| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems like this is where they are heading - to allow people to create their own archetypes, which is an attempt to allow a workable multi-class option in the system. The current archetypes can serve as models or templates upon which to devise your own, though -of course - this requires advanced players who won't try to abuse the system. (And that is completely out of Paizo's hands.)
Coming up with a new system of character class creation could be very worthwhile, and may be something like the race creation guide - you get a certain # of points to use to buy abilities. Certain class Feats cost more than others, etc.
|
The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game contains numerous rules considered sacred by players and GMs alike. Since the system itself was based upon RPG "technology" already more than 20 years old, "backwards compatibility" often meant sticking with the familiar, even if tradition was filled with cobwebs and decades-old assumptions.Pathfinder Unchained dares to take a fresh look at the system itself, altering some of the fundamentals of the game and giving fresh optional takes on classic rules. Inside this collection of alternate rules and options you'll find completely redesigned versions of the barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner classes. Delve into a new system for resolving player actions designed to speed play and dispel confusion. Many of the new systems (such as the revised classes) work seamlessly with the existing Pathfinder rules. Even the most staunchly traditionalist player will appreciate the book's math-lite system for on-the-fly monster creation and the new system for generating dynamic magic items that go far beyond a simple +1 to add lore and interest to the campaign. Players will love the book's new resource pool for martial characters, allowing for exciting new tactical options, as well as the robust new system that allows spellcasters to modify their spells with powerful spell components. This 256 page hardcover addition to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is designed to be used by GMs and players that want to change the way their game is played. You can pick and choose the systems you want to change or you can adopt a number of them for a truly new play experience. With Pathfinder Unchained, you can have the game you want to play!
From my read of this were not going to see that large of a departure...
Like the old saying goes..."I don't think it means what you think it means..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, Vancian Spellcasting is one of the main problem with class balance/imbalance.
How? I mean, I understand how some people like spell points or just unlimited use (like the 3.5 warlock). But in some cases, spell points can lead to even more Novaing and 5 minute adventuring days. (Depends on the system, of course).
I get that some peoples tables/games have issues with casters vs martials.
But I cant see how Vancian makes the difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, Vancian Spellcasting is one of the main problem with class balance/imbalance.
How? I mean, I understand how some people like spell points or just unlimited use (like the 3.5 warlock). But in some cases, spell points can lead to even more Novaing and 5 minute adventuring days. (Depends on the system, of course).
I get that some peoples tables/games have issues with casters vs martials.
But I cant see how Vancian makes the difference.
I'm with DrDeth. I have problems with Vancian casting being unintuitive but that goes away when you get used to it. But I don't think that it contributes to magic's power level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian casting is unbalanced because of the breadth of solutions it grants, not because of the capacity to nova, which has a downside built in(you run out of the potential to contribute).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad to see everyone's hopes here! As mentioned by some posters, Unchained is going to be a grab-bag of awesome optional rules that can change your game in a variety of ways, but of course it won't have all the options that everyone wants. I encourage everyone to adopt the attitude of an explorer, wandering into unknown lands to find anything cool, exciting, and unexpected. That way, you'll be more likely to get benefit from the cool things you do find, rather than focusing on looking for one particular thing. And if you do find exactly what you had most hoped for? Well that's like a cherry on top!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A while ago I saw a product where the caster had the wizard's spell list and spell level progression and could cast prepare an infinite amount of spells per day but could only have one spell prepared at a time and it took up to a full round action to prepare a spell. I decided not to use this class ever because casting infinite spells out of combat is still broken fast but I thought the idea was amazing. I wonder what magic would be like if it were designed around that parameter rather than balanced around limited magic resources vs infinite martial resources.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vancian casting is unbalanced because of the breadth of solutions it grants, not because of the capacity to nova, which has a downside built in(you run out of the potential to contribute).
And other spellcasting systems dont have "breadth of solutions"? Have you played Tunnels and Trolls? Chivalry and Sorcery?
The downside is minor since you nova, Tport back home, rest, go back out, wash rinse repeat. Thus you never "run out of the potential to contribute" until you run out of days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, Vancian Spellcasting is one of the main problem with class balance/imbalance.
How? I mean, I understand how some people like spell points or just unlimited use (like the 3.5 warlock). But in some cases, spell points can lead to even more Novaing and 5 minute adventuring days. (Depends on the system, of course).
