Paizocon, any news?


PaizoCon General Discussion

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I wonder if there will be a playtest for Pathfinder Unchained.
There usually isn't one for the Spring release. Normally the play test is for the GenCon release.

Not true. Ultimate Magic (2011) and the Advanced Race Guide (2012) were both Spring released and both books had playtests: the Magus had a playtest for Ultimate Magic and the race building rules had a playtest in the Advanced Race Guide. The only Spring releases that didn't have playtests were the GameMastery Guide (2010) and Ultimate Campaign (2013) because those books weren't crunch-focused.

The REAL question is whether or not the developers think that the book's content needs a playtest. I would be surprised if the new classes didn't receive a playtest.

What time of year were the Spring release playtests? It seems to me that if they wanted to playtests this, they'd need to basically start now.

Dark Archive

Ross Byers wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I wonder if there will be a playtest for Pathfinder Unchained.
There usually isn't one for the Spring release. Normally the play test is for the GenCon release.

Not true. Ultimate Magic (2011) and the Advanced Race Guide (2012) were both Spring released and both books had playtests: the Magus had a playtest for Ultimate Magic and the race building rules had a playtest in the Advanced Race Guide. The only Spring releases that didn't have playtests were the GameMastery Guide (2010) and Ultimate Campaign (2013) because those books weren't crunch-focused.

The REAL question is whether or not the developers think that the book's content needs a playtest. I would be surprised if the new classes didn't receive a playtest.

What time of year were the Spring release playtests? It seems to me that if they wanted to playtests this, they'd need to basically start now.

Right now the Pathfinder Unchained book product page says preorder august.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ross Byers wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I wonder if there will be a playtest for Pathfinder Unchained.
There usually isn't one for the Spring release. Normally the play test is for the GenCon release.

Not true. Ultimate Magic (2011) and the Advanced Race Guide (2012) were both Spring released and both books had playtests: the Magus had a playtest for Ultimate Magic and the race building rules had a playtest in the Advanced Race Guide. The only Spring releases that didn't have playtests were the GameMastery Guide (2010) and Ultimate Campaign (2013) because those books weren't crunch-focused.

The REAL question is whether or not the developers think that the book's content needs a playtest. I would be surprised if the new classes didn't receive a playtest.

What time of year were the Spring release playtests? It seems to me that if they wanted to playtests this, they'd need to basically start now.

My guess is that the Playtest was "Everything that people have been doing in Pathfinder so far".

Considering these are new envisionings of classes that have been talked about and been in play for quite some time, I'd imagine a playtest isn't super necessary. Plus, it isn't really "Pathfinder Unchained" if they aren't doing things the way they wanted to do them. I kind of don't see this as being a product that needs additional playtesting

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
brad2411 wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
brad2411 wrote:


I also hope they do not go over kill on the martial vs. spell caster disparity as that would destroy the balance of the casters. (Casters start weak and end really strong vs. martials can be good from day one).

This is not a thing. Everyone starts at basically the same power level. At low levels, martials can hit hard and have good defenses against level appropriate challenges, and casters have weaker defenses (generally) but can flat out end entire encounters with a single casting of the right spell at the right time (looking at you color spray). They have basically the same impact on a battlefield, but the caster needs to control his awesomeness via careful resource management.

It is a myth that martials and casters are balanced around the idea that casters start out weak and martials start out stronger but taper off as the casters grow; that's not how the game's balanced at all.

Sorry I am going to have to disagree. The resource management is part of what makes them weaker. Just as a barbarian can be stronger then the fighter because of his rage, if the barbarian is out of rage the fighter can be better then the barbarian. It is the same thing with the casters. The wizard could end a fight in a round but can also be killed by a goblin in a round. The Martials could be to but the goblin would have to critical.

Personally these are my opinions from long years of playing. I could be completely off base but not from what I have seen.

