Hi
As the title suggests, I'm looking to give the Unchained rules a test-drive, and I'll be running the Curse of the Crimson Throne AP to do so. (Firstly, it's a fabulous AP, and secondly it needs adapting from 3.5 anyway, so making it work with Unchained won't - I hope - be significantly more hassle.)
Any takers?
In addition to indicating your interest, please tell me which bits of Unchained you particularly want to see tried out (or not!). I haven't yet decided which bits to use, so your input would be helpful in making that decision.
Why, hello there...
Unchained Classes (well, obviously... :-P), Background Skills (they are flavourful and give some wiggle room, especially to classes that do not get that many skill points) and Skill Unlocks spring to mind.
Other than that, Variant Multiclassing seems intriguing, though a wee bit weird, as well as those magic items that upgrade themselves as you reach certain levels.
Dotting for interest. I do not have the unchained book, but find the unchained classes on the d20 site most interesting. I would love to try out an unchained rogue as it seems to really make the class more than just the party skill monkey.
Wouldn't mind seeing how the stamina rules work, since I still think fighters need a boost. However I have played CotCT.
Also interested. I have played around a little with the Unchained classes, but not with the multiclassing rules. Would play an unchained Monk Zen Archer if possible.
Unfortunately I don't believe any monk archetypes work with the unchained monk, since they got such a big overhaul. :(
Dynamic item crafting is the one I'd most like to see, I think. I put background skills in my game the moment I bought the book - it just makes characters more well rounded. I'd actually written a paladin archetype for a character just a few weeks prior that was almost precisely introducing background skills.
I'd like to put together an unchained summoner, and I can take item creation feats so we can play around with the fun new item rules. I do have one question, though - does the eidolon alignment need to be hard and fast? I have a concept, but the type of eidolon that makes the most sense is one alignment step off. I think that's what bothers me most about the new eidolons - I understand why they made the changes they did, but it does straightjacket eidolon customization a bit.
Unfortunately I don't believe any monk archetypes work with the unchained monk, since they got such a big overhaul.
You are right! Just tried building in Hero Lab and noticed could not select an archetype for the Unchained Monk. That sucks. Will need to mull this some more.
I'm disappointed with the other posters here. The unchained classes are getting a lot of use, and background skills and virtual multiclassing. They aren't anything really special. If we're going to try this out, let's go all the way
I'd like to see some of the big rules changes and how they affect the game
*Consolidated skills or grouped skills
*Revised action economy
*Wild Magic
*Overclocked spells
*Automatic bonus progression
*Since you have to do some rebuilding anyway, you can try out simple monsters.
Given the playtest aspect of this, it might be better to start above level 1 or to cut out minor parts and hasten progression. High level play under alternate rules will likely be very different than low-level play.
I think most people will want the part used iron out before they get firm on a character.
Hmm... Frankly, with CotCT being a pretty darn good AP, I am not sure I would like to sacrifice its story or parts of it for the sake of doing a playtest first and PbP game/campaign/storyline second. Still, having seen what the DM can do, I am fairly confident that he would be able to balance such elements quite well if needed.
OK, I admit the action economy does sound interesting as well. Given that I usually don't do spell casters, those things don't hold interest.
The auto bonus progression would also be interesting.
I agree with Philo Pharynx. No half measures. >:)
As a side note, my character will be a variant multiclassed half-orc ragechemist/barbarian.
@Rennaivx: I can't remember what the unchained eidolon alignment requirements are, I thought it was one step (like a cleric)? Will need to re-read.
@Philo Pharynx: wow, I like the enthusiasm! To be honest, though, the more changes we adopt the more important I think it will be to start from 1st level - baby steps :)
@everyone else: thanks for your posts! I'm making notes now. More later.
Dotting! I've a couple of concepts in ind for CotCT, specifically either an Inspired Blade 1/ Investigator x (INT to everything) or an Oradin.
I'm with Castor on cutting pieces of the AP to playtest. Frankly, I mostly want to play CotTC: seeing how the new toys in Unchained work is a nice thing on the side, but not what I'm really interested in.
Speaking of which, part I'd like to see from Unchained:
-Background skills (Already using them in another game and I love them *.*)
-Unchained Classes (Duh. :P I've seen the URogue in action, too, and it's really cool. I'm not a fan of the overzealous nerfing of the Eidolon, though: too restrictions attached, like Rennaivx said).