I get that some peoples tables/games have issues with casters vs martials.
But I cant see how Vancian makes the difference.
"Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard"
Vancian usually start "weak", but get ridiculously strong at later levels; so maybe if the classes were balanced with each others level by level...
Spell/Magic Points: Work like Hit Points? (throw a dice each level, apply stat modifier.) Spells have a Minimum Caster Level to learn/access them... Group casting? (multiple people combining their powers for more powerful effects.) etc...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard"Vancian usually start "weak", but get ridiculously strong at later levels; so maybe if the classes were balanced with each others level by level...
I'd rather start adequate and become capable. That's just me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad to see everyone's hopes here! As mentioned by some posters, Unchained is going to be a grab-bag of awesome optional rules that can change your game in a variety of ways, but of course it won't have all the options that everyone wants. I encourage everyone to adopt the attitude of an explorer, wandering into unknown lands to find anything cool, exciting, and unexpected. That way, you'll be more likely to get benefit from the cool things you do find, rather than focusing on looking for one particular thing. And if you do find exactly what you had most hoped for? Well that's like a cherry on top!
I just hope that innovation is high on the agenda regarding the content going into Pathfinder Unchained.
All our hopes lie in the ability of the designers to make Pathfinder a progressive medium as well as correct the issues of the legacy problems that Pathfinder was burdened with (from D&D 3.5).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather start adequate and become capable. That's just me.
"Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard"Vancian usually start "weak", but get ridiculously strong at later levels; so maybe if the classes were balanced with each others level by level...
Kinda what I meant, just applied to all Base Classes (not counting NPC classes). And then maybe do something similar to Prestige Classes.
I do understand that the mechanics and book keeping risk becoming heavier.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad to see everyone's hopes here! As mentioned by some posters, Unchained is going to be a grab-bag of awesome optional rules that can change your game in a variety of ways, but of course it won't have all the options that everyone wants. I encourage everyone to adopt the attitude of an explorer, wandering into unknown lands to find anything cool, exciting, and unexpected. That way, you'll be more likely to get benefit from the cool things you do find, rather than focusing on looking for one particular thing. And if you do find exactly what you had most hoped for? Well that's like a cherry on top!I just hope that innovation is high on the agenda regarding the content going into Pathfinder Unchained.
All our hopes lie in the ability of the designers to make Pathfinder a progressive medium as well as correct the issues of the legacy problems that Pathfinder was burdened with (from D&D 3.5).
All I can say is that the Design Team has several times chosen the option to not include material we already had turned over that we felt wasn't innovative enough in favor of spending more of our time to produce something more innovative for you. However, the definition of innovative will vary from person to person. At the end of the day, we want these systems to be unburdened and unchained and innovative but also not drastic. Something that we hope people will find cool and useful in many games when they have a particular desired atmosphere or change they wish to make to adjust their game in a certain way. However, some people would only see something that others see as drastic to be innovative, and others would see what some would consider innovative to be drastic, if you see what I mean. So I have no doubt that certain options will be seen as too drastic or not innovative by some people (maybe even the same option will be seen as both by different people!). It's sort of a guarantee that things work out that way, given the subjectivity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will the new systems in PF require the character to sacrifice something to use them or will they just be pure additions?
e.g.: Let's say there a system that allows characters to move and full attack... Will it be
A- Using this system you move and full attack.
or
B- Using this system you move and full attack, but you can only make 2 attacks per turn and only add half your strength modifier.
Because it they lean towards B, I fear the weak/boring aspects of the game go on being too weak/boring...
Also, can we expect to have continuing support for these system after PF:U or will they be promptly abandoned and never mentioned again like Words of Power?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will the new systems in PF require the character to sacrifice something to use them or will they just be pure additions?
e.g.: Let's say there a system that allows characters to move and full attack... Will it be
A- Using this system you move and full attack.
or
B- Using this system you move and full attack, but you can only make 2 attacks per turn and only add half your strength modifier.
Because it they lean towards B, I fear the weak/boring aspects of the game go on being too weak/boring...
Also, can we expect to have continuing support for these system after PF:U or will they be promptly abandoned and never mentioned again like Words of Power?
In many cases, we offer you the tools to decide how to use them, presenting several compelling options for how to incorporate the new elements, even including making it a complete freebie.