Resource management is not a weakness, and "noob-proofing" a class doesn't mean it's stronger. A Fighter (under ideal conditions) will probably always have better single target damage than a caster, and the caster will have the potential to end or drastically lower the difficulty of entire encounters but will need to choose and utilize their resources wisely. In earlier editions of the game it may have been true that martials and casters advanced along inverted axes "swapping places" power-wise, but that is not a balance factor in 3.0, 3.5, or PF.

The things that make martials better at low level actually count for a lot less; as an anecdotal example, in a recent Rise of the Runelords game there were two "archers", a Fighter, and a an elven Wizard. At low levels, the Fighter had very little advantage over the Wizard; sure, he had an extra feat over her, but she could also enchant her bow and not just close, but surpass the difference, while still having a few magical tricks tucked away to do things like color spray 3/4 of an encounter into submission when the opportunity arose. I've also seen Draconic and Orc Bloodline Sorcerers who were at least as terrifying on the battlefield as their Barbarian counterparts at low levels of play, the list goes on. The point being, the only "balancing" factor is difficulty of play; it's easier to play a martial at low levels because you never have to make decisions, while casters tend to require more thought and finesse for effectiveness. Ease of play at low levels is a consideration, but all classes are built with roughly the same power potential at low levels. There's no "balance" in the design that says martials get to be strong at low levels because casters are weak; casters definitely aren't weak, and really the design paradigm is consistent throughout. Casters have a limited number of powers that can end or drastically simplify encounters, martials hit single targets the hardest with whatever piece of steel or wood happens to come to hand.

I'm looking forward to Unleashed; it'll be interesting to see what their idea of a well balanced core Monk free from the constraints of backwards-compatibility will look like, and what they'll do to reimagine the Rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Iiiiiiinteresting. Looks like pigs can really fly after all. =)

I'm a bit confused at the comment about making Barbarians easier to run at the table though. They're the simplest class in the game, besides Fighter.

Maybe even simpler, after 10th level. Rather than the Fighter's "Is it next to me? If so, I full attack. If not, I don't." the Barbarian has "Is it on the battlefield? If so, I full attack."

brad2411 wrote:
I also hope they do not go over kill on the martial vs. spell caster disparity as that would destroy the balance of the casters. (Casters start weak and end really strong vs. martials can be good from day one).

Even if this were true (and there are a great many examples which throw this into doubt), it's a terrible way to balance a game. Well, a game involving more than one person, anyway.

Linear warriors, quadratic wizards is fine for a video game because nobody's going to really CARE that the Mage ends up stronger than the Swordsman.

But in a game where you've got 4 different people at the table, you can bet your ass they'll care when they suddenly start taking a back seat to another character (just like the Wizard player is going to care early in the game when they would supposedly be taking a back seat to everyone else).

You don't balance something around low level play unless low level play is the ONLY play. That's only doing part of your job.

If the class is unbalanced for half the levels, then you've only done a half-assed job of balancing it.


Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Justin Franklin wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I wonder if there will be a playtest for Pathfinder Unchained.
There usually isn't one for the Spring release. Normally the play test is for the GenCon release.

Not true. Ultimate Magic (2011) and the Advanced Race Guide (2012) were both Spring released and both books had playtests: the Magus had a playtest for Ultimate Magic and the race building rules had a playtest in the Advanced Race Guide. The only Spring releases that didn't have playtests were the GameMastery Guide (2010) and Ultimate Campaign (2013) because those books weren't crunch-focused.

The REAL question is whether or not the developers think that the book's content needs a playtest. I would be surprised if the new classes didn't receive a playtest.

What time of year were the Spring release playtests? It seems to me that if they wanted to playtests this, they'd need to basically start now.

The playtest for Mythic Adventures was not released until October (if memory serves). So if it is an August release, they still have several months to do a playtest.

Grand Lodge

Kryzbyn wrote:

Blog said Spring of 2015 for Unchained. I doubt it.

