Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained (OGL)

Which authors are going to be writing material for this book?

Some Rule Options I personally would like to see:

- Ability score bonuses to TWO or even THREE ability scores every four levels, to lessen the gap between MAD and SAD classes.
- Set aside the Big Six magic items and the Wealth By Level chart. Give inherent bonuses (or alternative 20-level progressions) for BAB, saves, and AC.
- Give martial characters a major bonus against fear effects. I've always found it weird that martial characters usually have low Will saves and are the most likely to run away from yeth hounds and the like.
- Give melee characters a way to stay equally effective while being mobile in combat. Right now, they're too dependent on standing still and doing Full Attacks, which can get boring. (I haven't seen the Book of Nine Swords, but popular options from there might be introduced as options.)
- Advice on how to simplify higher level play. This can include lessening the number of attacks characters can have. Maybe replace the +20/+15/+10/+5 progression with something akin to +18/+18. Limit each character to a set number of buff effects. (I don't like the potential for Scry and Fry.)
- Make multiclassing more viable by having a single BAB progression chart that goes up to 80: a level in a full BAB class gives you 4 "points," a level in a medium BAB class gives you 3 "points," a level in a low-BAB class gives you 2 "points."
- Make a lot more spells have 1-round or longer casting times or make them into rituals, especially for some higher-level spells. Personally, I like the idea from 1E that higher-level spells take longer to cast and require that the party protect the caster.
- Making two-weapon fighting and one-handed weapon fighting more viable. (Or maybe even give an initiative penalty to two-handed fighters.)

By the way, should we have a thread to talk about things we'd like to see in Pathfinder Unchained? I know the design team already has ideas of what to do, but I'd love to participate in and follow such a thread.

What you describe in your first 5 points sounds a lot like a request for D&D 4E... Perhaps you should look there to see if you like the results of carrying those steps through the system, or see alternative paths to take toward those goals?

Your 7th point is also a feature of 4E.

I don't anticipate this book introducing systems that push things along paths quite that similar to what produced that edition. I anticipate seeing Jason and Mark make crazy cool stuff in other ways....

I know that the current version of the summoner can be hard for new players and GMs to handle. However, I just hope that the new version of the Summoner won't lose quite all of its customization powers. To me, the ability to use the summoner class to create any companion for your character that you can imagine is what makes it special (and one of my favorate classes).

I know that the current version of the summoner can be hard for new players and GMs to handle. However, I just hope that the new version of the Summoner won't lose quite all of its customization powers. To me, the ability to use the summoner class to create any companion for your character that you can imagine is what makes it special (and one of my favorate classes).

Agreed. Please don't kill the ability of the summoner to customize their eidolons.

Will there be small areas of the rules addressed in the book, or only large systems such as class revisions?

I'd like to see an unchained version of the spells simulacrum and reincarnation make the book.

If it fits with whatever may be in the book related to magic items I'd like to see the combination of rings of protection and cloaks of resistance, making them a single ring, and removing cloaks of resistance from the game, freeing up another slot for more cool items rather than just +x to saves.

Matrix Dragon wrote:

I know that the current version of the summoner can be hard for new players and GMs to handle. However, I just hope that the new version of the Summoner won't lose quite all of its customization powers. To me, the ability to use the summoner class to create any companion for your character that you can imagine is what makes it special (and one of my favorate classes).

Agreed. Please don't kill the ability of the summoner to customize their eidolons.

These are going to be new takes on the classes. Even if the "Unchained" Summoner doesn't have a customizable Eidolon, that isn't going to make the current Summoner suddenly cease to exist. They've been pretty clear that these aren't replacements, just alternate versions of the still perfectly valid core materials.

Hey there folks,

While it is way too early for me to be giving out specifics, I will mention a few points here...

1. The classes mentioned fall into a special category in my mind. That being: Classes I would do differently today than the way they were done years ago during their initial design phase. Its not that we dislike them, it is just that they do not quite live up to our current design philosophies here in the office. This is a chance for us to revisit them in a safe environment, while allowing all of you to play with the results.

2. There will be things for everyone in this book. Although we only mentioned four classes, that list might grow. In addition, there are a number of other systems and rules bits that will apply to a wide variety of characters, giving them new ways to play the game. I think, as we get closer and are able to share some additional details, folks are going to be very excited about these options.

3. Careful with the wish-listing. I'd prefer folks not set up false expectations for this book. Its going to have a lot of things no one expects, and probably in the end, be missing some things that you might think are a no-brainer. Lets just be careful about wishing for the sky. In the end, the pieces of this book will still need to work with a lot of the game, so that does put some limits on what we can do, even if we are tinkering with other big systems.