Since these are alternate options that we don't expect everyone will use, my gut suspicion (which is wholly a personal suspicion but seems to make sense to me) is that it wouldn't make much sense to publish more about these systems ourselves, given the way our product lines work. That said, I can easily see some of the 3pp expanding on some of these. For a few of them, anyway, they lend themselves really easily to expansion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, Vancian Spellcasting is one of the main problem with class balance/imbalance.
How? I mean, I understand how some people like spell points or just unlimited use (like the 3.5 warlock). But in some cases, spell points can lead to even more Novaing and 5 minute adventuring days. (Depends on the system, of course).
I get that some peoples tables/games have issues with casters vs martials.
But I cant see how Vancian makes the difference.
"Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard"
Vancian usually start "weak", but get ridiculously strong at later levels; so maybe if the classes were balanced with each others level by level...
Yes, "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" is a meme and does occur in D&D, especially at the very highest levels. It also occurred in T&T, Runequest, Fantasy Hero, C&S and pretty much every Fantasy RP game I have played.
Vancian casting has nothing whatsoever to do with "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" . It occurs equally in Vancian games, and Non-Vancian games. Not to mention, not all magic in D&D is Vancian.
Dont get the "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" issue mixed up with the system of magic itself. They are entirely and completely independent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since these are alternate options that we don't expect everyone will use, my gut suspicion (which is wholly a personal suspicion but seems to make sense to me) is that it wouldn't make much sense to publish more about these systems ourselves, given the way our product lines work. That said, I can easily see some of the 3pp expanding on some of these. For a few of them, anyway, they lend themselves really easily to expansion.
This part worries me... For some systems, it might not be a problem (things like the "Armor as DR" system don't need expansion to keep functional, since they affect game-wide rules), but for some of them (like Words of Power) not having continuing support makes them basically pointless and dooms them to be forgotten/ignored... I've seen this happen to way too many "alternate rules" for 3.5/PF.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Will the new systems in PF require the character to sacrifice something to use them or will they just be pure additions?
e.g.: Let's say there a system that allows characters to move and full attack... Will it be
A- Using this system you move and full attack.
or
B- Using this system you move and full attack, but you can only make 2 attacks per turn and only add half your strength modifier.
Because it they lean towards B, I fear the weak/boring aspects of the game go on being too weak/boring...
Also, can we expect to have continuing support for these system after PF:U or will they be promptly abandoned and never mentioned again like Words of Power?
In many cases, we offer you the tools to decide how to use them, presenting several compelling options for how to incorporate the new elements, even including making it a complete freebie.
Since these are alternate options that we don't expect everyone will use, my gut suspicion (which is wholly a personal suspicion but seems to make sense to me) is that it wouldn't make much sense to publish more about these systems ourselves, given the way our product lines work. That said, I can easily see some of the 3pp expanding on some of these. For a few of them, anyway, they lend themselves really easily to expansion.
This might be an unpopular opinion but I like that this product may give 3pp some business by potentially being left open for a third party publishers to support for the parts that become popular.
|
This might be an unpopular opinion but I like that this product may give 3pp some business by potentially being left open for a third party publishers to support for the parts that become popular.
If it becomes popular enough - why would Paizo leave all that $ on the table for 3pp companies? Why wouldn't they just do it themselves?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This might be an unpopular opinion but I like that this product may give 3pp some business by potentially being left open for a third party publishers to support for the parts that become popular.If it becomes popular enough - why would Paizo leave all that $ on the table for 3pp companies? Why wouldn't they just do it themselves?
Well, for one thing, as a personal guess, I think we love our 3pps and the symbiotic relationship between ourselves and them. It's the perfect niche for them, and it allows us not to lose focus by branching off with products that people would only need if they're using a particular variant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, for one thing, as a personal guess, I think we love our 3pps and the symbiotic relationship between ourselves and them. It's the perfect niche for them, and it allows us not to lose focus by branching off with products that people would only need if they're using a particular variant.This might be an unpopular opinion but I like that this product may give 3pp some business by potentially being left open for a third party publishers to support for the parts that become popular.If it becomes popular enough - why would Paizo leave all that $ on the table for 3pp companies? Why wouldn't they just do it themselves?
What I was going to say.