Josh McIllwain on Mighty Meep! wrote:


The biggest reveal from the PaizoCon banquet is a brand new rulebook titled Pathfinder Unchained, a 256-page hardcover tome with many new and updated game mechanics. Details on the new book are sparse, but new game systems, a different magic item crafting structure and new magic items were promised as well as revised versions of existing classes like the barbarian, monk, rogue and summoner. The book is drawing many apt comparisons to the classic Unearthed Arcana book from Dungeons & Dragons' 1st edition, which expanded the existing rules in new and interesting ways. Pathfinder Unchained isn't an entirely new edition of the game, just a modification of a few of the common complaints that carried over from Pathfinder's legacy as a continuation of D&D 3.5.

One of the attendees at the banquet stated, "...it is described as the book that developers got to write without being chained down by something like backwards compatibility. So, a more powerful rogue, a monk with full BAB, a summoner that isn't broken beyond belief. These are the kind of optional rules they plan to introduce, allowing GMs to swap out pieces of existing rules that they don't like."

As a frustrated fan of the Pathfinder RPG, this is quite the good news indeed. Look for Pathfinder Unchained in Spring of 2015.

Thanks for the mention! :)

Here's a link to the full source article.


Auxmaulous wrote:
And what happens to a number of buff spells that already exist in the game? Do you remove them, or do you allow them to exist and stack with the newly built-in numbers taking PCs even greater out of CR range than they already are for optimized players? Inherent bonuses only work if you eliminate the spells that go into the magic items that currently give the buffs. That means changing a good number of spells.

I don't see why you really need to change buff spells? At the moment Bull's Strength is a great buff spells for levels 3-7 or so, but by level 10 fighters can generally be expected to provide their own strength buff in the form of +strength belts. Similarly the +2 Resistance bonus from Protection from Evil is handy at low levels, but I would expect people to have a +2 cloak of resistance by level ~7 if not earlier.

The suggestion I outlined above for +ability score and +resistance saves does obsolete some low-level spells (such as bull's strength) by the middle-high levels, but I'm OK with that - the replacement of short-duration low-level buffs with permanent items is already expected and built into the system. Coincidentally I kind of like the idea that high-level characters are less effected by low-level magic.

That said, weapons are trickier and I'm not sure how I'd handle them, in part because the cost of weapons is typially offset by other expenses for classes who do not rely on weapons (such as wizards). Then again, GMW with 3rd level PoPs is a thing. My suggestion certainly isn't perfect, but I wouldn't expect it to be - I haven't crunched the numbers or looked into the options and I'm nowhere near as good a designer as other people on these and other message boards. That said, I have seen a number of homebrew "big 6" solutions and I think several of them merit serious consideration.

Auxmaulous wrote:
And what about treasure? Unless you can create a unique feel magic item system in this game (which right now you can't - all standard magic items = spells, which are in the core book and anyone can use) what are you going to give your PCs as a reward? Magical weapons with no bonuses to hit or special damage? It could be done, but how sustainable would it be from level 1-20 with a multitude of characters types over the course of different campaigns?

After eliminating some/all of the Big 6 I'd make a modified WBL chart (another benefit is that cutting the Big 6 would create a smoother transition from low to high WBL) and put more focus on the items that offer characters "options" instead of "numbers". There are a number of fantastic items available that many PC's simply won't consider because they take up slots needed for "the big 6" - for example the belt of giant strength (+number) and the Sash of Flowing Waters (+option).

Nonstandard headbands, cloaks, amulets and belts are prime examples of items considered "less attractive". Removing some of the "numbers" items would create more space for (imo) more flavorful and interesting items such as the Blinkback Belt, Cloak of the Manta Ray, and the Headband of Arcane Energy.


Barbarians and summoners will be nerfed heavily, even though barbarians are tier 4 and summoners are tier 2

Dark Archive

The Barbarian simplification is probably about the stat adjustments.

Everyone in this thread and most people on the boards understand the current Barbarian mechanics, at least to a point. Str and Con go up, Dex goes down, HP is... a bit odd, you can still die even if you don't lose all your HP when you drop rage. Confusing. Unless you take Raging Vitality which is not immediately obvious.

