to scrap the current XP system. Much of Chapter 3 (Gameplay) falls into this category; removing alignment, ditching iterative attacks, altering poison, heavy revising action economy, and introducing wound thresholds would invalidate considerable chunks of existing scenarios and possibly wreck how many of our existing characters function. Other features reference gameplay elements that simply don't appear in the organized play campaign, so dynamic item creation, alternate profession rules, fractional base bonuses, and staggered advancement are not a good fit. As intriguing as the many new skill options look, imposing consolidated skills, grouped skills, or background skills would just be too disruptive for a campaign in its seventh year. The same is true for many of the magic systems, including simplified spellcasting, spell alterations, automatic bonus progressions, and innate item bonuses.


Illustration by Tomasz Chistowski

Several other systems were not so cut and dry. We discussed the stamina pool system for quite a while before deciding not to include it; it is an extensive section that we may revisit in the future, but at this time it is not available in the campaign. We came to a similar conclusion for variant multiclassing. We are adding the Signature Skill feat for exclusive use by the unchained rogue—which I suppose spoils a later surprise. John is very excited to include esoteric components and scaling items on a few Chronicle sheets, but these items are not available for purchase otherwise.

Still, we imagine Chapter 1 (Classes) is the topic everyone is waiting for, and we have seen many of you making fairly accurate predictions. All four Pathfinder Unchained classes—barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner—will be legal for use in Pathfinder Society Organized Play. The unchained barbarian, monk, and rogue are available in addition to the versions that appear in the Core Rulebook; as noted on page 8 of Pathfinder Unchained, "These classes can be used alongside their original counterparts (although individual characters must use one version or the other exclusively)."

In fact, we're so excited about these classes that we're announcing a one-time limited rebuild to anyone with one or more levels in these classes, allowing those characters to switch any levels in the four classes to their unchained version at no cost. This includes the automatic retraining of any rage powers or rogue talents, as well as the free retraining and selling at full cost of any feats, items, and other character options that no long function properly due to the unchained classes features. For example, a rogue automatically gains the ability to add her Dexterity bonus to damage, so she could sell back her +1 agile rapier at full price. Likewise, a barbarian with the Raging Vitality feat would no longer benefit from its increased Constitution bonus, so she could retrain that feat for free. Much like when we have offered free faction changes in the past, you'll need to take advantage of this opportunity before you play the character after April 29, 2015.

You may notice that we did not say the unchained summoner would be available alongside its Advanced Player's Guide counterpart. Effective immediately, the Advanced Player's Guide summoner is no longer available in the organized play campaign, and the unchained summoner is its legal replacement. However, we recognize that someone who already has a summoner (and the book to play it) should not be punished for this change. Therefore, if you have a character with levels in the summoner class, and you have played the character at least once at level 2 or higher, you get to keep your summoner as is; you may also continue to gain levels in the summoner class. Any character gaining a level in summoner for the first time must use the unchained summoner, and anyone character still within the 1st-level window of free rebuilding must also use the unchained summoner.

As a final note, we want to advise folks about archetype and other features' compatibility for the unchained classes for the organized play campaign.

  • The unchained barbarian qualifies for any archetype that does not modify how the rage class feature operates (such as the urban barbarian archetype), and she is limited to any barbarian rage power that appears in Chapter 1 (including the rage powers on page 13)
  • The unchained monk does not qualify for any archetypes, save those in future publications that specifically cite their compatibility with the unchained monk class.
  • The unchained rogue qualifies for all existing rogue archetypes, but she is limited to any rogue talents listed in Chapter 1 (including the sidebar on page 24).
  • The unchained summoner qualifies for all existing summoner archetypes, save those that modify the eidolon's type or base form.

The Pathfinder Society Team

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Amiri Barbarians Iconics Monks Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Pathfinder Society Rogues Summoners Tomasz Chistowski
651 to 700 of 747 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 4/5 *** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant

pH unbalanced wrote:
Tamec wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Steven Lau wrote:


My Issue with the Unchained Rogue is the lost of some really good Rogue Talents not reprinted in the Unchained book that you lose access to. If they open up those talents in the future I might rethink using it.