One reason why I fell into Pathfinder as opposed to other games my friends were playing is that if something doesn't work, there's a third party thing for it. I want space ships, there's a thing for it. I want magical robots that combine together to form a bigger robot that's powered by hope, there's a thing for that. I think that showing love to 3rd parties by opening design space is beneficial for everyone, especially when it comes to products that are potentially too extreme or too far beyond the normal scope of the game to be more than a variant optional rule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since these are alternate options that we don't expect everyone will use, my gut suspicion (which is wholly a personal suspicion but seems to make sense to me) is that it wouldn't make much sense to publish more about these systems ourselves, given the way our product lines work. That said, I can easily see some of the 3pp expanding on some of these. For a few of them, anyway, they lend themselves really easily to expansion.This part worries me... For some systems, it might not be a problem (things like the "Armor as DR" system don't need expansion to keep functional, since they affect game-wide rules), but for some of them (like Words of Power) not having continuing support makes them basically pointless and dooms them to be forgotten/ignored... I've seen this happen to way too many "alternate rules" for 3.5/PF.
I fear the same. That and that a lot of tables shun 3PP products.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fear the same. That and that a lot of tables shun 3PP products.Since these are alternate options that we don't expect everyone will use, my gut suspicion (which is wholly a personal suspicion but seems to make sense to me) is that it wouldn't make much sense to publish more about these systems ourselves, given the way our product lines work. That said, I can easily see some of the 3pp expanding on some of these. For a few of them, anyway, they lend themselves really easily to expansion.This part worries me... For some systems, it might not be a problem (things like the "Armor as DR" system don't need expansion to keep functional, since they affect game-wide rules), but for some of them (like Words of Power) not having continuing support makes them basically pointless and dooms them to be forgotten/ignored... I've seen this happen to way too many "alternate rules" for 3.5/PF.
Sadly true... There is a lot of good 3pp stuff for PF. I'd buy even more of them if they had HeroLab data packs.
IMHO, Vancian Spellcasting is one of the main problem with class balance/imbalance.
How? I mean, I understand how some people like spell points or just unlimited use (like the 3.5 warlock). But in some cases, spell points can lead to even more Novaing and 5 minute adventuring days. (Depends on the system, of course).
I get that some peoples tables/games have issues with casters vs martials.
But I cant see how Vancian makes the difference.
"Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard"
Vancian usually start "weak", but get ridiculously strong at later levels; so maybe if the classes were balanced with each others level by level...
Yes, "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" is a meme and does occur in D&D, especially at the very highest levels. It also occurred in T&T, Runequest, Fantasy Hero, C&S and pretty much every Fantasy RP game I have played.
Vancian casting has nothing whatsoever to do with "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" . It occurs equally in Vancian games, and Non-Vancian games. Not to mention, not all magic in D&D is Vancian.
Dont get the "Linear Warrior, Quadratic Wizard" issue mixed up with the system of magic itself. They are entirely and completely independent.
Then compare Tabletop with Video Games, where the "Badassness" of the classes are more balanced to each others level by level.
To be fair, the problem with caster is more often than not caused by problematic spells. Not the spell system.
Vancian, spontaneous-vancian, power-point, mana... None of those would be too unbalanced if we didn't have stuff like skill-obsoleting spells and stuff like teleport, scrying, simulacrum, maze, summon monster, etc... Now, IMO, those effects are iconic to fantasy stories, so they should stay, but they could use a balance tweak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just came from reddit and there I felt like I go the tone that 3rd party is either assumed to be unbalanced, causing inbalances or accelerating bloat. I'm a little disappointed because all the problems about the system that people complain about on the boards disappeared in my games due to third party support. Also I've been able to realize concepts that I previously was not able to do with third party options. One product alone made Monk go from lackluster shirtless facepuncher that I got to a the Street Fighter character that I wanted to make.
To be fair, the problem with caster is more often than not caused by problematic spells. Not the spell system.
Vancian, spontaneous-vancian, power-point, mana... None of those would be too unbalanced if we didn't have stuff like skill-obsoleting spells and stuff like teleport, scrying, simulacrum, maze, summon monster, etc... Now, IMO, those effects are iconic to fantasy stories, so they should stay, but they could use a balance tweak.
Those as well, and they do come into play before the "Going Nova" spells.
All I can say is that the Design Team has several times chosen the option to not include material we already had turned over that we felt wasn't innovative enough in favor of spending more of our time to produce something more innovative for you. However, the definition of innovative will vary from person to person. At the end of the day, we want these systems to be unburdened and unchained and innovative but also not drastic. Something that we hope people will find cool and useful in many games when they have a particular desired atmosphere or change they wish to make to adjust their game in a certain way. However, some people would only see something that others see as drastic to be innovative, and others would see what some would consider innovative to be drastic, if you see what I mean. So I have no doubt that certain options will be seen as too drastic or not innovative by some people (maybe even the same option will be seen as both by different people!). It's sort of a guarantee that things work out that way, given the subjectivity.I'm glad to see everyone's hopes here! As mentioned by some posters, Unchained is going to be a grab-bag of awesome optional rules that can change your game in a variety of ways, but of course it won't have all the options that everyone wants. I encourage everyone to adopt the attitude of an explorer, wandering into unknown lands to find anything cool, exciting, and unexpected. That way, you'll be more likely to get benefit from the cool things you do find, rather than focusing on looking for one particular thing. And if you do find exactly what you had most hoped for? Well that's like a cherry on top!I just hope that innovation is high on the agenda regarding the content going into Pathfinder Unchained.
All our hopes lie in the ability of the designers to make Pathfinder a progressive medium as well as correct the issues of the legacy problems that Pathfinder was burdened with (from D&D 3.5).
Thanks...that's great news.
I agree, 3.5 legacy (or 30 years+ history) is a grand tradition and it's only expected that some innovative changes could be interpreted as drastic.
Although, great innovative design has a way of capturing people's imagination. The mechanical changes inspire new characters and new paths in storytelling. The Magus class (with it's bladebound archetype aka Elric and stormbringer) and the Bloodrager class are pertinent examples of new game mechanics rich with roleplaying hooks.
It's something more than just new rules...something more intangible...a world of new possibilities.
@DrDeth - Perhaps I'm conflating the two things, but I think that the current magic system is a problem because casters have a literal garbage bag of options by mid level and the theoretical limit of those options keeps expanding with every new book WITHOUT any significant additional opportunity cost.
When I think of mana or spell point based systems, I think of systems that grant scaling spell effects with far far far fewer spells known.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Will Django be in it?
@DrDeth - Perhaps I'm conflating the two things, but I think that the current magic system is a problem because casters have a literal garbage bag of options by mid level and the theoretical limit of those options keeps expanding with every new book WITHOUT any significant additional opportunity cost.
When I think of mana or spell point based systems, I think of systems that grant scaling spell effects with far far far fewer spells known.
It's true, Mana point systems can work that way, but not always* and the same with Vancian. It's not the system at all.
* T&T is one example.
@DrDeth - Perhaps I'm conflating the two things, but I think that the current magic system is a problem because casters have a literal garbage bag of options by mid level and the theoretical limit of those options keeps expanding with every new book WITHOUT any significant additional opportunity cost.
When I think of mana or spell point based systems, I think of systems that grant scaling spell effects with far far far fewer spells known.
It's true, Mana point systems can work that way, but not always* and the same with Vancian. It's not the system at all.
* T&T is one example.
I would say both the Vancian casting and the Interplanetary load of options are part of the problem.
WITHOUT any significant additional opportunity cost.
Spontaneous casters have an opportunity cost here, because they have a tightly limited spells known list. Sure, scrolls are still cheap, but non-scaling DCs on scrolls helps keep that aspect in check. And wizards have to pay SOMETHING. Clerics and druids are the WORST for this. I wish they had something like a 'prayer book' mechanic for clerics and let Druids store spells in their animal companion the same way witches do in their familiars.
YMMV, of course.
I don't disagree Ross, but when I think about significant opportunity cost and spells at the same time I am unable to ignore the vast gulf that separates them from feats.
Fair enough. Even removing scrolls/wands/other spells-in-a-can, a Sorcerer gets more spells than a Fighter does feats. (But neither gets free access to every new book: anything new they want displaces something old.)
Fair enough. Even removing scrolls/wands/other spells-in-a-can, a Sorcerer gets more spells than a Fighter does feats. (But neither gets free access to every new book: anything new they want displaces something old.)
Dood, The Fighter needs 10 levels of Feats chaining to do things that either shouldn't require Feat at all, or maybe 1 or 2 Feats.
Scaling Feats (Feats who abilities increase with levels) might help with balance (way more than Feat chains).