I played with a complete newbie last week, he thoroughly enjoyed it but it took some time explaining that he had to readjust most of his character sheet every time he raged. He understood the rage concept well enough. Barbarians go mental and flip out and get strong. Fiddling with numbers puzzled him a little at first.

"You had 18 Strength, you currently have 22 Strength. It was +4, it's now +6. Yes, to hit and to damage. And you are using a 2 handed greataxe with Power Attack, let me do the maths... Hang on, have you reduced your Armour Class too?"

Yes it's simple to many people, but it's a bit unwieldy for a new player. Seasoned players think it is the simplest class because you do the same thing every time, but it's actually quite jarring for a new player mathematically.

I'm not advocating dumbing it down for the sake of it, but the system could be streamlined.

I don't think the changes will be about nerfing the good old Barbarian. Barbarians are great and we want them to stay useful.

Everyone knows Paladins are a better melee class anyway. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Auxmaulous wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Because the bestiary already exists. Unless you're saying these classes can meet the number requirements without the core items.

Exactly - it would have to be a system that changes the way characters progress mathematically but unless you revise all the bestiaries then end result values would have to match up with current PF values.

I think Paizo will do a makeover for classes that may need it (after all the crying on these forums), I don't think that Paizo is going to pull off a re-write of core game math assumptions via inherent system as replacement or supplemental system for the current magic items in the game.

It won't work and it can't be done because you would need to still address spells that boost stats and Saves outside of any magic item changes and the math associated with them. Again, an entire revision would be needed - items and the spells which make up the items.

Like I said, I don't see this happening and I don't see that Paizo as the company that's going to do this, at least not with this edition. This just seems like it's a big patch to some existing player problems as they relate to their current system and complaints by players (weaker vs stronger classes).

Not knowing what the "many new and updated game mechanics. Details on the new book are sparse, but new game systems..." part has me intrigued.
Part of me hopes for new DM support material so I can run the game I want: low-magic, decoupled math - core numbers vs. superfluous numbers and values. What we will probably get is a new Players Splat with a small section for DMs/system management (wounds/armor as DR, etc).

This latter has happened so many times that the recurring burn is a running joke in my gaming circle (my players laughing at me for getting my hopes up high).

I know I always laugh at you when it happens, since you have a very narrow view on what's considered "GM material" ;)

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

7 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:


I don't think the changes will be about nerfing the good old Barbarian. Barbarians are great and we want them to stay useful.

I don't think so either. And I only say that as the player with the longest-running Pathfinder barbarian character in history and the ultimate boss of everyone involved in writing, editing, and developing this product. :)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

How is Ostog? Still Unslain?

Dark Archive

Odraude wrote:
Auxmaulous wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:
Because the bestiary already exists. Unless you're saying these classes can meet the number requirements without the core items.

Exactly - it would have to be a system that changes the way characters progress mathematically but unless you revise all the bestiaries then end result values would have to match up with current PF values.

I think Paizo will do a makeover for classes that may need it (after all the crying on these forums), I don't think that Paizo is going to pull off a re-write of core game math assumptions via inherent system as replacement or supplemental system for the current magic items in the game.

It won't work and it can't be done because you would need to still address spells that boost stats and Saves outside of any magic item changes and the math associated with them. Again, an entire revision would be needed - items and the spells which make up the items.

Like I said, I don't see this happening and I don't see that Paizo as the company that's going to do this, at least not with this edition. This just seems like it's a big patch to some existing player problems as they relate to their current system and complaints by players (weaker vs stronger classes).

Not knowing what the "many new and updated game mechanics. Details on the new book are sparse, but new game systems..." part has me intrigued.
Part of me hopes for new DM support material so I can run the game I want: low-magic, decoupled math - core numbers vs. superfluous numbers and values. What we will probably get is a new Players Splat with a small section for DMs/system management (wounds/armor as DR, etc).

This latter has happened so many times that the recurring burn is a running joke in my gaming circle (my players laughing at me for getting my hopes up high).