At any rate.. glad to see a lot of enthusiasm here. We are excited to be working on this awesome book.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

1) Wasn't this going to be a Spring release?

2) Are the "revised" classes be able to use unrevised archetypes, or will they get their own (or none at all)?

3) What will the revised classes be called? Like, "Revised Rogue", "Unchained Rogue", or just "Rogue"?

Artanthos wrote:

Matrix Dragon wrote:

I know that the current version of the summoner can be hard for new players and GMs to handle. However, I just hope that the new version of the Summoner won't lose quite all of its customization powers. To me, the ability to use the summoner class to create any companion for your character that you can imagine is what makes it special (and one of my favorate classes).

Agreed. Please don't kill the ability of the summoner to customize their eidolons.

These are going to be new takes on the classes. Even if the "Unchained" Summoner doesn't have a customizable Eidolon, that isn't going to make the current Summoner suddenly cease to exist. They've been pretty clear that these aren't replacements, just alternate versions of the still perfectly valid core materials.

Unfortunately GMs don't work that way. If you give a GM the option of the much maligned APG summoner and the PU summoner without the headache of the eidolon, most are going to go with the latter. It's like how Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible and lets you use your old books, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a GM that does allow 3.5 material.

Unless the new summoner is grossly worse or more overpowered than the original summoner, it's essentially going to replace the APG one in the minds of many a GM.

I'd like to see how to play with no feats...and that's no small feat...yeah, I did.

But seriously, I went to my FLGS yesterday and there was a table of old guys sitting around and talking about the merits of that new game that just came out. They were sitting in front a massive wall full of Pathfinder material. It looked overwhelming - I went home and looked at my massive wall of Pathfinder material. It was overwhelming. I fear that Pathfinder might present a challenge for drawing in newbies (even old ones) because there is such an avalanche of potential stuff.

So, I hope Unchained contains rules for playing a simpler flavor of Pathfinder that might could be used as a gateway drug.

Lets just be careful about wishing for the sky.

That's right, the dwarves wished for the sky and look at their broken sky citadels today. Broken sky citadels and hordes of orcs.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Lets just be careful about wishing for the sky.

That's right, the dwarves wished for the sky and look at their broken sky citadels today. Broken sky citadels and hordes of orcs.

Player to Efreet: "I wish for the sky!"

Hey there folks

*Snip*
2. There will be things for everyone in this book. Although we only mentioned four classes, that list might grow. In addition, there are a number of other systems and rules bits that will apply to a wide variety of characters, giving them new ways to play the game. I think, as we get closer and are able to share some additional details, folks are going to be very excited about these options.
*snip*
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

You said that every class will be getting something. I just want to know one thing: Will the Ninja receive the same treatment the Rogue will receive? And to a lesser extent, if the Cavalier is touched upon in even a small way, will this be paralleled in the Samurai? I ask because the Ninja and the Samurai are the only 2 real alternate classes right now.

Ssalarn wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

Matrix Dragon wrote:

I know that the current version of the summoner can be hard for new players and GMs to handle. However, I just hope that the new version of the Summoner won't lose quite all of its customization powers. To me, the ability to use the summoner class to create any companion for your character that you can imagine is what makes it special (and one of my favorate classes).

Agreed. Please don't kill the ability of the summoner to customize their eidolons.

These are going to be new takes on the classes. Even if the "Unchained" Summoner doesn't have a customizable Eidolon, that isn't going to make the current Summoner suddenly cease to exist. They've been pretty clear that these aren't replacements, just alternate versions of the still perfectly valid core materials.

Unfortunately GMs don't work that way. If you give a GM the option of the much maligned APG summoner and the PU summoner without the headache of the eidolon, most are going to go with the latter. It's like how Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible and lets you use your old books, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a GM that does allow 3.5 material.

Unless the new summoner is grossly worse or more overpowered than the original summoner, it's essentially going to replace the APG one in the minds of many a GM.

This is exactly what I'm worried about. Especially if the new summoner ends up being completely diffierent from the old summoner class.

It's like how Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible and lets you use your old books, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a GM that does allow 3.5 material.

Wow, I'm a rarity. What do I win?

Unless the new summoner is grossly worse or more overpowered than the original summoner, it's essentially going to replace the APG one in the minds of many a GM.

Those GMs only grudgingly allow the summoner as it is, if at all. They are not worth considering in this case.

A favorite and an E cookie.

In my area all 3.5 material is banned. 3PP stuff is starting to become legal due to me using it in my games. I be pimping out DreamScarred yo!

In my area all 3.5 material is banned. 3PP stuff is starting to become legal due to me using it in my games. I be pimping out DreamScarred yo!

