Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained (OGL)

Insain Dragoon wrote:

As long as the fighter is based on feats he can never gain an edge, hence why he needs to be unchained from feats.

Caster Martial disparity isn't the Fighters biggest problem. His biggest problem is that their is no plausible reason to take one over any of the other full BAB classes.

While I don't mean to contribute significantly to further derailment of the thread, I feel that I must note here that my current leading idea for a character for Iron Gods is a fighter, is only mechanically feasible as a fighter in the currently-available character classes*, and is feasible solely as a result of the class' bonus feats.

You may now return to your regularly-scheduled fighter-bashing.

*it is possible that he might work as a brawler, but I'd need to see the final class to be sure. Right now I don't think it would work, but I might be surprised.

Somehow I doubt that, honestly.

Unless you need an immense amount of Feats to pull it off (which is a failing of the Feats system, not a strength of the Fighter).

Sorry to have to say this to you two fine gentlemen, but arguments about the Fighter belong in one of the 7 wonders of the Paizo boards, our long lasting and very informative The Main Problem with Fighters thread that has been going on for a whopping 77 pages! One of the most hotly debated topics on this forums, right next to Rogues and Caster supremacy!

Post about what you believe a Fighter Unchained from the chains of 3.5 and Pathfinder belongs here in the The Fighter Unchained! Let's get the Fighter into PF Unchained thread

If Shisumo posts about his build in the appropriate thread I would be happy to discuss it, but we gotta be careful in this thread.

Cthulhudrew wrote:

I sometimes wonder if the folks at Paizo and elsewhere might not be better served not announcing products so far in advance of their release, if only to tone down the requests/demands.

There are limits to this: at a certain point, Paizo has to make announcements into the book and hobby trades for new products (this is why Amazon always has mockup covers that do not get updated.) For what I hope are obvious reasons, Paizo makes those announcements at the same time on the website, or slightly earlier to large groups at conventions.

Imagine what things would be like if we learned about this product by seeing it pop up on Amazon, instead of getting an announcement at PaizoCon?

All good points, and personally- I am stoked when I hear the announcements. I don't necessarily care about all of them, but I get really excited about the ones that I do like, and some of them- like Iron Gods- make me grit my teeth in frustration at the long wait.

I'm really just venting my frustration about how it seems to me the announcements quickly turn in to demands for specifics now and requests for x and y and the kitchen sink to show up in them, and if they don't then the product will suck and be a waste of everyone's time and money and they still failed to fix the monk, and the useless rouge [SIC] etc, etc, ad nauseum.

What I suppose I really want is simply more civility and patience on the boards, much as I wish it existed more in the real world.

And then I get frustrated with myself on those occasions when I allow myself to get drawn in to the problem rather than either ignore it or help to solve it. :p

In other words, I'm eager to see what Pathfinder Unchained will hold within its covers. :D

I'm really excited to see the resource pool for martials, especially as one who loves meleers with spells just to get cool abilities to play with. I'd love to now have to prepare spells to do cool stuff!

Yeah- I'm curious to see what a resource pool entails. Whether it will be something like a Magus' arcane pool or a Gunslinger's grit, or whether it will be something different, like floating feat chains or something. Heck, maybe it will be like a different way of allocating actions in combat for different purposes.

Insain Dragoon" wrote:

so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Squeakmaan wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.

Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.

They acknowledged that some people wanted a different take. That's not exactly the same thing.

Agreed, it is only a coincidence that people have titled Rogue and Monk as the "worst classes in the game" and have been asking for their rewrite for ages. Same with Fighter, but they don't have a confirmed rewrite.

I will also add that it's rather irritating, to me at least, when you frame your distaste for the Fighter class as something that *everybody* shares, or as something that *only an idiot would disagree with* (this is how your posts can come off, at least to me).

Though I can see how many of the complaints aired in your thread and others like it can get traction, I'm not sure I agree with the strength of the conclusions that you and others draw from those perceived shortcomings with the Fighter class. So when I'm thinking to myself well, there are some valid points here but I'm not sure I want to go all the way with these guys, and you come along and adopt that confrontational tone, it riles me up a bit and I find myself less sympathetic to your case and tempted to start what I've characterized above as "yet another pointless forum squabble."