I know I always laugh at you when it happens, since you have a very narrow view on what's considered "GM material" ;)

Yeah, anything produced by Paizo with "Ultimate" in the title just end up as another player splat - including Ultimate Campaign. Sad really... and kind of ridiculous at the same time.

It would be nice to get a GM book for GMs only - beyond APs and Bestiaries. I'll be the guy in the corner turning blue from holding his breath.


I have a question about gen con and can't seem to find the proper place to ask it, so I'll ask here and hope to not get a beating. Is there or will there be a list of gen con exclusive items (especially minis) and what we need to do to get them. I was pretty disheartened last year at gen con when I checked out with over $100 in merchandise and asked the nice blue haired guy working the register if there was any gen con exclusive items. He said no there weren't and then I found out later that you were supposed to get a free mini with any purchase over $50. I also found out there were other minis available. So a list of what will be there and how to get them would be awesome.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

We're going to be covering the PaizoCon reveals
Know Direction 88 - PaizoCon-clusion LIVE!, for those who missed the con.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a few posts. Let's not derail this thread with sniping. Thanks.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Given what some Paizo folks have said about the summoner, an obvious revision would be to come up with eidolon stat blocks that are similar to the existing animal companion stat blocks, and then have the summoner pick a base creature for the eidolon and advance it appropriately. Evolution points and available evolutions could then be severely reduced so as to make the bulk of the eidolon an advanced version of the creature it is based on.


I think it would be neat if there were no Eidolon at all.

After all, the idea is complete overhauls of a class, turning them into something brand new, not reworks of existing ones necessarily.

The Summoner re-imagined as an extremely Conjuration focused caster, maybe even a full caster, would be pretty neat.

Though a half-caster with a number of unique abilities along the lines of the existing Summon Monster SLA ability would be cool too.


I think having a companion is non negotiable, it is one of the more unique companions and can be a pretty fun roleplay opportunity. Removing that just makes them into a sorcerer

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

Ross Byers wrote:
How is Ostog? Still Unslain?

Very much so.


CWheezy wrote:
I think having a companion is non negotiable, it is one of the more unique companions and can be a pretty fun roleplay opportunity. Removing that just makes them into a sorcerer

Well remember, these aren't replacements of an existing class, merely "reimaginings" that can be used at the same time. So it'd be a bit odd to make it so close to the existing Summoner.

I think if we seen an Eidolon-like companion it will be significantly different from what exists now.

Perhaps something along the lines of an upgrading Outsider (an Imp becomes a Barbazu becomes a Cornugon, for example) rather than a completely unique, modular creature. That could be interesting. Acts sort of as a free, permanent Planar Binding where the creature Bound is unable to break free, must follow your orders, etc. without the usual Planar Binding limitations. As a reward for its subservience it's moved along the fast track for advancement by feeding off your power or something.

Liberty's Edge

Starfinder Superscriber
Rynjin wrote:
Well remember, these aren't replacements of an existing class, merely "reimaginings" that can be used at the same time. So it'd be a bit odd to make it so close to the existing Summoner.

This first sentence is the most important thing that I believe a lot of people are losing track of in this discussion. If I properly understood what Jason said at the PaizoCon banquet, none of the rules in "Unchained" are going to be "Canon". (For instance, I anticipate little, if any, of it being PFS legal.) They will be alternatives and subsystems that are there for a couple of reasons. First, they'll be fun to read and think about: what else could you do? Second, they'll be optional systems that GMs can decide to put into their games if they want to. I'm guessing this means that they will be things vaguely like the downtime organization and building creation rules from Ultimate Campaign, or the Words of Power alternate spellcasting system from Ultimate Magic.


I figured I'd drop a note and say that Know Direction seems to have covered the entire banquet preview announcements, which can be found here.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Thank Kudaku. If people prefer the podcast version (less visual but more portable) you can find it here.


Ryan. Costello wrote:
Thank Kudaku. If people prefer the podcast version (less visual but more portable) you can find it here.

Happy to spread the good word. :)

101 to 129 of 129 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / PaizoCon / General Discussion / Paizocon, any news? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion