[Unchained] What are YOUR "always on" unchained rules going to be in your games?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Mark Seifter wrote:
If a group is full of people who aren't going to go about crafting an item unless they can find a way to auto-succeed with critical successes on every check they might possibly make, then dynamic item creation is very much not for that group (given that the challenges are examples, the GM might even make new challenges for such a group that use a different skill).

People are generally risk averse, so I would think that more than a few groups would fit that dynamic. I could be wrong, I suppose.

Mark Seifter wrote:
The balance of costs assumes that you will fail sometimes, and be afraid to go for a critical success other times, and the point of the quirks, perks, and flaws is for there to be uncertainty. You pretty much can't completely destroy the item unless you go for a critical success on one of the dangerous challenges (with the exception of the final challenge, which has no check if you have the prereqs), so it's not like you're sunk if you fail a few times.

Ah. Perhaps I misunderstood the rules, because by my understanding not participating in a check is akin to a failure.

Mark Seifter wrote:
In particular, the ones with high DCs tend to also have low failure penalties. For example, you can remove Knowledge (geography) from your list entirely in exchange for a 4% chance of encountering a challenge that you will always fail, but that will simply add 3 days to the craft time and a quirk. You can remove Linguistics 20 and you'll just wind up taking 3 extra days (not even any quirks) whenever you hit the 4% chance of a rare reference (and probably somebody has +10 or more Perception in your party anyway, so you'll still have some chance of saving 1 day instead). Etc.

The problem I have with that is that by my understanding, those three days leads to three more challenges.

Designer

kestral287 wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:
The balance of costs assumes that you will fail sometimes, and be afraid to go for a critical success other times, and the point of the quirks, perks, and flaws is for there to be uncertainty. You pretty much can't completely destroy the item unless you go for a critical success on one of the dangerous challenges (with the exception of the final challenge, which has no check if you have the prereqs), so it's not like you're sunk if you fail a few times.
Ah. Perhaps I misunderstood the rules, because by my understanding not participating in a check is akin to a failure.

You fail that challenge, sure, but assuming you have the prereqs (for the complete the item challenge), you could fail every other challenge along the way and still craft the item. Now, it might have flaws or cost a lot, but you can still fail them all and succeed at crafting.

Quote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
In particular, the ones with high DCs tend to also have low failure penalties. For example, you can remove Knowledge (geography) from your list entirely in exchange for a 4% chance of encountering a challenge that you will always fail, but that will simply add 3 days to the craft time and a quirk. You can remove Linguistics 20 and you'll just wind up taking 3 extra days (not even any quirks) whenever you hit the 4% chance of a rare reference (and probably somebody has +10 or more Perception in your party anyway, so you'll still have some chance of saving 1 day instead). Etc.
The problem I have with that is that by my understanding, those three days leads to three more challenges.

Nope. Page 180 says you generally add 1 random challenge per 5,000 GP, so the handy haversack example would have only 1 random challenge (the GM is free to add less or more). Either way, extra days do not generate more, nor do fewer days subtract them (see adjustments on 181).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I'm going to use the new crafting rules, I like how they make crafting a more engaging endeavour, rather than just a background activity that gameplay-wise feels more like the crafter pc occasionally excreting new items. But I'll eliminate special material costs from the crafting time calculation, because it doesn't make any sense that a gold ring takes ten times the time to make that a silver ring requires.


I'm not a massive fan of the dynamic item crafting rules so far, but I do love the new Craft/Profession stuff, as well as background skills and the new Rogue.

The automatic bonuses, altered spell-casting, worse diseases/poisons and suchlike I'll have to save up, rather than springing on the party all at once. :)


Mark Seifter wrote:
You fail that challenge, sure, but assuming you have the prereqs (for the complete the item challenge), you could fail every other challenge along the way and still craft the item. Now, it might have flaws or cost a lot, but you can still fail them all and succeed at crafting.

Is it really a success at that point though?

I mean, sure, one or two failures won't screw you, especially if they're only time based. But cost ones hurt a lot-- after all, once you hit 100% you're at a net loss. And there's a point where you might as well scrap the project, though you're unlikely to hit that point unless you're totally unprepared.

What worries me more are the flaws. It's hard-ish to land the flaws without a critical failure, but it is possible-- I count five, plus one in the class-specific set. And some of them might as well read "start over"-- at least one literally does read "start over".

Of course, on the flip side there's one flaw that can be outright helpful (Vindictive) and a few that can be ignored in the right hands. So it's a gamble... but that really just brings me back to my point about risk aversion.

Mark Seifter wrote:
Nope. Page 180 says you generally add 1 random challenge per 5,000 GP, so the handy haversack example would have only 1 random challenge (the GM is free to add less or more). Either way, extra days do not generate more, nor do fewer days subtract them (see adjustments on 181).

Hm. Interesting. That does make failures more palatable, since you can't hit a death spiral so fewer are going to screw the creation outright.