Which leads me to suggest that, flies with honey, you'd do a lot more for your cause if you adopted a less confrontational tone. In other words—which is more important, building consensus for your viewpoint on what you see as an important issue, or telling folks who disagree with you that they're stupid? Framed like that, it seems an...

Honestly this is the main reason why I have found it pointless to bring up my fighter thoughts in the other thread. The general tone is "The fighter sucks and if you don't agree with our changes 100%, then you are playing the game wrong/too ignorant to understand". And while I share the belief that the fighter could use a boost, there are some things about the fighter class I do like. But I feel like it's pointless to throw in any feedback when it's going to be met with "You are what's killing martials right now!". So why bother giving our feedback if they don't want any that doesn't completely agree with the echo chamber?

Joe M. wrote:

Insain Dragoon" wrote:

so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Squeakmaan wrote:

Insain Dragoon wrote:

The problem can't be solved by a third party. Paizo has acknowledged that Rogue and Monk needed to be fixed in Pathfinder Unchained, so one must ask why the Fighter, who is in just as severe need of a fix, isn't in the book.

Last I checked we hit 60:9 in favor of the Fighter being Unchained.

They acknowledged that some people wanted a different take. That's not exactly the same thing.

Agreed, it is only a coincidence that people have titled Rogue and Monk as the "worst classes in the game" and have been asking for their rewrite for ages. Same with Fighter, but they don't have a confirmed rewrite.

I will also add that it's rather irritating, to me at least, when you frame your distaste for the Fighter class as something that *everybody* shares, or as something that *only an idiot would disagree with* (this is how your posts can come off, at least to me).

Though I can see how many of the complaints aired in your thread and others like it can get traction, I'm not sure I agree with the strength of the conclusions that you and others draw from those perceived shortcomings with the Fighter class. So when I'm thinking to myself well, there are some valid points here but I'm not sure I want to go all the way with these guys, and you come along and adopt that confrontational tone, it riles me up a bit and I find myself less sympathetic to your case and tempted to start what I've characterized above as "yet another pointless forum squabble."

Which leads me to suggest that, flies with honey, you'd do a lot more for your cause if you adopted a less confrontational tone. In other words—which is more important, building consensus for your viewpoint on what you see as an important issue, or telling folks who disagree with you that they're stupid?

...

If paizo decides to make an unchained version of the fighter, and if it is vastly different from the fighter you like at the moment, at the end of the day it is an OPTIONAL choice, just like the unchained rogue, monk, barbarian and summoner, if you don't like them you don't have to have them at your gaming table. I think that was one of the first things the developers said when they announced this book, but people surprisingly are treating this like PF 2.0 when in reality it isn't even close to being PF 1.5, if you are happy with the current fighter then you should be content because it won't be taken away, but people who are not and would like a more mechanically viable fighter, could finally get what they wanted in an unchained version of the class which they will have the option of using or not using.

Wolfgang...that's great and all, but:

Insain Dragon has kept telling people to vote for whether they want an unchained fighter, and keeps citing those poll numbers. Certainly Odraude's point is relevant if at this point in the forum history a lot of people do their best at this point to avoid any discussion whatsoever of fighters. Which means that the poll is going to select towards people who are very unhappy with the fighter.

Wolfgang...that's great and all, but:

Insain Dragon has kept telling people to vote for whether they want an unchained fighter, and keeps citing those poll numbers. Certainly Odraude's point is relevant if at this point in the forum history a lot of people do their best at this point to avoid any discussion whatsoever of fighters. Which means that the poll is going to select towards people who are very unhappy with the fighter.

Luckily, good game design is never a democracy. :-)

@Alexander I am glad that it isn't.

Wolfgang...that's great and all, but:

Insain Dragon has kept telling people to vote for whether they want an unchained fighter, and keeps citing those poll numbers. Certainly Odraude's point is relevant if at this point in the forum history a lot of people do their best at this point to avoid any discussion whatsoever of fighters. Which means that the poll is going to select towards people who are very unhappy with the fighter.

With all due respect I couldn't care less about poll numbers or why people avoid discussions about the fighter. My main issue is that people are against optional versions of existing classes, they can choose to use them or not, so instead of saying "I don't think class x needs a change, but I am happy that the option will exist for people who think otherwise" We get "Class X doesn't need to change, stop whining you class X haters" I've seen enough arguments from both sides and while I think the fighter needs some changes, I am not going to bother trying to convince someone who thinks the class doesn't, because I am assuming that that person has already read the class, played it and doesn't see any problems with it.