You're doing the gods work son.

MMMm coooookieeee

Odraude wrote:

Unless the new summoner is grossly worse or more overpowered than the original summoner, it's essentially going to replace the APG one in the minds of many a GM.

Those GMs only grudgingly allow the summoner as it is, if at all. They are not worth considering in this case.

My worry is PFS. If they nerf eidolons into the ground and PFS adopts the new rules, I will be quite upset.

Somehow, I don't share that same level of anxiety regarding my PFS monk.

My worry is PFS. If they nerf eidolons into the ground and PFS adopts the new rules, I will be quite upset.

Somehow, I don't share that same level of anxiety regarding my PFS monk.

If I trust Mike in nothing else, it is being careful not to make a poor decision in this.

Artanthos wrote:

My worry is PFS. If they nerf eidolons into the ground and PFS adopts the new rules, I will be quite upset.

Somehow, I don't share that same level of anxiety regarding my PFS monk.

If I trust Mike in nothing else, it is being careful not to make a poor decision in this.

I've already had to rebuild my synthesist.

I'm incredibly excited by this book and the chance to see the full creativity brought to bear by a fully armed and operational design team ;-)

I would also like to vote for improved multi-classing rules.

I would also like a puppy shipped with each copy.

I've already had to rebuild my synthesist.

Do you consider that a poor decision? And was it one of Mike's? (I don't actually know anything about it, as I don't play summoners and have only been actively playing for two years.)

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Odraude wrote:

Unless the new summoner is grossly worse or more overpowered than the original summoner, it's essentially going to replace the APG one in the minds of many a GM.

Those GMs only grudgingly allow the summoner as it is, if at all. They are not worth considering in this case.

My worry is PFS. If they nerf eidolons into the ground and PFS adopts the new rules, I will be quite upset.

Somehow, I don't share that same level of anxiety regarding my PFS monk.

Given that the team has been pretty consistently clear that these are additional options and ideas that you can take or leave as much as you want of, I really don't see this having a big impact in PFS at all one way or another, except perhaps introducing more accessibile material to draw in new players. That is, of course, assuming any of the material from this particular book becomes PFS legal.

As to the Synthesist being banned from PFS, it was a necessary decision and one well made. There too many moving parts, too many players making mistakes, and too much time being wasted by GMs trying to sift through the builds of incorrectly (or even correctly but not clearly laid out) assembled characters, not to mention the pages of FAQs that had to be sifted through. If tables are losing 15 minutes of game time while GMs and players try to decipher a single character, it's become more trouble than it's worth and should go. While this may not have been your personal experience with the Synthesist, it was a very common experience in PFS. It had nothing to do with a new release or a better option that did the same thing in a more streamlined, efficient, or effective way. Had the Synthesist just been of questionably high power but easily ruled, played, and adjudicated, it would likely still be a legal PFS option.

Ssalarn wrote:

Artanthos wrote:

Matrix Dragon wrote:

I know that the current version of the summoner can be hard for new players and GMs to handle. However, I just hope that the new version of the Summoner won't lose quite all of its customization powers. To me, the ability to use the summoner class to create any companion for your character that you can imagine is what makes it special (and one of my favorate classes).

Agreed. Please don't kill the ability of the summoner to customize their eidolons.

These are going to be new takes on the classes. Even if the "Unchained" Summoner doesn't have a customizable Eidolon, that isn't going to make the current Summoner suddenly cease to exist. They've been pretty clear that these aren't replacements, just alternate versions of the still perfectly valid core materials.

Unfortunately GMs don't work that way. If you give a GM the option of the much maligned APG summoner and the PU summoner without the headache of the eidolon, most are going to go with the latter. It's like how Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible and lets you use your old books, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a GM that does allow 3.5 material.

Unless the new summoner is grossly worse or more overpowered than the original summoner, it's essentially going to replace the APG one in the minds of many a GM.

On the other hand, 3.5 included a lot of classes meant to replace the core classes for game balance, and lots of GMs kept using the old versions. Totemist was supposed to replace druid, and a lot of people kept using the druid. The fixed-list casters were collectively supposed to replace sorcerers/clerics, and people kept using the core casters. The factotum was supposed to replace the rogue, and people kept using the rogue. The warblade was supposed to replace the fighter, and people kept using the fighter. The crusader was supposed to replace the paladin and people kept using the paladin. Heck, the only 3.5 core classes that didn't get completely reworked are the barbarian and bard.

Hm.

This fills me with concern. I will check out the book and may do some switching, but like most gamers my age, im more interested in getting ideas from this book to use in the future as opposed to abandoning everything I know currently.