I believe a couple of those talents are now baked into the class itself.
Not for my seeker level rogue, he'd lose sacred sneak attack, Unarmed training, style master and wall crawling. I like the unchained classes, and my next rogue is going to be unchained, but I like my greataxe wielding dwarven fighter/rogue the way he is. *goes off singing "Spider-dwarf"*
It doesn't help with the others, but you can pick up Wall Crawler via the Ninja Trick Talent.

Actually, Unarmed Combat Training and Style Master are also able to be picked up with Ninja Trick. The only thing you can't get is sacred sneak attack.

Silver Crusade Venture-Agent, Florida–Altamonte Springs

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
Tamec wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Steven Lau wrote:


My Issue with the Unchained Rogue is the lost of some really good Rogue Talents not reprinted in the Unchained book that you lose access to. If they open up those talents in the future I might rethink using it.

I believe a couple of those talents are now baked into the class itself.
Not for my seeker level rogue, he'd lose sacred sneak attack, Unarmed training, style master and wall crawling. I like the unchained classes, and my next rogue is going to be unchained, but I like my greataxe wielding dwarven fighter/rogue the way he is. *goes off singing "Spider-dwarf"*
It doesn't help with the others, but you can pick up Wall Crawler via the Ninja Trick Talent.
Actually, Unarmed Combat Training and Style Master are also able to be picked up with Ninja Trick. The only thing you can't get is sacred sneak attack.

Thanks all, I missed Ninja trick being available. Although my seeker is str based so unchained still will not fit for him. I do like the changes though.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

FLite wrote:

We kind of do have that power.

On any particular matter where multiple reasonable interpretations exist, In the absence of a rule clarification from Mike Brock or John Compton, each player, table, chapter, whatever can follow any reasonable interpretation they want. Now, if Mike Brock steps in and says "your interpretation is wrong, then you have to stop. Or, for that matter, if locally a VO says "we aren't going to do it that way here" you have to abide by it (at least when you play there).

But short of that, as long as you are consistent in your interpretations (as opposed to applying them selectively) and not directly violating the rules, or making other players miserable (don't be a jerk) you are fine.

Just because a few people find a particular interpretation reasonable, does not make the interpretation reasonable.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

John Francis wrote:
FLite wrote:
Would it be reasonable to sell back that a couple points of strength for an extra point of dex?

No. You can't change attribute scores.

Every time a new Player Companion comes out, there are new feats that will make some people wish those feats had been around earlier, as they are just what they would have wanted for one of their characters. But they aren't allowed to go back and rebuild the character to take advantage of that feat, which would have been every bit as reasonable.

This.

The idea and language are quite clear. You sell back the things that no longer work or are now redundant.

Just because you don't "need" that strength anymore, does not make it redundant and doesn't make it not work anymore.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

John Francis wrote:
Swiss Mercenary wrote:

What strikes me is that it seems that those most vociferous in opposing a more lenient attitude seem to be those who do not have any of the classes in question. In other words, 'I am unable to do a rebuild, so why should those who can be left off easy.'

I might be wrong, but who knows.

Well, assuming you count me as one of those speaking up for implementing the rebuild as written, rather than a more laissez-faire attitude, I know.

And yes, you are wrong. I've got four characters that could take advantage of the rebuild. One of them is my 14th-level character (my wife's 14th-level character is also eligible). That's for the whole 14 levels in each case, not just a single-level dip into one applicable class.

Same here.

My Wife has 2 Rogues and a Barbarian

I have a Ninja, that I don't get to rebuild at all. I have a Fighter/Rogue that I can rebuild, I have a Monk I can rebuild, and a Rage Prophet where I can rebuild the Barbarian levels.

Just because a more lenient rebuild rule would benefit me more, doesn't mean that I immediately want the lenient rule. Why? Because I can look past my own nose for the better option for the campaign as a whole.

5/5 5/55/55/5

You'd still get free shadowstrike and the disabling strike.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

LazarX wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Yeah, but the Alchemist isn't hated by James Jacobs.
From what I've read here, Jacobs was far from the only home GM that hated this class above all others.