CraziFuzzy wrote:
The alternative Crafting rules... not that every campaign even HAS a crafter, but how can these even be considered 'optional' when compared to the rules in the CRB?

All this talk of Dynamic Magic Item Creation has me confused. Isn't Fuzzy talking about the Alternate Crafting rules? It seems applying his statement to Magic Item creation would make it rather tongue-in-cheek...

...or else, he's a bit touched.


I thought he was talking about Alternate Crafting too.


Can'tFindthePath wrote:
CraziFuzzy wrote:
The alternative Crafting rules... not that every campaign even HAS a crafter, but how can these even be considered 'optional' when compared to the rules in the CRB?

All this talk of Dynamic Magic Item Creation has me confused. Isn't Fuzzy talking about the Alternate Crafting rules? It seems applying his statement to Magic Item creation would make it rather tongue-in-cheek...

...or else, he's a bit touched.

Oops. I might have read the wrong thing into what he was saying, because I took a hard look at the Dynamic Item Creation but not so much at the alternate crafting rules. Not an issue for anyone in my current campaign, so I just haven't worried about it. Poison/Disease is in the same boat: I don't think anyone is using it so I'll look at it later, once I know I'm settled in how I want to work in things like Skill Unlocks and Stamina (which, seriously, are both awesome).

So yeah, probably my fault.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty danged sure the new poison rules are going to be the new thing.


I had my first encounter with the new poison system on Sunday. Level 2 party fighting an advanced Doru Div. Failed three three saves in a row (fort is my strongest save, go natural 1s!) against a low-DC wisdom poison.

In the old system I would have taken a total of 3-6 wisdom damage, which has essentially no impact on my character apart from penalizing my will save and my skill checks. I'd need to fail another ~5 poison saves before the wisdom damage had a chance of knocking me unconscious.

In the new system, after failing three saves I spent the rest of the day Confused. My friends had to grapple me to the ground, pin me, and tie me up before I quite literally stabbed myself to death with my own spiked armor. All of this took place while the rest of the fight raged on, so the div was having a field day flying around (unrelated but wth is up with low-level APs and flying High-DR boss monsters?) and being generally annoying. Several other people were also poisoned, but luckily their dice weren't as frigid as mine.

My initial but obviously somewhat subjective first impression is that poisons may actually be a little bit too lethal at low levels now, since low level characters don't have the means to counter it. Swashbucklers in particular are definitely going to have a hard time with the new poisons. Suffice to say that my next purchase will be potions of Delay Poison.


Here's my "new normal", post-Pathfinder Unchained...

Chapter 1:

All the Unchained classes, are the official version in my campaign. I discussed with my players, and they are on board. Our Rogue had a lot of fun adapting her character!

Chapter 2:

Background skills are a welcome new addition. I love anything that reaffirms that this is a "Roleplaying Game", and not just a combat game!

Alternate crafting and profession Rules are on, for the same reason background skills are.

Skill Unlocks, are still in the testing phase. I think they have much to offer, especially for Rogues, whom are thematically perfect for it.

Variant Multiclassing: It's an option for any player who want to use it. The original system, is also an option.

Chapter 3:

Revised Action Economy is our new system. A lot of the discussion on it, has focused on how it affects specific examples, and the initial adaptation of those- along with some butt hurt over it all- but, in the big picture, I think it makes for some much smoother gameplay, and cinematic action. It does favor martials, but, so what. I'm over that.

Wound Thresholds are in. Though it has everyone in my group nervous, but in a fun way. I think this also favors martials, but it's honestly, very realistic to how combat would payout. "Ouch, you ass, that really hurt!"

Chapter 4:

Esoteric Material Components are optional. They're a good alternative in a treasure hordes. A buff to casters who make the effort to search them out.

We'll use Overclocked Spell as a little bit of throwing a bone to spell casters, after all the buffs martials have been getting.

Scaling Items are really fun. There are some really cool examples in the book.

I have not had the time to take a long look at the alternate monster creation system yet, but if it is like most of the book, it should be great.


When I stated "Alternate Crafting Rules", I was referring to the section in the table of contents called "Alternate Crafting Rules" in Chapter 3, which deal with mundane (normal, masterwork, special material) crafting. You guys are mostly talking about the "Dynamic Magic Item Creation" section in Chapter 4.

Of course, that said - this confusion is still a sitcking point with me. The two systems really SHOULD be connected together. Why is the task of making a mundane item a completely different process than the task of enchanting that mundane item. In rewriting both systems mostly from scratch, they really should have been combined together.

The really sad thing is, I actually have most of a complete replacement system for both written, and was thinking of publishing it - but with this book, it may not be worth it, as the major 'problems' are fixed, just not in what I would deem the ideal way.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

I'm definitely going to be allowing the unchained classes, with Summoner being Unchained or not at all, and the others being options.

Thanks to this thread, I've started looking through some of the other systems in more detail to see what to keep "always on." So far I've only ruled out the Alternate Profession Rules, because they are very very bad as written. (8,000 gp/month income? Sure, I'll take that.) They are, I believe, something you can houserule into effectiveness, though that doesn't really count at that point since it's not the Unchained ruleset.

I have a new player playing a fighter in my Kingmaker campaign. I'm so far undecided on whether I'm going to open up the Stamina rules to her. I think I will, because she's playing an archer and there are other archers in the party using slightly more archery-friendly builds, so she can probably use all the help she can get. Overall, the stamina stuff seems like a good set of rules to keep, though I haven't sat down to analyze it yet.

I have done things like background skills in the past and don't see any reason not to standardize on the Unchained implementation. It seems to be as good as anything else.

Silver Crusade

My players just reached a new level, so I took advantage of the level-up to implement some Unchained rules. These are all new players, so I'm picking pretty sparingly to avoid overwhelming them with alterations. I went with:

* Automatic Bonus Progression with "capacity" rules. (I did my own writeup of the capacity rules since I found the language in the blog rather unclear and difficult to understand at first.)

* Background Skills. Obvious choice. No expanded skill usage rules text, since that can all be covered by GM call in-the-moment so I didn't want to burden them with another few pages of rules and charts.

* Staggered Advancement. We have relatively short sessions and move pretty slowly, so this looks like a great way to give the players a few nice things more often.

I would use the classes if any of my players were playing them, but that's not the case here.

There are other systems in Unchained that I'd love to try out with a more-experienced party but chose not to implement for this game. (Stamina, skill unlocks, wound thresholds come to mind.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terminalmancer wrote:
I have a new player playing a fighter in my Kingmaker campaign. I'm so far undecided on whether I'm going to open up the Stamina rules to her. I think I will, because she's playing an archer and there are other archers in the party using slightly more archery-friendly builds, so she can probably use all the help she can get. Overall, the stamina stuff seems like a good set of rules to keep, though I haven't sat down to analyze it yet.

I would recommend them. They give you a lot more tactical options to play with.

I did tweak it a bit, really just front-loading it because its uses are expensive and my party is still low leveled:

-Full BAB classes: get Combat Stamina automatically. Stamina is 10+Con+1/2 level
-3/4ths BAB classes: Need to take the feat. Stamina is 5+Con+1/2 level
-1/2 BAB classes: Need to take the feat. Stamina is Con+1/2 level

My party's early in Runelords, and I adjusted two of the notable enemies from the first book with Unchained stuff (and gestalt, as I'm running a gestalt game-- but that's are minor details compared to what the stamina did, especially for the second one here).

Runelords Stuff:
Tsuto went from a Rogue 2/Monk 2 to an Unchained Rogue 4//Monk 4. That gave him some hilarious tricks-- I gave him Ki Metabolism as a ki power and Resilience as a Rogue Talent, with the intent being to make him a slippery rat who just wouldn't die.

But more to the point, when he moved he used the Dodge combat trick to bring up his AC, and he used the Improved Initiative trick to get the jump on the party (which I think came as a surprise to the party Inquisitor; she'd gotten used to going first). The first piece actually let him fight well by his book tactics, using his mobility to his advantage to set up flanks. If I was rebuilding him I'd knock a level off, in hindsight, but the encounter went well (if a bit of a close-run thing).

Nualia they haven't hit yet, but she's taking a similar track; going from Cleric 4/Fighter 2 to Cleric 6//Fighter 6. By the book she's pretty much just a buff-and-beat style character, and frankly looks... really boring, for someone who's pretty much the endgame of the book.

I used the extra Fighter levels to give her Bloody Assault, though she could make a feat trade to pick it up easily enough without gestalt. Her tactics are going to be to use Bloody Assault in the first two rounds, dropping five stamina on its combat trick each time. I hope that that makes her a bit more of a dynamic encounter, making the party think about going at her full-out or running a more defensive engagement-- there are two divine casters who can heal in the party, and I want them to have to make the choice between dealing with the Bleeds or trying to stick on the front line. That will, I hope, make for a much more dynamic action economy than "everybody dogpiles the crazy chick as she waves her sword around".

Without combat stamina Bloody Assault just isn't a viable feat at this level, so that's a setup I wouldn't have even tried. It just would have lead to Nualia flailing her sword around and missing everything. But with the stamina, it's suddenly a plausible and nasty thing for a round or two, which helps keep the encounter interesting. When the stamina runs out, Nualia will make a tactics change in the middle of the fight, which is something that I've noticed early enemies don't really do

I've noticed that my PCs are a bit more hesitant to dig deep into Stamina (or they just forget that they have it), but I think the run against the first half of that spoiler'd comment might be changing things. It was used to bring up attack rolls, and Improved Unarmed Strike's bonus was maxed out on one occasion to add ten nonlethal to a hit-- that one might have saved the party. When they leveled, the party Hunter decided he should take the Combat Stamina feat for his animal companion, so I'm calling that system a huge success. To me, it was worth the price of the book all on its own.


kestral287 wrote:
Terminalmancer wrote:
I have a new player playing a fighter in my Kingmaker campaign. I'm so far undecided on whether I'm going to open up the Stamina rules to her. {. . .}

I would recommend them. They give you a lot more tactical options to play with.

I did tweak it a bit, really just front-loading it because its uses are expensive and my party is still low leveled:

-Full BAB classes: get Combat Stamina automatically. Stamina is 10+Con+1/2 level
-3/4ths BAB classes: Need to take the feat. Stamina is 5+Con+1/2 level
-1/2 BAB classes: Need to take the feat. Stamina is Con+1/2 level
{. . .}

What about multiclassed characters, especially if they have a mix of different BAB classes?

* * * * * * * *

Question about Unchained and Summoners (originally posted in Unchained Summoner guide thread, but seems to have gotten lost): Is anything broken if you use a partially Unchained Summoner, for instance, the Unchained Summoner spell list but with everything else staying original?


UnArcaneElection wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Terminalmancer wrote:
I have a new player playing a fighter in my Kingmaker campaign. I'm so far undecided on whether I'm going to open up the Stamina rules to her. {. . .}

I would recommend them. They give you a lot more tactical options to play with.

I did tweak it a bit, really just front-loading it because its uses are expensive and my party is still low leveled:

-Full BAB classes: get Combat Stamina automatically. Stamina is 10+Con+1/2 level
-3/4ths BAB classes: Need to take the feat. Stamina is 5+Con+1/2 level
-1/2 BAB classes: Need to take the feat. Stamina is Con+1/2 level
{. . .}

What about multiclassed characters, especially if they have a mix of different BAB classes?

* * * * * * * *

Question about Unchained and Summoners (originally posted in Unchained Summoner guide thread, but seems to have gotten lost): Is anything broken if you use a partially Unchained Summoner, for instance, the Unchained Summoner spell list but with everything else staying original?

No, the classic summoner would work just fine with the unchained summoner's spell list.

With the old Eidolon it will probably still be firmly on the higher end of the power spectrum though.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Terminalmancer wrote:
I have a new player playing a fighter in my Kingmaker campaign. I'm so far undecided on whether I'm going to open up the Stamina rules to her. {. . .}

I would recommend them. They give you a lot more tactical options to play with.

I did tweak it a bit, really just front-loading it because its uses are expensive and my party is still low leveled:

-Full BAB classes: get Combat Stamina automatically. Stamina is 10+Con+1/2 level
-3/4ths BAB classes: Need to take the feat. Stamina is 5+Con+1/2 level
-1/2 BAB classes: Need to take the feat. Stamina is Con+1/2 level
{. . .}

What about multiclassed characters, especially if they have a mix of different BAB classes?

* * * * * * * *

Question about Unchained and Summoners (originally posted in Unchained Summoner guide thread, but seems to have gotten lost): Is anything broken if you use a partially Unchained Summoner, for instance, the Unchained Summoner spell list but with everything else staying original?

To answer the second question first: depends on how you felt about the old Eidolon in the first place.

I would at least consider it if a player asked, but I know that I would mandate the new eidolon's maximum attack limits. That's much more balanced than the old eidolon's maximum natural attack limit.

To answer the first question: Hasn't come up. The three characters are all gestalts of a full BAB (Fighter, Monk, Brawler) and something else (Hunter, Inquisitor, Arcanist). Gestalt generally tends to simplify the multiclassing thing, I've found. It can complicate it but that requires lots of shenanigans.

My immediate inclination is to look at your BAB. If it's in the range of a 1/2 character, you get Con+1/2 level. If it's in the range of a full BAB character you get 10+Con+1/2 level. If it's in between, 5+Con+1/2 level. Since I'm using fractional BAB that should keep everything orderly without unduly screwing over or benefiting anybody. I'm cool with getting the feat free with one level of a full BAB though.


I always did say that skills should be able to emulate spells and be made more useful. Hopefully this decreases the martial-caster disparity.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Terminalmancer wrote:
I have a new player playing a fighter in my Kingmaker campaign. I'm so far undecided on whether I'm going to open up the Stamina rules to her. I think I will, because she's playing an archer and there are other archers in the party using slightly more archery-friendly builds, so she can probably use all the help she can get. Overall, the stamina stuff seems like a good set of rules to keep, though I haven't sat down to analyze it yet.

I would recommend them. They give you a lot more tactical options to play with.

(...)

That's actually my concern. She doesn't have the book, and it's not online yet, so there are accessibility problems; and she's new, so I don't know that she fully groks her feats yet, let alone a stamina pool. :) But I will probably throw her in the deep end (of the stamina pool) and see how she does, because she'll probably have more fun in the long term with it than without it. It's a good system.