-Stamina stuff! (Some of the combat tricks open up really cool stuff. Personally, I'd allow anyone to pick the feat to use them, but give it to Fighters for free plus calculate the stamina pool as Con modifier+BAB+fighter level. Fighter love!)
-VMCs (They range from perfect to extremely underwhelming, though.)
-Skill unlocks are cool, too, but I feel they come online a little too late: maybe give the rogue a bonus on when he can use the unlocks (15 level unlock at level 10 or something like that.)
-Scaling Items look really cool from a story perspective, even if the ones in the book are a little limited: we can always make new ones. :P
-Poison rules! They're still a little too costly, but their effect have been buffed considerably: anything that opens up new builds is A-Okay in my book.
-Fractional Base Bonuses are really cool for multiclassing and PrCs!
Things I' not sure about:
-The new item crafting rules are actually a nerf, from what I've heard from people that have run the numbers, and they assume that we have some downtime, but they're super cool for story purposes: it's more work, but something really could came out of it.* More work for the DM, though. :P
-Staggered advancement is something that I've been eying: in a normal game, it's just too much bookkeeping for too little benefit, in my mind. With the different pace of PBP, however, getting new abilities bit by bit could actually be nice.
It's a fairly big change, but if others want to try it then I'm on board.
Things I don't like that much:
-Consolidated and grouped skills: nah. They don't work with background skills, and I don't like the simplification.
-I don't really like the revised action economy either: I don't know what it is, it just doesn't resonate with me. :/
If we have to do something For Science!, Staggered Advancement would be my proposal for something heavily game changing to consider.
*Pink Valeros, guys. Pink Valeros.
The alignment and flavor of the eidolon are fixed, basically; you get ten preset half-formed choices with set fluff that you then customize. The azata model is perfect for what I want, except it HAS to be chaotic good and my idea is more suited to it being chaotic neutral.
Personally I am not a fan of starting at anything but level 1. Anywhere above that and I find that the role playing really lacks as there is little character development. Also, it takes away from the players being able to talk and decide how to approach an issue when they have few skills/abilities to work with.
I think it would be cool to try out scaling items and the new action economy. Then allow all the small stuff skill unlocks, stamina, vmc, background skills, classes.
Personally I am not a fan of starting at anything but level 1. Anywhere above that and I find that the role playing really lacks as there is little character development. Also, it takes away from the players being able to talk and decide how to approach an issue when they have few skills/abilities to work with.
What he said. :-P
Dotting for potential interest. I'd be alright with a lot of these though they aren't really why I'm primarily interested in Unchained. I would like to try out the Removing Iterative Attacks system though, as I'm implementing it myself and am curious to see how well it works. Background skills are another thing that I really like from Unchained, so if I were to join I'd want to see those as well.
Is there any reason you can't stack removing iterative attacks and the revised action economy? I could see that being a lot of fun.
I haven't read up much on revised action economy, so I have no idea. I mostly enjoy the idea of removing iterative attacks because it seems like it will solve the issue of poor AC scaling to some degree, and it's also easy to adapt to allow for more mobile combat, if you wish it.
Depending on what from Unchained gets used, I'd very much like to try this out.
The revised action economy essentially gives everybody iterative attacks, so I don't see them working together.
Having looked over some of the Unchained stuff, I cannot find the skill unlocks other than what is in the Unchained Rogue info, which seems pretty benign, on the d20 site, but will keep reading.
I have to say that the Action Economy seems to add a massive amount of confusion and really does not seem to add much of anything to the game other than renaming things and making Immediate Actions and AoO to be somehow related.
I like the Scalable Magic Items as they enable a player to sort of bond with an item, versus just using it as a tool. (Think the swords and armor in the Lord of the Rings).
Also, the Removal of Iterative Attacks seems like just another means of escalating damage. Essentially it means that everything comes down to a single roll of the dice. I do not know how much of a control freak the designer of this was, but believing that having to roll a d20 2-3 extra times (if you are REALLY high level) somehow delays things seems to miss the point. It is like plugging a small hole in a dam, and ignoring the fact that the dam has been breached and is washing away. If they want to speed up combat, limit and/or remove animal companions, eidolons and summoned monsters. Ten high level fighters can resolve things faster than a Master Summoner with a dozen CR1 monsters at his beck and call. My vote would be to never ever ever use the Removal of Iterative Attacks.