The problem, to me is not that the revision was made, because I think it was needed.

The problem is that to me it reads like the literary manifestation of James Jacobs distain of the class.

The "effective immediately" feels like slap in the face to players who just fell in love with that cool character concept one more game (and before anyone brings up the aasimar rush, do you think anyone could pull off summoner rush with, say a one week notice).

This, and the fact that Paizo has had several years to do better by the fans of the original summoner and could have done in ways that might have also dealt with some of the dislike of the class is an issue.

But that these things make me think less well of the Pathfinder brand and less likely to spend money on it is the ultimate issue.

Respectfully,

Kerney

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andrew Christian wrote:
Just because a few people find a particular interpretation reasonable, does not make the interpretation reasonable.

Conversely, Just because a few people find a particular interpretation unreasonable, does not make the interpretation unreasonable. This has also happened before.

Andrew Christian wrote:

The idea and language are quite clear. You sell back the things that no longer work or are now redundant.

Just because you don't "need" that strength anymore, does not make it redundant and doesn't make it not work anymore.

Except that if the only reason you took the strength was to raise your weapon damage, then now it is redundant.

Just as the example in the blog above, raging vitality does 2 things. It raises the rage con bonus by 2, and it allows you to continue to rage while unconsious.

The rage con bonus now doesn't exist, so that part of the power goes away. But the rest of the power still works. (It isn't terribly useful to anyone most of the time, but then an extra 2 points of strength aren't terribly useful to a dex-damage build either...)

But clearly Mike and John both ( I agree, generously) considered that if the larger part of the feats utility went away, it was reasonable to sell back the feat.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Kerney wrote:

The "effective immediately" feels like slap in the face to players who just fell in love with that cool character concept one more game (and before anyone brings up the aasimar rush, do you think anyone could pull off summoner rush with, say a one week notice).

I know I could. It helps that I average three or four games a week.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kerney wrote:
(and before anyone brings up the aasimar rush, do you think anyone could pull off summoner rush with, say a one week notice),

Yes. Absolutely. Totally, 100%. I expect we'd see a repeat of 20 minute Masters of the Fallen Fortress games and similar shenanigans resulting in a slew of grandfathered summoners in localized groupings, not unlike what occurred previously. Need 1 xp? Masters of the Fallen Fortress. Need 4 xp? Add Emerald Spire level 1. Need to play at level 2? Trickier, but with a 7 person group (GM +6), each person could prep a 1-5 scenario and run it after ES1. Fact is: if you provide an exception to a rule, a subsection of the populace will undoubtedly find a way to exploit it.

If a refusal by PFS organization to allow an opening for abuses of a grandfathering rule to occur causes you to personally be offended (a slap in the face, so to speak), I recommend attaining a greater level of objectivity.

It totally sucked when I lost three character builds I was tinkering with to the SLA FAQ reversal. At no point did I feel slapped in the face. Things happen.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Well, the rush would be slower.

Honestly, the "play at 2nd level" when the repeatables are only repeatable at 1st level helps a lot. But yeah. 20 minute MFF, 5 minute WBG (Don't you get the XP even if your goblin dies? Okay, we all charge the first encounter...) and so on would mean each person would only have to play one real game to establish the character.

That said, there would still be a rush, and the problem with a rush like that is it causes a lot of resentment among people who *can't* rush.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

Ryzoken wrote:
Kerney wrote:
(and before anyone brings up the aasimar rush, do you think anyone could pull off summoner rush with, say a one week notice),

Yes. Absolutely. Totally, 100%. I expect we'd see a repeat of 20 minute Masters of the Fallen Fortress games and similar shenanigans resulting in a slew of grandfathered summoners in localized groupings, not unlike what occurred previously. Need 1 xp? Masters of the Fallen Fortress. Need 4 xp? Add Emerald Spire level 1. Need to play at level 2? Trickier, but with a 7 person group (GM +6), each person could prep a 1-5 scenario and run it after ES1. Fact is: if you provide an exception to a rule, a subsection of the populace will undoubtedly find a way to exploit it.