Eh. The basic use is easy enough. "This is your pool. After you roll your die for an attack roll, you can spend up to five points, add that to your roll".

She can dig deeper from there, but that ability alone is worth a lot.

I can see the accessibility issues if you can't provide her with the book for a while though.


After getting mine last week, I met up with several local GMs (two played in my old 3.5 game) and we pooled our impressions and thoughts. There will be a lot of feat reworking to fit the Stamina rules.

Already in play, often for years:
Fractional BAB, etc: their text is much cleaner
Esoteric components: I use the HypertextD20 special component rules, so there will be cross pollenization. Most of the rest see it as a new treasure option
Wound thresholds: theirs is better, at least three others want to use it
Skill unlocks: had a similar system before 3.0, but this is much more refined and laid out for real use. Another with interest from more than just me

In, regardless of player objections:
Barbarian and Rogue: simplifies Barb, brings a weak Rogue up to viability
Disease and Poison: I argued against it, but everyone at the table said they like it and I often find they are more insightful on mechanics. Similar to one's system, but with more steps and details. The others have all played or run his and praise it.

Players decide:
Background Skills,staggered advancement and iterative attacks, with most of us liking, but wanting player input
Variant Multiclass: similar to a crappy system some have used before and rejected. This seems to have a cleaner crunchy bits and points the way to some campaign specific hybrid classes we each have. Only one hold out
Monster creation: a step by step how to build or modify? Count me in! But this might get too deranged so I want player input first. Only two of us ever modify monsters
Combat stamina: might just get people to play Fighters, all agree, though two have thi as a 'must'

Interested, but:
Alternate crafting: only if a player promises to master them in mine, 3-3 at the table to even think about it
Summoner: I like the concept, but every local group I've played with bans them, everyone agreeing to consider with about two dozen fears, warnings and conditionals.
Magic: I use the HypertextD20 system with mods and thefts from RRG's spell point rules (must get 2nd book!), so this could be useful with a better understanding. Also like automatic bonuses and a few other ideas as thought starters. Most are wary of modifying any magic rules, although one insists her game will use most of them. The rest called her the canary (in the coal mine) but are interested in what happens.


Unchained from here on out for my groups:

-Classes
-Skill Unlocks
-Stamina
-Action Economy System

I know it's technically unfinished, but I was impressed by Stephen with the new Action System for getting in as much detail as he did. Can we nominate him for an award of some sort?


Kaouse wrote:
I always did say that skills should be able to emulate spells and be made more useful. Hopefully this decreases the martial-caster disparity.

In general, I don't like the idea of skills becoming spell-like.

But,I don't mind skills reaching spell-like power, WITH the requirement of the Signature Spell Feat, and a heady level of that skill. I think Unchained handled it well.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Terminalmancer wrote:
So far I've only ruled out the Alternate Profession Rules, because they are very very bad as written. (8,000 gp/month income? Sure, I'll take that.)

I find that rule pairs rather well with the taxation rules. XD


Just wanted to throw my hat in the ring.

Always on
1) Unchained monk
2) Unchained rogue
3) revised poisons and diseases
4) stamina
5) background skills

If the player wants to
1) Unchained barbarian. I basically don't see an important balance difference so it just comes down to book keeping preference. I'd also let my players mix and match unchained and non-unchained rage powers.

Currently playtesting
1) Simplified magic. This seems to really take away a lot of higher level spellcaster's staying power which is in my opinion a good thing. It keeps their spell pool from outstripping the other classes hp pool and keeps party rest times about the same between classes. Also reduces book keeping for high level casters.

Dark Archive

Always On:
*Unchained Rogue, Summoner, Barbarian, and Monk – The first two will be always on, with U' Barbarian and U' Monk an option along side C' Barbarian and C' Monk though I may be using someone's homebrew that combines the two Monks. I have never banned the C' Summoner though the U' Summoner will preferred.
*Unchained Background Skills – I am very much in support of rules that allow more options when it comes to using skills.
*Unchained Alternate Crafting and Profession Rules – Same as above.
*Unchained Skill Unlocks – Always on, free for Rogue but requires a feat for every other class, and for reasons above.
I will still have normal multiclassing be in effect, I don't want to remove that as an option..
*Unchained Fractional Bonuses – I feel this has benefit, especially since it can be said to encourage mutliclassing a bit more.
*Unchained Stamina and Combat Tricks – Though limited to non-casters only I feel is best, since such classes are in the most need for such benefits.
 
Possibly On
*Unchained Action Economy – May use, though since I have a Magus player I have consideration for them since it seems this set of rules hurts the class badly.
*Wound Thresholds – May use, though it seems to add additional danger for the players.
*Diseases and Poisons – May use, though for now I have it put aside as a non-concern.
*Esoteric Material Components – Seems interesting and flavorful, may use.
*Innate Item Bonuses and Scaling Items – I need to do some reading and thinking for considering these.
*Dynamic Magic Item Creation – Will wait in considering such
*Unchained Variant Multiclassing – Might allow if enough players wish to use the rules... though as one who sees merit/benefit in actually multiclassing and taking PrCs, I am leery of using these alternate rules.
 
Never On:
*Remove Alignment – I like alignment, and have always felt they work just fine when it comes to D&D and Pathfinder. I will never remove the alignment system and have no interest in any rules that would so such. Also I would feel it a betrayal of sorts since my favorite setting of D&D is Planescape, which by its nature made heavy use of the alignment system.
*Consolidated Skills – I want there to be more, not less choices when it comes to skills, and I feel that Pathfinder has already done enough in consolidating the skills as they have. So I'm not interested in doing any more consolidating of skills.


So I've decided to allow UNC barbs to use stance rage powers outside of rage, but they use half their barb level to determine the effects when doing so.


christos gurd wrote:
So I've decided to allow UNC barbs to use stance rage powers outside of rage, but they use half their barb level to determine the effects when doing so.

... Do you routinely have Barbarians fight with their rage off?


kestral287 wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
So I've decided to allow UNC barbs to use stance rage powers outside of rage, but they use half their barb level to determine the effects when doing so.
... Do you routinely have Barbarians fight with their rage off?

At low levels you sometimes need to conserve rage rounds.

More importantly, if your stance ends when you end a rage, you have to restart it if you're rage cycling.

Sovereign Court

Ok, so I read "Diseases and Poisons" last night, a couple times over actually, and I can't bloody understand how this will work or interact with existing spells and stuff; there's hit point damage now... and as far as I know they don't even mention how lesser restoration would interact with this, if at all...

They have a "Constitution poison path" for instance, but when you read individual poisons on the next page, the path is different for each, and there's no mention of what happens if you fail a fort save with a poison without onset time. I'm guessing they also left out the multiple dose rule or we just have to assume it's the same (just ups the DC for each dose you failed a fort save on? technically should increase the hit points damage per round too???? --> all unclear!)

So, I'm putting this one back on the shelf.... caaaaaaaarefully......... nothing to see here... ;)

Silver Crusade

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Ok, so I read "Diseases and Poisons" last night, a couple times over actually, and I can't bloody understand how this will work or interact with existing spells and stuff; there's hit point damage now... and as far as I know they don't even mention how lesser restoration would interact with this, if at all...

They have a "Constitution poison path" for instance, but when you read individual poisons on the next page, the path is different for each, and there's no mention of what happens if you fail a fort save with a poison without onset time. I'm guessing they also left out the multiple dose rule or we just have to assume it's the same (just ups the DC for each dose you failed a fort save on? technically should increase the hit points damage per round too???? --> all unclear!)

So, I'm putting this one back on the shelf.... caaaaaaaarefully......... nothing to see here... ;)

I believe the answers to all of your questions are there in the rules, they're just dense rules-text. Here's one:

Unchained p. 139 wrote:
If a victim is exposed to additional doses of the same poison, a failed save progresses the poison track by one step and increases the duration by 50%, but doesn’t increase the DC.

Sovereign Court

thanks Joe... I'm just so used to ability score damage now; I just wouldn't remember off-hand what to do with a comatose PC without looking constantly at the Unchained book; plus Neutralize Poison and Delay Poison... I finally understand how these work in the game... I don't want to muddle my clear pond...

Edit: this last sentence is the one giving me the greatest pause... i'm probably forgetting something from the original CRB text, but wish or miracle??? really?

==> Usually, neutralize poison or remove disease immediately moves the victim to a healthy state on the respective track, and a heal spell will work for both. However, once the disease or poison has reached its end state, only a more powerful spell such as miracle or wish can remove its effects.


thejeff wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
christos gurd wrote:
So I've decided to allow UNC barbs to use stance rage powers outside of rage, but they use half their barb level to determine the effects when doing so.
... Do you routinely have Barbarians fight with their rage off?

At low levels you sometimes need to conserve rage rounds.

More importantly, if your stance ends when you end a rage, you have to restart it if you're rage cycling.

pretty much this and I'm not afraid to have some pretty lengthy game days, sometimes multiple sessions pass just to cover one day. Also I've actually seen barbs fail a save or two once in a while against stuff like a ray of exhaustion. Thinking back I think level minus 2 is sufficient since it has diminishing returns.


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Edit: this last sentence is the one giving me the greatest pause... i'm probably forgetting something from the original CRB text, but wish or miracle??? really?

Well, a non-lethal end state seems to indicate major debilitating conditions, such as leprosy, and it strains verisimilitude less that there are some conditions resistant to all but the most powerful magic, but yes, wish or miracle only does seem to be a bit excessive.