I've said it before but honestly at this point its worth repeating; This is not Pathfinder 2.0 or even 1.5, this is a book to offer you a different and OPTIONAL take on certain classes, you can take them or leave them, there is really no reason to say "I don't want Paizo to do this with Class A or B" No on is forcing to buy or even use the book, your core, apg, uc and um will still be relevant when this comes out, so really its a win win situation for everyone...and yet people are unhappy.

@Alexander I am glad that it isn't.

MMCJawa wrote:

Wolfgang...that's great and all, but:

Insain Dragon has kept telling people to vote for whether they want an unchained fighter, and keeps citing those poll numbers. Certainly Odraude's point is relevant if at this point in the forum history a lot of people do their best at this point to avoid any discussion whatsoever of fighters. Which means that the poll is going to select towards people who are very unhappy with the fighter.

With all due respect I couldn't care less about poll numbers or why people avoid discussions about the fighter. My main issue is that people are against optional versions of existing classes, they can choose to use them or not, so instead of saying "I don't think class x needs a change, but I am happy that the option will exist for people who think otherwise" We get "Class X doesn't need to change, stop whining you class X haters" I've seen enough arguments from both sides and while I think the fighter needs some changes, I am not going to bother trying to convince someone who thinks the class doesn't, because I am assuming that that person has already read the class, played it and doesn't see any problems with it.

In fairness, this is a single book. There is only going to be a certain amount of room in it. If you think the fighter is fine, but a change to the fighter is included here, that means something else is not using that space. Something that you might have preferred.

Has anyone or everyone ever heard the term, "You can't please all of the people all of the rime"?

My point is, everyone has an opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just don't lamblast someone who doesn't agree with you.

Wolfgang Rolf wrote:

@Alexander I am glad that it isn't.

MMCJawa wrote:

Wolfgang...that's great and all, but:

Insain Dragon has kept telling people to vote for whether they want an unchained fighter, and keeps citing those poll numbers. Certainly Odraude's point is relevant if at this point in the forum history a lot of people do their best at this point to avoid any discussion whatsoever of fighters. Which means that the poll is going to select towards people who are very unhappy with the fighter.

With all due respect I couldn't care less about poll numbers or why people avoid discussions about the fighter. My main issue is that people are against optional versions of existing classes, they can choose to use them or not, so instead of saying "I don't think class x needs a change, but I am happy that the option will exist for people who think otherwise" We get "Class X doesn't need to change, stop whining you class X haters" I've seen enough arguments from both sides and while I think the fighter needs some changes, I am not going to bother trying to convince someone who thinks the class doesn't, because I am assuming that that person has already read the class, played it and doesn't see any problems with it.

In fairness, this is a single book. There is only going to be a certain amount of room in it. If you think the fighter is fine, but a change to the fighter is included here, that means something else is not using that space. Something that you might have preferred.

So it's not as simple as you should be "happy that the option will exist for people who think otherwise", since there is a downside.

Let us put the fighter aside for a moment. Paizo has already said that they are planning to release this book, that it has unchained versions of the rogue, monk, barbarian and summoner, so whether we like it or not this book is coming out, and if this book is successful and judging from the number of people I've heard talking about how their unhappy with some of the classes getting the unchained treatment in it, I am guessing it will be, this may or may not lead paizo to decide to release another Unchained book. Again, its up to them to decide what is worth putting in their books. As one of the posters above said "Luckily, good game design is never a democracy".

@Alexander I am glad that it isn't.

MMCJawa wrote:

Wolfgang...that's great and all, but:

Insain Dragon has kept telling people to vote for whether they want an unchained fighter, and keeps citing those poll numbers. Certainly Odraude's point is relevant if at this point in the forum history a lot of people do their best at this point to avoid any discussion whatsoever of fighters. Which means that the poll is going to select towards people who are very unhappy with the fighter.

With all due respect I couldn't care less about poll numbers or why people avoid discussions about the fighter. My main issue is that people are against optional versions of existing classes, they can choose to use them or not, so instead of saying "I don't think class x needs a change, but I am happy that the option will exist for people who think otherwise" We get "Class X doesn't need to change, stop whining you class X haters" I've seen enough arguments from both sides and while I think the fighter needs some changes, I am not going to bother trying to convince someone who thinks the class doesn't, because I am assuming that that person has already read the class, played it and doesn't see any problems with it.

I've said it before but honestly at this point its worth repeating; This is not Pathfinder 2.0 or even 1.5, this is a book to offer you a different and OPTIONAL take on certain classes, you can take them or leave them, there is really no reason to say "I don't want Paizo to do this with Class A or B" No on is forcing to buy or even use the book, your core, apg, uc and um will still be relevant when this comes out, so really its a win win situation for everyone...and yet people are unhappy.

You have this completely wrong. I'm not against optional versions or making the fighter better. I want to help the fighter and I want to give feedback. However, I don't think the fighter in its current state is as horrible as people make it out to be. I think some tweaks could help it out. But I feel like it's pointless to give feedback about the fighter when it's just going to be met with "You're wrong/Play the game wrong/Are ignorant of the game". Why ask for feedback when you're just going to tell others that you're playing the game wrong. Good gaming design isn't an echo chambers. They never have been. But at the rate these fighter threads are going, it's disheartening to want to give helpful feedback but be met with hostility.

Wolfgang Rolf wrote:

@Alexander I am glad that it isn't.

MMCJawa wrote:

Wolfgang...that's great and all, but:

Insain Dragon has kept telling people to vote for whether they want an unchained fighter, and keeps citing those poll numbers. Certainly Odraude's point is relevant if at this point in the forum history a lot of people do their best at this point to avoid any discussion whatsoever of fighters. Which means that the poll is going to select towards people who are very unhappy with the fighter.

With all due respect I couldn't care less about poll numbers or why people avoid discussions about the fighter. My main issue is that people are against optional versions of existing classes, they can choose to use them or not, so instead of saying "I don't think class x needs a change, but I am happy that the option will exist for people who think otherwise" We get "Class X doesn't need to change, stop whining you class X haters" I've seen enough arguments from both sides and while I think the fighter needs some changes, I am not going to bother trying to convince someone who thinks the class doesn't, because I am assuming that that person has already read the class, played it and doesn't see any problems with it.

I've said it before but honestly at this point its worth repeating; This is not Pathfinder 2.0 or even 1.5, this is a book to offer you a different and OPTIONAL take on certain classes, you can take them or leave them, there is really no reason to say "I don't want Paizo to do this with Class A or B" No on is forcing to buy or even use the book, your core, apg, uc and um will still be relevant when this comes out, so really its a win win situation for everyone...and yet people are unhappy.

You have this completely wrong. I'm not against optional versions or making the fighter better. I want to help the fighter and I want to give feedback. However, I don't think the fighter in its current state is as horrible as people make it out to be. I think some tweaks could help...

I apologize, I mistook your post for something that it wasn't.

No problem. It happens.

as for the rogue, all i think it really needs is a slight modification.

full BAB when flanking or sneak attacking and +1 to hit for every 2 sneak attack die you apply.

as for the rogue, all i think it really needs is a slight modification.

full BAB when flanking or sneak attacking and +1 to hit for every 2 sneak attack die you apply.

maybe just full BAB+flank/flatfootedbonuses...the extra to hit/SA die seems a little wierd.

I would much rather see them redo the Samurai, I don't think I have ever been more disappointed in a class.

I hope we will get more then those four mentioned classes. While I am very interested to see what they do with the Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue, I am not so excited about the Summoner.

I would much rather see them redo the Samurai, I don't think I have ever been more disappointed in a class.

I hope we will get more then those four mentioned classes. While I am very interested to see what they do with the Barbarian, Monk, and Rogue, I am not so excited about the Summoner.

I hope someday you get a version of Samurai that is what you are looking for. I, on the other hand, thought that this Samurai was the best version I had seen thus far.

I wonder how the new Rogue will measure up against the Ninja, Swashbuckler, and Investigator.

It will be so powerful they will have to redo the Ninja, Swashbuckler, and Investigator;)

I really don't get why the rogue is considered so awful personally. They tend to be brutal in our home games, though a way to be effective as a ranged rogue would be nice it would be easy to do with talents.

Could it have something to do with the fact that the rogue is a combat class that does not get maximum BAB?