I know he is on the Pathfinder Modules line, but I hope Owen K Stephens gets to chip in. His stuff his Genius.

Just Not Interested ....

So I guess we will have to wait until Gen Con until we find out more about this one, correct?

On the other hand, 3.5 included a lot of classes meant to replace the core classes for game balance, and lots of GMs kept using the old versions. (examples snipped)...

Wut?

They were never meant to replace anything. They were always optional, additional classes in their own right.

Odraude wrote:

It's like how Pathfinder is 3.5 compatible and lets you use your old books, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a GM that does allow 3.5 material.

Wow, I'm a rarity. What do I win?

A fabulous makeover, of course!

Yeah, the design anything summoner already exists.

That's why I want a more specifically flavoured summoner, because the Summoner as written doesn't really match my ideal for a classic fantasy archetypes of: Demonic Cultist, Diabolist, Boy and his Genie, Angel Devotee etc.
You can build approximations, but by the rules an Eidolon is not a Demon, Devil, Genie or Angel, I can never make a wish upon a genie, my eidolon always obeys me even if I ask it to perform an act opposing its alignment.

You already have the "The eidolon is anything" summoner. I don't want an Eidolon, I want a genie.

I don't want it if it means it will obsolete the original class.

I'd be especially interested in a summoner revamp if it meant that they could make the spell list for the summoner more interesting. I think I've done something like two or three Synthesist summoners for various Iconic Designs now, and each time I cringe when I have to pick spells. The list doesn't really have many interesting, play-defining choices.

READY OR NOT, HERE I COME

P.S. I STOLE YOUR WALLET TO BUY THIS BOOK

Artanthos wrote:

I've already had to rebuild my synthesist.

Do you consider that a poor decision? And was it one of Mike's? (I don't actually know anything about it, as I don't play summoners and have only been actively playing for two years.)

I can understand how the complexity of the synthesist rules caused problems for some people, and have mostly gotten over have to abandon a character concept I enjoyed.

Yes, it was under Mike's watch the archetype was banned.

I can understand how the complexity of the synthesist rules caused problems for some people, and have mostly gotten over have to abandon a character concept I enjoyed.

Yes, it was under Mike's watch the archetype was banned.

Then I will concur that you have cause to be concerned, and hope that the results are more favorable to you than the synthesist ban was.

I don't want it if it means it will obsolete the original class.

The Summoner as is, is one of THE most powerful classes in the game, second only to the Wizard or Druid. It's versatility alone would be enough, but it also gives players that creative output.

The idea that a more limited version of the class would make the previous "obsolete" doesn't track with me. If your GM doesn't like the Summoner as-is for balance reasons, then that's that. They probably don't allow the summoner at all anyway.

For the record I do allow summoners in my games, I just ask my players to try not to break the class (although they do so on accident occasionally).

I don't want to see old ground retreaded, I want a different take on the class, that seems what this book is for: A complete revamp.

That said, if I don't get what I want that's okay. It's up to the developers to write the book they want, I'll decide what I play and what I allow in my games on a case-by-case basis.

I just think the summoner could stand to have an injection of flavour, and a power-level nerf.

Odraude wrote:

I don't want it if it means it will obsolete the original class.

The Summoner as is, is one of THE most powerful classes in the game, second only to the Wizard or Druid. It's versatility alone would be enough, but it also gives players that creative output.

The idea that a more limited version of the class would make the previous "obsolete" doesn't track with me. If your GM doesn't like the Summoner as-is for balance reasons, then that's that. They probably don't allow the summoner at all anyway.

For the record I do allow summoners in my games, I just ask my players to try not to break the class (although they do so on accident occasionally).

I don't want to see old ground retreaded, I want a different take on the class, that seems what this book is for: A complete revamp.

That said, if I don't get what I want that's okay. It's up to the developers to write the book they want, I'll decide what I play and what I allow in my games on a case-by-case basis.

I just think the summoner could stand to have an injection of flavour, and a power-level nerf.

You misunderstand. I'm fine with a rebalance of the class. But not at the cost of the eidolon. I love the concept and the customization options. But I feel you can balance the summoner and even give it flavor without gutting the eidolon mechanics. And that's my biggest fear, that the current eidolon mechanics are going to be abandoned in favor of something that I consider less interesting.

And honestly, I've never needed the game to help me inject flavor and fluff into a class. I don't see how hard it is to take a blank canvas like the summoner and just go with it. Especially since with the customization, you can really make a lot of concepts and have it backed by mechanics

Also the chances of having a wish granting genie at level 1 is slim to none and much more powerful than any eidolon. ;)

This should totally be called Pathfinder Unearthed.