Yeah, combat and skill based feats ought to scale off of base attack and skill ranks respectively. Magic related feats should remain singular in their modifications due to the nature of spell scaling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little concerned. I've seen videos of convention panels and Dev chatter about what will be in Unchained, and I feel like some expectations on what it is is wildly beyond the scope of the product.Unfortunately that has been happening with hardcovers a lot lately. Anytime you give people time to speculate or think about something that covers a broad area but has little information, people start making decisions on what HAS to be in the book, and thus get mad when something isn't in the book (or worse, Paizo does the opposite).
It's even worse for this book, since all the talk of killing sacred cows has let people's imaginations going crazy on what is in the book...
I think we're just going to get a book with optional rules, very much like the Arcana Unearthed books.
I think we're just going to get a book with optional rules, very much like the Arcana Unearthed books.I'm a little concerned. I've seen videos of convention panels and Dev chatter about what will be in Unchained, and I feel like some expectations on what it is is wildly beyond the scope of the product.Unfortunately that has been happening with hardcovers a lot lately. Anytime you give people time to speculate or think about something that covers a broad area but has little information, people start making decisions on what HAS to be in the book, and thus get mad when something isn't in the book (or worse, Paizo does the opposite).
It's even worse for this book, since all the talk of killing sacred cows has let people's imaginations going crazy on what is in the book...
You mean Unearthed Arcana? Arcana Unearthed is something else entirely (but can still give good ideas and inspirations).
I think we're just going to get a book with optional rules, very much like the Arcana Unearthed books.You mean Unearthed Arcana? Arcana Unearthed is something else entirely (but can still give good ideas and inspirations).
I got more for my games from Arana Unearthed then I did from Unearthed Arcana. I mostly pulled Gestalt and few minor things from the WoTC book - I stole races, classes and the concept of weaker and strong spells from Monte's book. :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cool things to hope for:
- A Full BAB, non-alignment-restricted, ki-using (preferably with qinggong still available) Monk
- A Paladin (or insert alternative name here) for all deities. As in, all alignments including True Neutral, Full BAB, with a bare modicum of spellcasting.
(For those saying that the above two items violate some kind of sacred definition of what Monks and Paladins are, ya'll already have the classes that operate according to your perceptions of what those two concepts should be. You need do nothing more than continue using what already exists. Let us enjoy the game, too.)
- Less need for wealth-by-level. Heroes in fantasy do deal with magic items but nowhere approaching the cornucopia of items that characters in this game have to have. The usual assumption is "IF you have A magic item", which would get Pathfinder characters killed. Except we even see characters in Pathfinder novels and comics go through whole adventures without seeing a single magic item. It'd be neat to be able to do that in-game.
- If this book is supposed to be alternate gaming options, I'd like a reversal of how AC and hit points work. At low levels, your AC keeps you from getting hit and your hit points are your health. But at higher levels, the assumption becomes your AC keeping you from getting hit by the second and third iterative attacks and your hit points representing dodging and blocking (until you're at low hp, when it becomes your health again). Touch attacks get relegated to your saves, or SR.
Your attack roll keeps getting better, but your AC barely budges. It's like your character only learns to duck his whole adventuring career. An alternative combat system where your attack and defense go up, where these values represent at high levels the same things they represented when you started playing the game would be cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we're just going to get a book with optional rules, very much like the Arcana Unearthed books.I'm a little concerned. I've seen videos of convention panels and Dev chatter about what will be in Unchained, and I feel like some expectations on what it is is wildly beyond the scope of the product.Unfortunately that has been happening with hardcovers a lot lately. Anytime you give people time to speculate or think about something that covers a broad area but has little information, people start making decisions on what HAS to be in the book, and thus get mad when something isn't in the book (or worse, Paizo does the opposite).
It's even worse for this book, since all the talk of killing sacred cows has let people's imaginations going crazy on what is in the book...
You mean Unearthed Arcana? Arcana Unearthed is something else entirely (but can still give good ideas and inspirations).
There are two Unearthed Arcana books. Present in D&D (1e) and D&D (3.5).
The first Unearthed Arcana (1e) expanded the fantasy milieu, introducing the barbarian, cavalier and thief-acrobat classes. Similar to Pathfinder's APG.
The second Unearthed Arcana (3.5) is about options, gestalt characters and so forth.
I think Pathfinder Unchained will be options plus class re-writes, monk, rogue and summoner. And add-ons like rules for expensive material components.