I really don't get why the rogue is considered so awful personally. They tend to be brutal in our home games, though a way to be effective as a ranged rogue would be nice it would be easy to do with talents.

It's because he has little-to-no method of increasing his attack bonus like literally every other class in the game can do. It's also because the two saving throws that can 1-shot a character, the Rogue has bad saves in (Fort and Will). Also, as a 'light armor' class, he doesn't have the HP or AC to stand at the front lines with everyone else.

So he has a harder time hitting than every other combat class in the game.

He has a harder time saving against the most dangerous spells than all of the other main combat classes who either have a good Fortitude, or a good Will save. Reflex almost always means 'Save or take Damage' while Fortitude could mean 'save or die' or 'save or take s$%# tons of damage that can kill you' or 'save or take ability damage'. Will saves tend to mean 'save or kill your party'.

On average he has less HP than other classes, or he has less AC, or less methods of mitigating attacks. Caster martials (like Bards, Alchemists or Magi) can use magic to increase their defenses (like displacement or mirror image), while classes like Monks, Fighters or Paladins can have really high armor classes. Then you've got Barbarians who have chest muscles that deflect bullets.

The Rogue's main method of boosting his damage, sneak attack, is also one of the easiest damage boosters to deny. A cheap alchemical item, the smokestike, shuts down sneak attack. Many creatures are immune to sneak attack, or can't be flanked.

Combine it all together and the Rogue has the short end of the stick when it comes to combat. Then you have several other classes who steal from the Rogues role as 'skill monkey' by letting them disable magical traps (also available through a trait!), or completely obviating the need for him through judicious application of magic.

The Rogue's got a tough life because every aspect of his class can be done by someone else, and often times better than he can.

So I've seen a few mentions and hints at the whole versatile "pool" concept, ki pools etc. and I wonder if this means something like the old arduin grimoire (and various psionic systems) mana points will come into the mix especially for sorcerers. Certainly would lend itself to some versatility but there would have to be some serious limits put into place to keep the high level blasting down.

So I've seen a few mentions and hints at the whole versatile "pool" concept, ki pools etc. and I wonder if this means something like the old arduin grimoire (and various psionic systems) mana points will come into the mix especially for sorcerers. Certainly would lend itself to some versatility but there would have to be some serious limits put into place to keep the high level blasting down.

A hard level-capped limit on how many 'resource points' (be they ki, channel uses, mana points, spell slots, power points, etc.) you can throw in a single round is one way to go, to both prevent gross sorts of alpha strikes (I use eight hours worth of resources in round 1!) and 'fifteen minute work-day' situations.

'Throttling' it too hard might end up making the resource management aspect futile, on the other hand, and eliminate 'oh yeah!' moments where people cut loose and 'shoot their wad.' (And there are already games that scratch that 'slow and steady wins the race, what I do this round will be the same as what I did last round, and my first combat of the day will be very similar to my seventh combat of the day' itch.)

To prevent round by round 'mini-nova-ing' riding those hard limits ragged, there could even be a 'build up power' or 'cooldown' sort of mechanic, where attempting to use every 'spell point' you can in consecutive rounds causes damage or requires Spellcraft or concentration checks to avoid a spectacular flameout (or just lost / wasted resources).

I disagree about Golarion gods.

Abadar is the God of Law, but that's law in the legal sense, not law in the alignment sense. He's no more the god of law (the alignment sense) than Irori is.

I'd also argue that Sarenrae could easily be the goddess of Good. And, of course, Iomedae is explicitly the Goddess of Paladins (even if not of Good and Law).

I think, though, an important thing to remember about making 'Paladins of other alignments' is that Paladins are defined by what they oppose as much as what they are. The default LG Paladin fights Evil. But an LG Paladin who fights Chaos would be different. On the other hand, making a CG paladin could be done without actually changing any class features, as long as they oppose Evil and not Law.

Should an LE (anti?)paladin fight Good or Chaos? Do we need a CE antipaladin who fights Law instead of Good?

I for one find the names for the alternate alignment paladins to be kind of a clue for an elegant system for this: The normal paladin is LG, but is good over lawful and fights against evil. The Paladin of Freedom is CG, and fights against law from the angle of good. The Antipaladin (of Slaughter) is CE, but evil in a chaotic way more than dedicated to chaos and fights good. And the Antipaladin of Tyranny is similar to a Hellknight, chiefly concerned with Law and fighting against Chaos, but is evil in the way he carries it out and must eschew mercy and goodness.

But at the rate these fighter threads are going, it's disheartening to want to give helpful feedback but be met with hostility.

It's also disheartening to go "I think there's some problems that need to be addressed" and be met with a never-ending torrent of "OMG you dirty powergaming ROLL player why can't you just be happy with the way it is like I am and stop trying to RUIN THE GAME by turning it into 4E!?!?!?!".

Just saying there's fault on both sides there.

Odraude wrote:

But at the rate these fighter threads are going, it's disheartening to want to give helpful feedback but be met with hostility.

It's also disheartening to go "I think there's some problems that need to be addressed" and be met with a never-ending torrent of "OMG you dirty powergaming ROLL player why can't you just be happy with the way it is like I am and stop trying to RUIN THE GAME by turning it into 4E!?!?!?!".

Just saying there's fault on both sides there.

Honestly, I see it more from the other side. Hell, I've seen it done to people that agree the fighter needs some looking at, but not the full overhaul that others seem to want. I'm sure if I said "I like bonus feats" I'd get the usual "Well you're just ignorant of the game and clearly the cancer that is killing martials if you like that."

"Thanks guys. I really wanted to help out with the fighter but f+*+ it I guess."

We really need more information on this: "Players will love the book's new resource pool for martial characters".

A Blog post outlining what this means would go a long way towards helping people understand it.

As long as the fighter is based on feats he can never gain an edge, hence why he needs to be unchained from feats.

The fighter's abundance of feats allow him to do things no other class can. Certain builds are just too feat intensive for anyone else to pull off.

I'm sure if I said "I like bonus feats" I'd get the usual "Well you're just ignorant of the game and clearly the cancer that is killing martials if you like that."

I really like the fighter's bonus feats. When I build a fighter, bonus feats are the reason I have chosen the class.

as for the rogue, all i think it really needs is a slight modification.

full BAB when flanking or sneak attacking and +1 to hit for every 2 sneak attack die you apply.

Give both monk and rogue full BAB.

Spiffy up the rogue talents a bit, enough that you actually look forward to getting a talent instead of looking for ways to trade talents for feats.

We really need more information on this: "Players will love the book's new resource pool for martial characters".

A Blog post outlining what this means would go a long way towards helping people understand it.

I have no doubt we will get one...

...but the book is still probably 9 months away.

Patience is key, here.

We don't usually get blog posts about up and coming books this early. Usually about three months before the product comes out.

I think rogue is fine with 3/4 BAB he just needs something akin to studied combat, favored enemy or a system similar to panache/grit. In other words a way of actively increasing his attack bonus that gets stronger as the rogue levels up. If paizo finds that landing so many sneak attacks consistently with the rogue's rapid sneak attack progression in damage then by all means make sneak attack end at 7d6 or 8d6(I am sure paizo can figure out the math).

I doubt the base saves of the rogue will see any change since there are even classes in the ACG with only one good base save(Swashbuckler anyone?) but it wouldn't hurt to give the rogue something to at least momentarily strengthen his will or fort save.

The rogue needs a serious boost in terms of skill bonuses, this can be achieved through allowing the rogue to pick three or five of his skills to receive a bonus which is equal to half his rogue level. Hide in plain sight wouldn't hurt either.

A buff to dirty trick maneuvers or the rogues own brand of debilitating abilities, maybe use poison as well?

@Alexander I am glad that it isn't.

MMCJawa wrote:

Wolfgang...that's great and all, but:

Insain Dragon has kept telling people to vote for whether they want an unchained fighter, and keeps citing those poll numbers. Certainly Odraude's point is relevant if at this point in the forum history a lot of people do their best at this point to avoid any discussion whatsoever of fighters. Which means that the poll is going to select towards people who are very unhappy with the fighter.

With all due respect I couldn't care less about poll numbers or why people avoid discussions about the fighter. My main issue is that people are against optional versions of existing classes, they can choose to use them or not, so instead of saying "I don't think class x needs a change, but I am happy that the option will exist for people who think otherwise" We get "Class X doesn't need to change, stop whining you class X haters" I've seen enough arguments from both sides and while I think the fighter needs some changes, I am not going to bother trying to convince someone who thinks the class doesn't, because I am assuming that that person has already read the class, played it and doesn't see any problems with it.

I've said it before but honestly at this point its worth repeating; This is not Pathfinder 2.0 or even 1.5, this is a book to offer you a different and OPTIONAL take on certain classes, you can take them or leave them, there is really no reason to say "I don't want Paizo to do this with Class A or B" No on is forcing to buy or even use the book, your core, apg, uc and um will still be relevant when this comes out, so really its a win win situation for everyone...and yet people are unhappy.

The problem with that argument is the assumption that all ideas/requests have equal merit. Some ideas could create new issues, be lame, or might impose powers or restrictions that are viewed negatively by a wider (but quieter) majority.

Providing feedback arguing against sweeping changes is, from a customer-purchase & publisher-business perspective, just as valuable as the "I want X"-style of feedback.

Additionally, since Paizo does a pretty good job of incorporating new rules/options in all of their products, the "you can just ignore it" defense doesn't carry as much weight.

I've been wanting to see Unearthed Arcana for Pathfinder for YEARS! I can't wait to have this in my hands. I'm hoping for a Grit/Panache pool for fighters and rogues, class defense bonus, complex skill checks, a true spell point/mana system (I like words of power but it feels incomplete.), incantations or non-caster magic. I think the first one is already in the book so I hope for the rest.

Edit: I'd also like to see a better wealth by level system. One of the few things I liked about D20 Modern was the wealth check system. I'm not sure how that would translate into Pathfinder though. I doubt this will make the book so I'm just throwing it out there...

SM

I really like the fighter's bonus feats. When I build a fighter, bonus feats are the reason I have chosen the class.

Of course. Not really any OTHER reason to choose the class.

Again, the fighter isn't, as of yet, part of the classes which will get a "make-over" in the book, so pros, cons etc. of the class should be discussed elsewhere.
What I do find somewhat funny, though, is that most of the other classes being discussed are being "tweaked" (as in, "Oh class x should totally get power/ability y") by the posters with already existing abilities.
I think this book is a chance to really think out of the box and redesign the classes in a whole different way - although still within the D20 system.

I'm looking forward to this. Unleash the Paizo creativity! Hoping for some drastic overhauls, more than just archetypes. I like how the card game and mmo are handling their class conversions, got every reason for high hopes here.

I'm curious on what they'll do with the barb, seems like a really solid class, best of the martials. Maybe just working on the name, getting rid of rage altogether in favor of more recognisable tribal roles? I think rangers do that fine already.. I'd love a non-specialist tactical fighter too, tactician and lore warden archetypes are close but not right for me yet, complete unleashing there would be nice.. maybe the unleashed barb is reflavored as a martial trance thing as a framework for a backdoor fighter fix? Any way it goes, i'll be buying this..

I think the barbarian is mostly just to simplify the math. Solving for new HP, then lost HP can be a real bugbear for new players.

I think the barbarian is mostly just to simplify the math. Solving for new HP, then lost HP can be a real bugbear for new players.

I think it's gonna be a complete rewrite actually. With a name like "unchained" and these being "optional" classes I don't think it'd be worth the page space to just "simplify" a class. I'm hoping it's just a completely new take on the concept of barbarian without the trappings of 3rd edition.

Joe M. wrote:

Berinor wrote:

Plus, as the new guy on the block (and without putting words in Mark's mouth), I'm betting he's still figuring out where Paizo policy puts the line between "inspiration" and "plagiarism".

FAQ:

FAQ wrote:

Who owns my comments?

While Paizo Publishing does not pre-screen message content, Paizo Publishing does reserve the right to edit or remove submitted messages or material at any time. Paizo Publishing is not responsible for the content of messages submitted by users of the site. Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Publishing 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.

Touche legalese. Touche. :-)

I better always post my hombrews in links, so paizo doesn't get to steal my amazing ideas then :D

I'm pretty sure the barbarian update is just to simply. the hit points, and the rage powers- the way they work can be very confusing, some being all the time use, other once per rage use, altering all kinds of different stats, differently in unequal ways.

the only class i see that would be completely is the summoner.

the monk doesnt need to be written, he like the rogue just needs full BAB.

things that need to rewritten- are the stealth rules, feat taxes, combat should be rewritten, hitting target numbers is easier but it would be a much interactive game if combat were opposed rolls instead.

save progression at higher level should be looked at, they should use this opportunity to introduce rules to make high level play more functional and fun.