Pathfinder should have been called D&D Unearthed.

As in... "dug back up out of the grave and given new life".

my eidolon always obeys me even if I ask it to perform an act opposing its alignment.

Says who? If you've decided your eidolon is an angel, you can have it refuse to kill a prisoner. If you've decided it's a devil, you can have it balk at playing nice.

Just because the player controls it doesn't mean the character does if you want to play it that way. It doesn't need to have an ego score like an intelligent weapon or a charisma check like a bound outsider.

You really might want to check out the summoner section of Ultimate Magic. It's not perfect, but the Eidolon Models section has advice for how to approximate various types of outsiders using the evolution rules. Genies are included.

It would be nice to have evolutions that granted various outsider subtypes, though. Just because it would be kind of gratifying to actually write Outsider (Devil)[Evil, Lawful] on the eidolon's character sheet. Heck, those could be 0-point evolutions as long as they specify you still have to buy immunities/resistances or racial abilities separately.

I'd be super happy to see a coherent evolution of the Perception/Invisibility/Stealth/ darkness rules finally see print.

Alternate paladins?

Why the barbarian? I thought the APG added enough options and flavor to differentiate it from the fighter.

What I'd like to see for the Eidolon, is something akin to limits on how often a certain evolution is 'bought'. Something like the evolutions are broken up into categories and you can only have some many of one category before you have to purchase from another category.

Kind of like the recommended gear purchase, no more than 30% on one item, so much in weapons so much in armor, so much in gear etc.

If this is to be a book of variant rules, I would love to see new systems for spell casting other than the Vancian (spellpoints, etc.).

What you describe in your first 5 points sounds a lot like a request for D&D 4E... Perhaps you should look there to see if you like the results of carrying those steps through the system, or see alternative paths to take toward those goals?

Your 7th point is also a feature of 4E.

I don't anticipate this book introducing systems that push things along paths quite that similar to what produced that edition. I anticipate seeing Jason and Mark make crazy cool stuff in other ways....

It's true that those are features of 4th Edition. But I don't like 4th Edition, and I've given it a try.

4th Edition addressed long-standing issues with 3rd Edition, but went in a decidedly different direction. Pathfinder RPG addressed some of those issues in 2009, but could only do so much. Pathfinder Unchained sounds like it will be a step forward. :)

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

my eidolon always obeys me even if I ask it to perform an act opposing its alignment.

Says who? If you've decided your eidolon is an angel, you can have it refuse to kill a prisoner. If you've decided it's a devil, you can have it balk at playing nice.

Just because the player controls it doesn't mean the character does if you want to play it that way. It doesn't need to have an ego score like an intelligent weapon or a charisma check like a bound outsider.

You really might want to check out the summoner section of Ultimate Magic. It's not perfect, but the Eidolon Models section has advice for how to approximate various types of outsiders using the evolution rules. Genies are included.

It would be nice to have evolutions that granted various outsider subtypes, though. Just because it would be kind of gratifying to actually write Outsider (Devil)[Evil, Lawful] on the eidolon's character sheet. Heck, those could be 0-point evolutions as long as they specify you still have to buy immunities/resistances or racial abilities separately.

So, I was thinking about this more. An eidolon always has the same alignment as its summoner (which sort of makes sense: a extraplanar being is unlikely to form a bond with a being with which it fundamentally does not agree.) So it's unlikely you'd even ask an eidolon to do something that goes against its alignment, since you wouldn't want to ask in the first place.

However, that does open up room for an archetype that allows an eidolon with a different alignment, so that you can play up a non-evil character than signed an infernal pact for a devil. Or a neutral or evil character with a 'guardian angel' trying to redeem him. Or whatever.

That would make it slightly easier to abuse the DR evolutions (since you could make a diabolic eidolon with DR/Good, while being good or neutral yourself, thus making it unlikely your foes will overcome the DR. But that's a fairly narrow case, and is roughly evened out by the number of times your eidolon won't be able to overcome DR/Good in turn.

Could pair it with Brood Summoner to make a summoner with a literal angel on one shoulder and a devil on the other.

this is so awesome. Monks should be full bab, and really so should rogue.

fighters don't really need fixing but if they were to do something they should make feats scaled automatically with fighter levels- so taking improved trip would automatically become greater trip when the fighter levels up.

However, that does open up room for an archetype that allows an eidolon with a different alignment, so that you can play up a non-evil character than signed an infernal pact for a devil. Or a neutral or evil character with a 'guardian angel' trying to redeem him. Or whatever.

That's a pretty cool idea. Makes me wonder what kind of class abilities such an archetype would have in place of its regular features.