If a refusal by PFS organization to allow an opening for abuses of a grandfathering rule to occur causes you to personally be offended (a slap in the face, so to speak), I recommend attaining a greater level of objectivity.

It totally sucked when I lost three character builds I was tinkering with to the SLA FAQ reversal. At no point did I feel slapped in the face. Things happen.

And I thought I was cynical.


There is another way to stop the rush and still provide a window; allow only 1.

Option X will be removed on Z date.
You can continue to play all of your X's even after Z date.
Between today and Z date you may make only one X.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Interesting idea. Makes verification more difficult as you have to verify ALL of the players characters to ensure they don't have more than one Summoner with a date between the announcement and Z date.

Sovereign Court 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I don't think all published talents are out. Just some of the core ones like offensive defense.

From the blog:

Quote:
The unchained rogue qualifies for all existing rogue archetypes, but she is limited to any rogue talents listed in Chapter 1 (including the sidebar on page 24).

that's what i meant; here's the full list of what's still good to go:

Unmodified Rogue Talents
The rogue talents in this chapter include replacements
for all of those in the Core Rulebook, along with selected
revised rogue talents from other sources. The following
rogue talents can be used without modification.
Rogue Talents: Assault leaderAPG, black market
connectionsUC, canny observerAPG, cunning triggerAPG, deft
palmUC, distracting attackAPG*, fast getawayAPG, firearm
trainingUC, getaway artistUC, gritUC, iron gutsUC, ninja trickUC,
positioning attackAPG, quick disguiseAPG, quick trapsmithAPG,
rope masterUC, strong impressionAPG, strong strokeUC,
survivalistAPG, swift poisonAPG, underhandedUC, wall scrambleUC.
Advanced Rogue Talents: Another dayAPG, confounding
bladesUC*, deadly cocktailAPG, familiarUC, fast tumbleAPG,
frugal trapsmithAPG, getaway masterUC, hide in plain
sightUC, hunter’s surpriseAPG, knock-out blowAPG, redirect
attackAPG, rumormongerUC, stealthy sniperAPG, unwitting
allyUC, weapon snatcherUC.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Yes. And that leaves out every single talent that appeared in a softcover.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Interesting idea. Makes verification more difficult as you have to verify ALL of the players characters to ensure they don't have more than one Summoner with a date between the announcement and Z date.

No you don't, you just use the same system currently in use to keep people from cheating; you trust them not to.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

BigDTBone wrote:
No you don't.

If you deny the assumption, we don't really have much else to talk about.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

But the point of grandfathering is not to allow as many people as possible a "sporting" chance to squeak in before some cutoff point. It's to provide relief to people for whom transitioning would be the most painful.

The goal is clearly to get rid of old-style summoners. Saying "we don't want any more, but you can get just one more" doesn't really make sense.

EDIT: also, there has been speculation on the forums for at least a month that unchained summoners will replace chained summoners. Certainly since previews started talking about the "corrected" spell list. You could've seen it coming.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I myself am amused at the complaining about the summoner's corrected spell list. Oh no! Teleport is a 5th level spell! I have to wait until 7th to get haste!

As a fan of Bards/Inquisitors/Magi who have always had those "restrictions" I fail to muster empathy to your plight.

Edit: I am much sadder that VMC was disallowed. A lore warden/VMC bard would be more skill focused, and a Unchained rogue/VMC fighter would be a fun combatant, to name two options.

5/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Damanta wrote:
Shadow Caller is not legal according to the additional resources:
Oh. Wondered when that changed.

On or before November 5th, 2012, per my records.

The Exchange 4/5

John Francis wrote:
countchocula wrote:
John Francis wrote:


I see that as a pretty generous offer. Trying to stretch it even further, and build something that differs from the original character by more than the minimum required by the mechanics of the new class, is not justified.

I do think it was a generous offer but I also think that it is a unfair one seeing that the unchained version clearly support certain builds over others (dex rouge and high wis monk) while hurting the non-typical builds. so would a stat rebuild be out of the question for characters who switch to their unchained counterparts?

Under the limited rebuild currently allowed by the blog post, yes.

If you want to petition Paizo to allow stat changes, you can certainly do that.

Personally, I don't think it's "unfair because it supports certain builds" - the reason those builds gain more from a rebuild is because the unchained version of the class works better for those builds. But that's intentional. I think of it more as the unchained classes removing an excessive cost that the original versions of the class were forced to pay. It's not so much giving an unfair reward as removing an unfair penalty.

I don't know if their has been a misunderstanding but petitioning for a point buy change is what I have been doing the whole time. also to address your point the people who paid the "unfair penalty" are still paying it just under a new master. Another thing is that this is not a feat change or arctype change this is a class renewal that in some cases completely removes the option for arctypes that will no longer offer important abilities that removed the need for things that the new class emphasizes.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

huh, I just looked over the 'nerfed' spell list. IMHO, it didn't go far enough.

Phantom Steed is still a second level spell for example, starting with Summon Monster IV at 3rd, they still get those spells sooner, couple other things like that.

But...

They still get alarm, endure elements, protection from X and shield (abjuration) identify (diviniation) compel hostility, daze monster (enchantment) blurred movement (illusion) ray of sickening (necromancy) enlarge person, expeditious retreat and reduce person (transmutation) at first. Just as an example So the only school they don't get is evocation, and they get the other 6 at the same pace as a 'full' caster. I'd have liked to have seen the 'must have' abjurations at least pushed back a level.

Makes the 'oh my character is crippled' arguments more annoying to me.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento

Matthew, a full caster gets 3rd lvl spells at level 5, a summoner gets them at level 7. So they are pushed back for everything but their summoning.


Matthew Morris wrote:

huh, I just looked over the 'nerfed' spell list. IMHO, it didn't go far enough.

Phantom Steed is still a second level spell for example, starting with Summon Monster IV at 3rd, they still get those spells sooner, couple other things like that.

But...

They still get alarm, endure elements, protection from X and shield (abjuration) identify (diviniation) compel hostility, daze monster (enchantment) blurred movement (illusion) ray of sickening (necromancy) enlarge person, expeditious retreat and reduce person (transmutation) at first. Just as an example So the only school they don't get is evocation, and they get the other 6 at the same pace as a 'full' caster. I'd have liked to have seen the 'must have' abjurations at least pushed back a level.

Makes the 'oh my character is crippled' arguments more annoying to me.

With the exception of daze monster every one of those spells is considered a 1st level spell for every spell list that they appear on. So why should the Summoner be the only class that requires a second level spell to cast protection from alignment or some other spell, especially since the protection spells are so thematically linked to summoning?

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FLite wrote:
Matthew, a full caster gets 3rd lvl spells at level 5, a summoner gets them at level 7. So they are pushed back for everything but their summoning.

*nods* They're 'pushed back' to the same levels other 6 level casters get. Contrawise they get some summoning spells earlier than 6 level casters get. So why not?

I can see Tels argument that the protection from X spells are thematically fitting. But endure elements? blurred movement? Heck, snapdragon fireworks a spell that was fluffed as 'entertainment' is pushed back to second level for bards.

I'm getting off topic I guess, but It is related to all the complaints about the list being 'nerfed'. I think 'kind of fixed' is better.

Sovereign Court 3/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Yes. And that leaves out every single talent that appeared in a softcover.

maybe Mark can correct me if I'm wrong but hardcovers usually deal only with other hardcovers... i don't think there is a reason to exclude setting - specific stuff

Grand Lodge 4/5

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Yes. And that leaves out every single talent that appeared in a softcover.
maybe Mark can correct me if I'm wrong but hardcovers usually deal only with other hardcovers... i don't think there is a reason to exclude setting - specific stuff

There was no reason to expect that list to include the softcover material. But for PFS, that list is the only list that the Unchained Rogue can pick from. So they cannot take anything that's not either in the Unchained book or on that list.

5/5 5/55/55/5

The hardcover soft cover disparity is.. bewildering from the outside. I have a hard time excusing the lack of integration.

The Exchange 3/5

I wish I was allowed to be a rage prophet with levels of unchained barbarian, but no one loves me!!!

Sovereign Court 3/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:
Yes. And that leaves out every single talent that appeared in a softcover.
maybe Mark can correct me if I'm wrong but hardcovers usually deal only with other hardcovers... i don't think there is a reason to exclude setting - specific stuff
There was no reason to expect that list to include the softcover material. But for PFS, that list is the only list that the Unchained Rogue can pick from. So they cannot take anything that's not either in the Unchained book or on that list.

... until the PFS campaign staff publishes the additional permitted unchained rogue talents from the various setting specific books of course ;)

Grand Lodge 4/5

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
... until the PFS campaign staff publishes the additional permitted unchained rogue talents from the various setting specific books of course ;)

They have already published their list. It's in this very blog post. It's "none of them."

Future talents might be marked for use for Unchained, but not the current ones.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The hardcover soft cover disparity is.. bewildering from the outside. I have a hard time excusing the lack of integration.

It's deliberate. The standard line is supposed to be setting neutral.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would imagine that they aren't including talents from other sources until they've had more time to see they Unchained Rogue in action. After some time has passed, they may allow more talents from other sources to be included.

Or it might be they create an "Unchained Golarion" book that expands the list of talents and stuff, not unlike the Mythic Realms book they did for Mythic.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Jeff Merola wrote:
It's deliberate. The standard line is supposed to be setting neutral.

That shouldn't be a problem for pfs.

The softcovers tend to be missing a lot of the nuts and bolts they take to actually be used. Hard mechanics, action types to use, exact effects etc.

4/5

It is also reasonable for the community to pull together a list of rogue talents from the softcover books that are PFS legal and, politely, make the case for those that should be PFS legal for unchained rogues (similarly for unchained barbarians with rage powers and unchained summonses with evolutions if any are no longer legal for unchained versions of the classes in PFS.

Such an update might require updates to the additional resources entries for each of those sourcebooks as well as for unchained (unchained to add "unless specifically allowed for the unchained versions of classes and noted as legal for PFS by this additional resources document. (For books published before unchained noting that the additional resource doc would be updated to note abilities from that source which should be legal for unchained versions of the class's.

2/5

This may a but of common sense, but do the unchained classes qualify for the base class alternate favored class bonus?

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5 ****

jeuce wrote:
This may a but of common sense, but do the unchained classes qualify for the base class alternate favored class bonus?

It is definitely a good question -- my assumption is that they do, but I'd hold off acting on that assumption until I heard clarification from Paizo.

2/5

My VOs said the same thing.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Matthew Morris wrote:

I myself am amused at the complaining about the summoner's corrected spell list. Oh no! Teleport is a 5th level spell! I have to wait until 7th to get haste!

As a fan of Bards/Inquisitors/Magi who have always had those "restrictions" I fail to muster empathy to your plight.

I find you're being awful dismissive for someone who claims to be a fan of Bards,Inquisitors and Magi. Bards have a number of early access spells. Both the Bard and Inquisitor have really excellent class only spells, the inquisitors often not requiring a save on save or sucks, so they can be easily cast from spells or with a low casting stat. And the Magi, well, I'll admit I've never built a Magus, but I've never seen one played that wasn't the top or second highest damage dealer in a party.

I think most of us can agree the Haste as a 2nd level spell, before even wizards can get it was a bit much, but that's just because Haste is one of the best spells in the game. If the new Summoner spell list was Haste moving to 3rd level with no other changes, I don't think most players would even notice the other early access spells, aside from maybe Summon Monster that is.

Sovereign Court 3/5

Tels wrote:

I would imagine that they aren't including talents from other sources until they've had more time to see they Unchained Rogue in action. After some time has passed, they may allow more talents from other sources to be included.

Or it might be they create an "Unchained Golarion" book that expands the list of talents and stuff, not unlike the Mythic Realms book they did for Mythic.