The Stamina rules seem to add a lot of additional complexity, especially in a pbp world where delays between player posts and DM responses can kill a campaign very quickly.
I like the Unchained Rogue and Monk. I have not really looked into the Unchained Summoner. I have never really liked barbarians, so I have no comment on the Unchained Barbarian, although if it is improved like the Monk and Rogue, then it is probably pretty good.
I really like the alternate action economy, but I might hate it too because I like a few classes that rely on swift actions to do stuff. Unfortunately in a home game I'm still never going to get the dwarf PC to roll attack and damage dice at once so his turns are still going to take forever. Not really an issue in pbp games.
I like the stamina stuff, but again, that dwarf PC already has 3 actions to think about using let alone managing hit points, his every changing AC, AND now stamina. This wouldn't be an issue in a pbp either.
Love skill unlocks! These I'd even use in the home game with that dwarf.
I like a lot of the other unchained rules too, but there's a reason my home pathfinder game changed to dungeon world (curse you dwarf)!
Dotting for interest. I'll be applying with a Pathfinderized version of a 5E character that ran through some of a prologue to 5E. She'll be a Swashbuckler 1 / Bard X (perhaps VMC Cavalier), or depending on the makeup of the party, a Swashbuckler VMC Bard, if more martial goodness is needed.
As for what I'd like to see in the game from Unchained:
- VMC
- Unchained Classes
- Stamina (more goodies for martials, yay!)
- Scalable Magic Items. My submission has a weapon that means a lot to her - it would be great to keep it around.
- Background skills - cause they make those pesky 2 sp classes a bit more well-rounded
- Poison and disease rules
- Staggered Advancement (depending on how you would handle experience. If you are giving out experience, it could be cool to get small bumps at a more regular pace, as Adahn states. If you're just leveling people up at story points, it might be more work for you than it is worth, however)
- Removed alignment
- Automatic Bonus Progression - I would love to see this in combination with with Scalable Magic Items. Make magic rarer, more special, because it stays with you, and remove those damnable stat boosters from the game, all in two fell swoops.
I'm the only one wanting to mix Esoteric Components and Limited Magic, it seems. :)
I've got an idea for the Crimson Throne, but I kinda hate that Young Characters(not the template) have to be an NPC class until adulthood. It defeats the purpose, and prevents an Ex-Little Lamm from being a Little Lamm. Still, the dynamic item creation and potions could be... interesting.
While alignment does have its problems, I'd prefer to not play with the Removed Alignment rules. They seem almost as convoluted as the alignment system itself, meaning it's not all that helpful to swap the two.
Thanks for your interest and comments! Looks something like the following:
DEFINITELY IN
Unchained classes
Background skills
Skill unlocks
Variant Multiclassing
Diseases and poisons (this is CotCT...)
Alternate crafting and profession rules
Automatic bonus progression
PROBABLY IN
Dynamic magic item creation
Stamina points
Consolidated skills
Revised action economy
New monsters
Wild magic
Overclocked spells - I would probably run this with the wild magic, so if you fail, you'd get a wild magic event
Scaling magic items
LOOKING UNLIKELY/PROBLEMATIC
Grouped skills (looks like a lot of paperwork, not sure it works with consolidated and background skills)
New alignment (looks like a lot of paperwork)
Removing iterative attacks (doesn't seem to stack with the revised action economy)
Simplified spellcasting (doesn't LOOK very simple!)
Limited magic (nerfs the DCs too much, although I welcome comment on this)
Spell attack rolls (possibly overpowers things)
Spell critical hits (possibly overpowers things)
Spell fumbles (more dice rolling)
Esoteric components (more paperwork - if I did include them, it would be with the optional rules)
Innate magic item (potentially conflicts with automatic bonus progression, although I welcome comment on this)
NOT IN
Wound thresholds (too much hassle to keep track of)
Staggered advancement (too much hassle to keep track of)
The alignment and flavor of the eidolon are fixed, basically; you get ten preset half-formed choices with set fluff that you then customize. The azata model is perfect for what I want, except it HAS to be chaotic good and my idea is more suited to it being chaotic neutral.