After all the biggest artifact of the 3.0 line, is that the game really was only really designed to function well from level 1- 12. at the very least the book should address that shortcoming.

Noh Masuku wrote:

So I've seen a few mentions and hints at the whole versatile "pool" concept, ki pools etc. and I wonder if this means something like the old arduin grimoire (and various psionic systems) mana points will come into the mix especially for sorcerers. Certainly would lend itself to some versatility but there would have to be some serious limits put into place to keep the high level blasting down.

A hard level-capped limit on how many 'resource points' (be they ki, channel uses, mana points, spell slots, power points, etc.) you can throw in a single round is one way to go, to both prevent gross sorts of alpha strikes (I use eight hours worth of resources in round 1!) and 'fifteen minute work-day' situations.

'Throttling' it too hard might end up making the resource management aspect futile, on the other hand, and eliminate 'oh yeah!' moments where people cut loose and 'shoot their wad.' (And there are already games that scratch that 'slow and steady wins the race, what I do this round will be the same as what I did last round, and my first combat of the day will be very similar to my seventh combat of the day' itch.)

To prevent round by round 'mini-nova-ing' riding those hard limits ragged, there could even be a 'build up power' or 'cooldown' sort of mechanic, where attempting to use every 'spell point' you can in consecutive rounds causes damage or requires Spellcraft or concentration checks to avoid a spectacular flameout (or just lost / wasted resources).

Maybe something like the Hearthstone 'Overload' mechanic, where you can exceed your throttle by borrowing points from next turn? It wouldn't stop fight-ending novas, but could help control the "I operate at peak output for four rounds and then I'm empty".

Or even a mana-point system like M:tG or Hearthstone (or many other TCGs), where something constrains your powers so the 'big guns' don't come online until later in a battle.

Folks,

Lets not get into a feud about what is in this book or what folks think should or should not be in the book. Its just an argument for its own sake.

There is a lot in this book.

There are a number of really cool things that we have not even touched on when talking to all of you about this book.

We are not ready to talk about those things at this time, so arguing about them is a bit pointless.

Although we appreciate the passion and ideas of folks in this and other threads, we don't use community voting to decide content. We do recognize the ideas and desires in such posts, and we use them to inspire us.

I can say, with 100% certainty, that if you choose to work freely with the systems in this book, there will be new, cool options for everyone at the table. Some of these address concerns in very different ways and would affect the overall balance dynamic at your table (such as the martial vs caster dynamic). That is all I am going to say about it at this time. Seriously.. For real-sies.

Thats all the whimsy I got for a Monday. Be nice to each other.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

I dunno about you, but "completely redesigned versions of the barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner classes" sounds like a lot more than a mere simplification of the same thing.

To add to what Jason has said, when it comes to unchained, everything is unchained in some way or another, there's really a sliding scale, ranging from "Wow, that's a cool new take on an iconic idea" all the way out to "'The sacred cows are dead and strapped to a catapult while everyone cavorts in the moonlight and watches in awed anticipation as the chains of reality shatter and the entire world dissolves into the Maelstrom". Some combinations from Pathfinder Unchained are going to bring you more towards the second description in terms of how much they will alter the fundamental way you play to bring a completely new feel, but the new classes are more like the first description.

So, to use a hypothetical example of a class that isn't under current discussion for Unchained, a theoretical unchained druid would probably not trade out all her spells, wild shape, and animal companions for the ability to shoot a bow with her feet, reliant on her dinosaur pool, a personal pool based on 1/2 druid level + Wis modifier that allows her to transform her foot-bow arrows into dinosaurs midflight (scaling dinosaur type by druid level) with a special feature called Plant Mastery that allows you to gain combat bonuses based on going into your local forest or arboretum in real life and collecting a variety of leaves and other flora that you bring to the game session, each one granting a unique boon (with a sidebar for equivalencies of plants if you play on different continents).

Hmm...that actually sounds kind of awesome in a very MtG Unglued kind of way...

Good we will have better balance between martials and casters...so I agree we need stronger casters, there too weak.