My thoughts exactly. I'm really hoping on "Unchained Golarion"... :)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Jack Brown wrote:
jeuce wrote:
This may a but of common sense, but do the unchained classes qualify for the base class alternate favored class bonus?
It is definitely a good question -- my assumption is that they do, but I'd hold off acting on that assumption until I heard clarification from Paizo.

Here's hoping that clarification comes soon.

It'd be nice if we could just go with it, because it does seem entirely reasonable.

In fact, this is what I'd do: go with it. If the clarification comes out later that you can't, then just rebuild the character to make it legal by removing the favored class bonus you were using, and replacing it with a skill point or HP.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I think you *have* to allow the alternate FCBs, because FCBs are not on the list of things you are allowed to change when you take your free rebuild from Rogue => Unchained Rogue.


i have a rogue character that took a dip into swashbuckler can i retrain to pure rogue for free now?

2/5

pH unbalanced wrote:
I think you *have* to allow the alternate FCBs, because FCBs are not on the list of things you are allowed to change when you take your free rebuild from Rogue => Unchained Rogue.

Elf rogue fcb would fall under the "no longer works properly" heading due to a change in the Minor Magic talent.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

jimmyd wrote:

i have a rogue character that took a dip into swashbuckler can i retrain to pure rogue for free now?

No.

Similar examples to this were answered up thread.

Only the levels of the 4 classes that were updated.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

jeuce wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
I think you *have* to allow the alternate FCBs, because FCBs are not on the list of things you are allowed to change when you take your free rebuild from Rogue => Unchained Rogue.
Elf rogue fcb would fall under the "no longer works properly" heading due to a change in the Minor Magic talent.

If it is no longer a "functional" ability, I think the broad scope of this rebuild would cover it.

They're not trying to sneakily punish players.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
jeuce wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
I think you *have* to allow the alternate FCBs, because FCBs are not on the list of things you are allowed to change when you take your free rebuild from Rogue => Unchained Rogue.
Elf rogue fcb would fall under the "no longer works properly" heading due to a change in the Minor Magic talent.

Agreed. But I can't, for instance, change all my Half-Elf FCB (+1/2 to Feint & Gather Info) to Human FCB (+1/6 Rogue Talent) even though Rogue Talents are good enough that I might want to. (Given that Half-Elves normally have a choice between Human, Elf, and Half-Elf FCBs)

2/5

I understand, appreciate, and agree with your comments/ arguments. However, if Mr Compton or Mr Brock say, "nah brah" fcb would have to be changed.

Grand Lodge 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Matthew Morris wrote:

I myself am amused at the complaining about the summoner's corrected spell list. Oh no! Teleport is a 5th level spell! I have to wait until 7th to get haste!

As a fan of Bards/Inquisitors/Magi who have always had those "restrictions" I fail to muster empathy to your plight.

I find you're being awful dismissive for someone who claims to be a fan of Bards,Inquisitors and Magi. Bards have a number of early access spells. Both the Bard and Inquisitor have really excellent class only spells, the inquisitors often not requiring a save on save or sucks, so they can be easily cast from spells or with a low casting stat. And the Magi, well, I'll admit I've never built a Magus, but I've never seen one played that wasn't the top or second highest damage dealer in a party.

You're also forgetting you get a devastatingly strong front-line pet in place of special spells and class abilities. The Eidolon practically didn't get nerfed at all, just a couple things re-scaled a bit so players couldn't front-load their eidolons so badly and some more deliberate flavoring instead of the vague hand-waving that happened before... You always have someone to cast those spells on.

This was a welcome re-balancing. It is still a RIDICULOUSLY strong class, and one of the most powerful buffer/debuffer classes around (definitely a high ratio of good spells). I have yet to come across a single argument that had any significant ground arguing the contrary. Sure, you get haste and a few spells a little later. But you ALWAYS have someone to cast them on who can use them effectively. And while your Eidolon or summons hold the line, you can dominate the battlefield with control spells. Nevermind relying on other party members.

I think the only thing it's lost is direct attack power, because Snowball is restricted... though you can get that as a level 2 spell with a PFS legal item.

1 to 50 of 747 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Paizo Blog: Society Unchained All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.