I'm afraid I'm going to stick with the new RAW on this; I'm trying it out for the first time and I really don't want to tinker. There's nothing to stop your summoner PC from being CN and having a CG azata eidolon.
I've got an idea for the Crimson Throne, but I kinda hate that Young Characters(not the template) have to be an NPC class until adulthood. It defeats the purpose, and prevents an Ex-Little Lamm from being a Little Lamm. Still, the dynamic item creation and potions could be... interesting.
I'd be open to you submitting a Young Character, let's discuss the rules options once I open the recruitment thread proper.
Thanks again for your comments, keep them coming. I'll open a recruitment thread over the weekend.
The alignment and flavor of the eidolon are fixed, basically; you get ten preset half-formed choices with set fluff that you then customize. The azata model is perfect for what I want, except it HAS to be chaotic good and my idea is more suited to it being chaotic neutral.I'm afraid I'm going to stick with the new RAW on this; I'm trying it out for the first time and I really don't want to tinker. There's nothing to stop your summoner PC from being CN and having a CG azata eidolon.
Totally fair, mate. :) I've actually had some other stuff come up that's going to keep me from being able to join in anyway, but I hope the game goes well!
Having looked over some of the Unchained stuff, I cannot find the skill unlocks other than what is in the Unchained Rogue info, which seems pretty benign, on the d20 site, but will keep reading.
There is a feat called Signature Skill that grants a skill unlock to classes other than the rogue.
Regarding automatic bonus progression and innate magic item, I think they both do the same thing more or less. However, I find the former simpler than the latter.
As for grouped skills, they do work with background skills, I believe, but probably not with the consolidated skills system (and if they do, I imagine it would make the whole thing a bit more complicated). Consolidated skills and background skills do work together (I think), though the skills considered background in this case are fewer when compared to the usual "chained" PF skills system.
I'll have to have a look before i commit to anything.
I do not like the grouped skills for only one reason: Inquisitors get no Knowledges as class skills. That just feels wrong for a class that has a class features based on knowing what your enemy is...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd discard everything from the Unlikely and Not In list , and I'm okay with everything in the Definitely and Probably in , except for the new action economy thing. I've gone trough the rules a couple of times, and now I can say precisely what doesn't convince me at all of the system: the idea is cool, and the execution is mostly good, but it would require tweaking to work well.
The thing that I dislike the most is the fact that swift actions cost 1 act: this puts a big opportunity costs on classes that relies on swift actions to work, like the Inquisitor, Magus, or Warpriest. It's even more noticeable for combat Bards or the like that rely on Arcane Strike to keep up the damage, or with Swashbucklers/Daring Champions/(and people with Amateur Swashbuckler?). Poor, poor swashbuckler.
That brings me to another point I don't like about the system: Immediate actions and attacks of opportunity are the same action. The swash can't use his iconic (and one of his better abilities, I think) Parry and Riposte without grabbing Combat Reflexes: once he uses an AoO to parry an attack, he doesn't have an immediate action to attack back. A similar situation happens for reach weapons: without Combat Reflexes, you can't ready a standard action to smack/trip and the wack them on the head when they provoke.
I heard people say that the system limited casters somewhat, but I don't see it aside from preventing to cast/quicken a spell/move (something that happens only at high levels anyway). While it gives pseudo-pounce to everyone, makes Vital Strike good, and it gives TWF the opportunity to attack with both weapons after movement, once you've reached the enemy you're going to stand even more still than before: 5 ft. step now requires 1 act to perform(that's the third thing that bugs me). If you are a martial at low levels, you can just sacrifice the attack at -10 to set up a flank: in case you're higher level, or one of the aforementioned classes that need swift actions, you're better standing still.
I dunno, all in all it seems too much problem for very little benefits. :/
Regarding Consolidated and Grouped skills, I'm leaning no to both. I want more options, not less. :/
Azten already pointed out that some of the class skills could have been better distributed (Inquisitor is particularly screwed, as he pointed out). Plus, I personally really like Lore from the Background skills because it lets me pick a limited knowledge that my character has, without picking up stuff that doesn't make sense: it always irked me to have to pick Knowledge (Religion) on, say, my Calistrian character, to represent she knows about Calistria's teachings, and suddenly she knows everything about undead.
Consolidated skills only exacerbate that: a humble pig herder turned Fighter with Nature (for Handle Animal) now knows every weakness of Aboleths, is able to discern every poisonous plants, and can name all of the peaks of the Five Kings Mountains and point out which of those two are a Neon Genesis Evangelion quote . :/
See now, this is what I was hoping for: great critique, Adahn! Thank you.
Good point on grouped skills in relation to the inquisitor class as well, Azten.
Will have a think and make decisions later, once anyone else has had a chance to comment.
If we don't use the revised action economy, I might go with removed iterative attacks to see how it works (this is supposed to be a test drive, after all!).
I agree that the grouped skills didn't hold any appeal. I found that PF did enough consolidation from 3.5 in skills already. Any more and skills just feel too broad and skill focus classes end up feeling on like add ons.
I honestly have not been through the spellcasting section enough to comment, again since I don't tend to favor casters and I don't need to know the stuff to run PFS.
The skill unlocks certainly should go in, but they really are not all that powerful.
I'd like to see how the stamina system plays out. It doesn't seem particularly powerful, but it's sometimes hard to tell till the rubber meets the road.
I'd be really great if every PC got a heirloom magic weapon that's scaling. Reading those rules really made me think of an adventurer holding onto a special weapon throughout an entire campaign that gets more and more powerful rather than dumping your father's sword what you got from his dying hand for 2 gp to get a MW sword of the same type at the first opportunity.
Skill unlocks being universal would really let everyone play around with them but it does take away from the unchained rogue a bit. I've got a homebrew idea for that which basically goes:
**
Skill Edge
At 5th level, your (non Rogue) character has mastered a single class skill beyond that skill's normal boundaries, gaining results that others can only dream about. She gains the skill unlock powers for that skill as appropriate for her number of ranks in that skill.
Once picked the skill cannot be changed and Disable Device is not eligible even if it is a class skill.
**
Rogues keep the more powerful Rogue's Edge. Another idea is to accelarte the progression of Rogue's Edge and let other classes get a slower progression of getting unlocked skills.
Anyway so I'd really like to play with
Unlocked skills of some sort
Scaling weapon or item for each PC
Stamina tricks
Variant multiclassing.
Not really a fan of the revised action economy but this is a bit of a playtest and wouldn't mind seeing how it works at all.
Uhm, removing iterative is a system made to speed up play: we're taking about 30 minutes to write a post, I don't think that saving 4 seconds to copy and paste a dice line is going to make a difference. Also, while I've seen diverse reactions to the new action economy system (some loved it, some weren't too thrilled like me, some were on the fence, some took the base idea and tweaked it), I didn't see anyone that was really satisfied with the removing iterative method: I thin it makes things too swingy, myself. :/
Like drbuzzard, I also think that skill unlock could be made to come online sooner, as most of the cool abilities are at 15 or 20 ranks.
By the way, are we going to use the normal table for Automatic Bonus Progression or the original Turbo-Table by Mark Seitfer? It was supposed to be in the book, but got cut because it was too headache inducing. :P
Skill unlocks are already very different between rogues and the rest. Rogues get (some of) them for free. Everyone gets to buy a feat called signature skill per skill they want unlocked. Your feat just duplicates theirs.
|
The thing that I dislike the most is the fact that swift actions cost 1 act: this puts a big opportunity costs on classes that relies on swift actions to work, like the Inquisitor, Magus, or Warpriest. It's even more noticeable for combat Bards or the like that rely on Arcane Strike to keep up the damage, or with Swashbucklers/Daring Champions/(and people with Amateur Swashbuckler?). Poor, poor swashbuckler.
And see, I think that it makes Swift-action reliant classes better, because now you can have more than one Swift action in a round. So it's better for swift action buffs which you can now get all up in the first round(like Arcane Pool usage and Fervor) and worse for per-round swift actions (like Arcane Strike).
It also looks like it makes feinting more viable for rogues.
I came to Pathfinder very recently from GURPS -- the revised action economy looks much more like what I was used to there.
Skill unlocks are already very different between rogues and the rest. Rogues get (some of) them for free. Everyone gets to buy a feat called signature skill per skill they want unlocked. Your feat just duplicates theirs.