Designer

Arakhor wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Edit: this last sentence is the one giving me the greatest pause... i'm probably forgetting something from the original CRB text, but wish or miracle??? really?
Well, a non-lethal end state seems to indicate major debilitating conditions, such as leprosy, and it strains verisimilitude less that there are some conditions resistant to all but the most powerful magic, but yes, wish or miracle only does seem to be a bit excessive.

It's not wish or miracle only; it's "a more powerful spell, such as wish or miracle," so at your discretion depending on the end state, other really powerful spells can work. But that may vary, whereas the big ones should always work.


Ah yes. As I recall, the other big healing spell is greater restoration, but that's generally for mental conditions.


Arakhor wrote:
Ah yes. As I recall, the other big healing spell is greater restoration, but that's generally for mental conditions.

It also restores all ability damage and drain. Which would completely restore a character from the "end state" in the CRB afflictions system.


Arakhor wrote:
Ah yes. As I recall, the other big healing spell is greater restoration, but that's generally for mental conditions.

Depending on your group, Heal may be a reasonable spell as well.

Quote:
...(Heal) immediately ends any and all of the following adverse conditions affecting the target: ability damage, blinded, confused, dazed, dazzled, deafened, diseased, exhausted, fatigued, feebleminded, insanity, nauseated, poisoned, sickened, and stunned.


For me:

Chapter 1:
All the unchained classes. (Old classes are still an option, though I will need to heavily audit old summoners).

Chapter 2:
Background skills. I really like the addition of Lore.
Alternate Crafting and Profession. Harder to keep track of, but more beneficial overall.
Skill Unlocks. I can't say yes to this enough.
Variant Multiclassing. Optional, but always available if the players want it.

Chapter 3:
Partial BAB/Saves. I used these in 3.5, and they are great.
Stamina System and Combat Tricks. Again, I can't say yes to this enough.

Chapter 4:
(Optional) Simplified Spellcasting. I won't force it on anyone who doesn't want to take it.

I am very uncomfortable with the Revised Action Economy. It's not the nerfing of casters as much as how it interacts with swift actions and thus change the core features of several pathfinder classes. I'll probably test out a modified version of this that keeps swift actions the same (except Quickened spells) - something like 3.5 actions per round, swift actions costing 0.5 actions once per round, and quickened spells costing 1 action.


Felyndiira wrote:
I am very uncomfortable with the Revised Action Economy. It's not the nerfing of casters as much as how it interacts with swift actions and thus change the core features of several pathfinder classes. I'll probably test out a modified version of this that keeps swift actions the same (except Quickened spells) - something like 3.5 actions per round, swift actions costing 0.5 actions once per round, and quickened spells costing 1 action.

I noticed you posted in the (very) long thread discussing the potential of the revised action system earlier, but I'm not sure if you saw Pena'chong's house rules for the system? So far he's only covered the core classes, but I think he's off to a good start. :)

Sovereign Court

Can'tFindthePath wrote:
Arakhor wrote:
Ah yes. As I recall, the other big healing spell is greater restoration, but that's generally for mental conditions.
It also restores all ability damage and drain. Which would completely restore a character from the "end state" in the CRB afflictions system.

Sounds reasonable that in the new system restoration should completely clean out a poison that's on an ability score track (like a constitution track poison would be all taken care of by restoration, since the spells states "Restoration cures all temporary ability damage, and it restores all points permanently drained from a single ability score (your choice if more than one is drained). It also eliminates any fatigue or exhaustion suffered by the target.")


Kudaku wrote:
Felyndiira wrote:
I am very uncomfortable with the Revised Action Economy. It's not the nerfing of casters as much as how it interacts with swift actions and thus change the core features of several pathfinder classes. I'll probably test out a modified version of this that keeps swift actions the same (except Quickened spells) - something like 3.5 actions per round, swift actions costing 0.5 actions once per round, and quickened spells costing 1 action.
I noticed you posted in the (very) long thread discussing the potential of the revised action system earlier, but I'm not sure if you saw Pena'chong's house rules for the system? So far he's only covered the core classes, but I think he's off to a good start. :)

Thanks for showing me this. I didn't actually see it until now.

I generally like Puma's changes to the classes. I really like what he did with the two classes I'm most concerned about (bard and paladin), and the changes do a good job of putting these classes back in line with what they are currently. I still don't quite understand the rider system with smite evil, though - mainly, how to apply the daily limits with an on-attack rider system.

Free actions always worry me, though. One of the major balancing points to the old swift action is that you only get one of these per turn. For instance, you can't activate smite evil and bardic performance 7+ (sorry for the silly example) on the same action because they would interfere with each other. While this is less of a problem with core, once we start getting to things like Oracle Revelations and Warpriest swift action buffs, I feel that turning them into free actions will create some truly spectacular multiclass combinations that activates multiple former-swift buffs in a single round. On the other hand, keeping these as one-action will really affect the balance of these classes for the worse.