Well it's not a feat, it's a class feature so everyone gets it without expending a feat but but it's restricted to their class skills list. And other classes get only one unlock at fifth level where the Rogue gets one every five levels for any skill they want. It's just a fun little idea to let everyone play with skill unlocks without making them universal and keeping the full potential of unlocking skills to the rouge.
Didn't realize it wasn't a feat.
Hmm, no, I think I prefer it having a feat gateway. Though I do admit, they are not really powerful enough for it to matter much.
Not sure about the Variant Multiclassing. I have no problem with it, but can see very few of the class abilities that can be gained that would be worth the 5 feat tax that they would cost. For instance, if you take the Sorcerer variant multi classing, you effectively get the same benefits as the Eldritch Heritage feats, except you do not get the option of skipping one. Furthermore, while using the Eldritch Heritage will require Skill Focus, you get the benefits of the class abilities 2 levels earlier from what I can see. Similar with Fighter. Sure, getting Armor Training 1 and 2 is nice, but is it worth the feats? By the time you gain these abilities, you probably have a mithril breastplate or celestial armor anyway. And, if you do not take the Variant Multiclassing, you could probably take feats that would pretty much cover the abilities.
Just my two cents on this. For people who play other gaming systems, perhaps many of the Unchained rules make sense. For me who grew up with Basic D&D and AD&D, most of the abilities appear to simply increase the complexity of the system without adding much to the roleplaying. Especially for pbp where instant responses and waiting for someone to roll 25 dice is more or less a moot point, either people post, or they don't, the delay that would be caused in a table-top game is simply non-existant in most situations..
|
|
Not sure about the Variant Multiclassing. I have no problem with it, but can see very few of the class abilities that can be gained that would be worth the 5 feat tax that they would cost.
I keep *almost* making VMC characters, and then backing off at the last moment because of the sheer number of feats it takes. It's especially bad if you aren't a full-BAB class, because then you can't get Power Attack or Weapon Focus until Lvl 5.
If you have a concept that requires multiclassing, it's worth at least a look. I think something like Fighter VMC Oracle or Witch, or maybe Ranger VMC Wizard could work well. But I'd want to be a full BAB base class that gets bonus feats, and VMC into something that you can't pick up via feats.
Just my two cents on this. For people who play other gaming systems, perhaps many of the Unchained rules make sense. For me who grew up with Basic D&D and AD&D, most of the abilities appear to simply increase the complexity of the system
I cannot agree with you here - Pathfinder, with its full-round actions, standard actions, move actions, swift actions, free actions, immediate actions, Attacks of Opportunity, and iterative attacks, is a world away from the simplicity of the Red Box edition I grew up with!
I can't agree that the Unchained system, which essentially gives you 3 'action points' a turn*, is somehow increasing the complexity of the system. If anything, Adahn Cielo's criticism above (which has merit) is that Unchained oversimplifies in that it doesn't deal well with the nuances of swift actions and AoOs.
If I decide to stick with the current action economy system, it will be because it works (which it does, really very well indeed) - not because it's simpler!
*and/or just gives you 1 attack roll per turn
Hrm.. didn't realize that variant multiclassing cost five feats. That's a pretty high cost for any base class that doesn't have loads of bonus feats.
VMC is one of those things that most GM's will allow. Of course it's a bad idea unless you are building a build around that.
As for many of the options, I see a lot of analysis, but I don't see actual playtests for most people. That's why I'd like to see them actually work in play.
Which is why I want to try either the removed iterative attacks or the new action system: not because I think they're better, but because I want to see how they work...
As long as it is a story and a game as well and not only a playtest, I am more than willing to try some stuff out. I have to admit that I am not particularly fond of the consolidated and grouped skills systems though, as I rather like having options.
As for revised action economy, I would not overly mind trying it out, as it is an actual system, albeit different (though having immediate actions and AoOs be the same thing seems a bit iffy to me). But the removed iterative attacks look like just a time-saver to me and in the realm of PbPs with the time that both they and the writing of posts take, it hardly matters.
Long story short, the Looking Unlikely/Problematic and Not In categories find me in agreement, as in I am not really interested in the options listed in them.
As long as it is a story and a game as well and not only a playtest, I am more than willing to try some stuff out.
Guaranteed :)