I also feel that there are some swift action spells that should remain that way. A paladin's litany spells, for instance, are made swift for a good reason; changing them to 1 action would render most of them pretty ineffective

It also requires individual changes for each class, and when you add feats it becomes even more difficult. This compounds exceptionally for groups that use third party. Personally, I have no idea how to balance Path of War with this new system - maneuvers costing two actions would be a pretty severe nerf (especially when you consider boosts), while costing one action would be too powerful.

I feel that splitting swift actions out and making them a separate 1/round "mini action" in addition to the three you get is the easiest and cleanest way to reconcile the new system with the old. That way, swift actions retain their utility, and martials still get the mobility advantage that they sorely needed. It also keeps the 1/round swift action limit that balances out multi-classing, so you can't activate multiple different now-free buffs in one round.

Quicken spells can remain 1 action. There are some swift action spells that I would change to 1 action as well, such as Cold Ice Strike. There are also other effects that need to be sorted out (like Shadows becoming a non-threat), and those will probably take lots of thinking and testing to sort out.


This may be a leap, but could you use Stamina Points to boost Combat Maneuvers? Since they add to your attack rolls, I figured you would be able to apply them to CMB

Silver Crusade Contributor

Zenogu wrote:
This may be a leap, but could you use Stamina Points to boost Combat Maneuvers? Since they add to your attack rolls, I figured you would be able to apply them to CMB

I believe that you can. (If not, you should be able to.) ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zenogu wrote:
This may be a leap, but could you use Stamina Points to boost Combat Maneuvers? Since they add to your attack rolls, I figured you would be able to apply them to CMB
PFSRD wrote:
When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects.

Yep :).


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Excellent! That will probably encourage me to do something I normally wouldn't try otherwise. You know, for a heroic sake and such.


'Always on" is tough.

I use the "mostly on" list.

Most of the new barbarian powers, but still the old barbarian rage, unless someone just prefers to use the new version.

New rogue

new monk with tweeks

Some version of the new summoner/eidolon

Scaling feats

Built in bonuses and scaling magic items.

The new affliction rules will be for a special ones, not all of them.

Skill Unlocks, but I plan to give the rogue an advantage compared to other class.

I might use dynamic item creation, but if so it would only be for a low magic campaigns.

The new mundane crafting rule so it does not take forever to craft things.

I feel like I am forgetting something.


wraithstrike wrote:


Scaling feats

I don't remember these in the book. Do you mean the stamina feats?

Sovereign Court

Here's the summary of rules for my upcoming campaign:

Character Creation Parameters:

Race: Core Races Only (upcoming Inner Sea Races book: I "may" allow content but only content that can modify or provide options to Core Races)
Traits: Two Traits or Three Traits and a Drawback
Alignment: Any Good. The PCs are heroic and kind and generous: people look up to them and are honored to help them. The PCs treat commoners with respect and dignity and professionalism. They are good: compassion and empathy always.
Ability Scores: 25 pt. build
Hit Points: Full at 1st and 2nd; 75% at level 3+
Classes: Anything from Pathfinder is ok, except upcoming Occult book
Classes: Unchained versions of barbarian, monk, rogue and summoner are mandatory.
Classes: Unchained rogues - for the purposes of which skill unlocks the rogue has, calculate the unchained rogue's effective ranks as follows: rogue level + actual skill ranks = effective ranks (example: a 5th level rogue with 5 ranks in stealth can use the 10 ranks skill unlocks power for stealth, if he picked stealth as part of his rogue's edge class feature)
Classes: Unchained fighter - fighters and fighters only get a Stamina Pool. For Free. Eldritch Knights and Ulfen Guards can count their levels as fighter levels for the purposes of Stamina Pool (more details available upon demand, if applicable to your character).
Skills: Unchained Background Skills in effect - 2 additional skill points per level but they must be used on one of the following skills:
Appraise
Artistry (NEW)
Craft
Handle Animal
Knowledge (engineering)
Knowledge (geography)
Knowledge (history)
Knowledge (nobility)
Linguistics
Lore (NEW)
Perform
Profession
Sleight of Hand
Skills: Expanded skill uses in effect (see unchained p.51-53; new uses/options for Craft, Perform and Profession)
Skills: Alternate Crafting Rules in effect (see unchained p.72-76) with the following modification - craft roll determines progress per day not item complexity (only thing you use complexity for is to figure out min DC). Also, masterwork items now cost less or more, depending on their complexity, as follows: (examples provided below; please consult unchained book for specific items)
Extremely simple (no MW component available)
Simple - 75gp (MW Sling)
Normal - 150gp (MW Dagger)
Complex - 300gp (MW Longsword)
Intricate - 600gp (MW Bastard Sword)
Very intricate - 1200gp (MW Siege Weapons)
Extremely intricate - 2400gp (MW Cannon)

151 to 200 of 202 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / [Unchained] What are YOUR "always on" unchained rules going to be in your games? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.