I once considered homebrewing or publishing a "Archetypes Unchained" where I go through bad archetypes and fix them.
Actually had another thought: Something related that is also badly needed is to go through bad prestige classes and fix them.
It exists. Knights of the Inner Sea.
Dain bramage -- I just typed the wrong things into the Search.
They actually mentioned at PaizoCon that if they had more room in Unchained for another class, it would've been Cavalier.
Because no one ever plays cavalier.
Actually I have seen a handful (at least 4) of Cavaliers in PbPs or campaign journals. They seem to do okay: 2 of them are Huntmasters in Curse of the Crimson Throne (1 in a PbP that was doing great but then lost due to player loss, and 1 in a campaign journal that is still in); another was Honor Guard and multiclassed with Bard in Kingmaker (PbP) (a good candidate to be going for Battle Herald, and still in); another was a Beast Rider Honor Guard in Serpent's Skull (PbP) (was doing okay but then lost due to player loss). Haven't seen a vanilla Cavalier, though.
The cavalier in our Kingmaker campaign is the king. Kingmaker even allows for the USE of mounted combat feats!!!!!
And I made an elf Destined sorcerer 6/cavalier 1/eldritch knight for a PbP once, if only to get some additional face skills (Diplomacy, Intimidate, Sense Motive...) with weapon proficiencies.
I have a gestalt Warder/Cavalier, if that counts. Admittedly because he's effectively an Int-based Bard with no spells and teamwork feats, but whatever. :3
I suppose I meant "no one ever plays" them in relation to other classes. They are definitely up there as most rarely played classes, if not the King of that list.
I once considered homebrewing or publishing a "Archetypes Unchained" where I go through bad archetypes and fix them.
Actually had another thought: Something related that is also badly needed is to go through buggy races, including but not limited to bad or missing Favored Class Bonuses, and fix them.
I once considered homebrewing or publishing a "Archetypes Unchained" where I go through bad archetypes and fix them.Actually had another thought: Something related that is also badly needed is to go through buggy races, including but not limited to bad or missing Favored Class Bonuses, and fix them.
I honestly don't really like how racial favored class options work. Most of the options have little to no relation about the connection between the race and class. I think a better approach would simply have a list of favored class options for each class and have each race possess a list of favored classes. If your race lists your favored class, then you can pick from that list of options. Heck, could do away with race connection entirely and have any person of the class choose from the list. The idea that some races consider some classes as "favored" should be reflected in better ways than an arbitrary label and a list of benefits. An elf makes a great magus because they're smart, dexterous, and have an innate ability to penetrate spell resistance. They don't need to be rewarded with a magus arcana every 6 levels. If a race favors a class for flavor reasons, then that shouldn't be reflected in setting neutral rules. Instead, we should get archetypes, traits, and talents that interact with race.
Also, I believe prestige classes are a dead design space. A while back, Sean K Reynolds made a video explaining why the Paizo design team stopped releasing new prestige classes in player companion and hardcover books. I agree with him on every front. Archetypes kind of replace what prestige classes did for PCs -- allow a player to create a more specialized and thematic characters. I'm even starting to see archetypes that work for multiple classes.
Instead of reworking individual prestige classes, I'd prefer to create archetypes that replicate some of the popular prestige classes. Mystic Theurge might do better as its own class if a good enough game mechanic could tie it together. As for faction-related prestige classes, I think those would better suit as a different type of game construct, perhaps a boon system.
I suppose I meant "no one ever plays" them in relation to other classes. They are definitely up there as most rarely played classes, if not the King of that list.
The cavalier is LITERALLY the King of our Kingmaker campaign! ;-)
But to speak about Cyrad's point, 5th Edition has built archetypes into their classes. It's a very elegant system.
And speaking of the mystic theurge, I once designed a spellbinder class that was capable of gaining access to spells from EVERY spellcaster class. It began with 1st level spells, and then increased spell levels at 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20. It was based on the 3.5 binder, too, so instead of spell slots per day, spells were available once per 5 rounds. (This mechanic would probably need to be changed!) You had access to 1 spell list at 1st level, and additional ones at 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. Spells prepared was VERY limited, I think 1 at 1st and then increasing at 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20, for a max of 8 at 20th level. There were some bonus class features sprinkled in, similar to the arcanist stuff, in fact.
So basically, I think it is possible to make a mystic theurge-like base class.
I can see Witch and Cavalier being unchained. I don't want to just arbitrarily try to unchain classes that I have whatever squabbles with but I think anything that needs to be simpler or just doesn't represent itself well it could use a retooling. In the case of Witch and Cavalier I think getting rid of the mandatory pets. Overall I think that any concept should have the option at it's base to not have a pet for the sake of simplicity. Pets equal extra character sheets, more things to track, and more bodies on the field. With the Witch and Shaman their familiars are somewhat out of the way but with Cavaliers this can be a outright obstacle.
I think VMCs could be taken to the next level. Imagine Prestige Classes as VMCs. In a way it would become as Cyrad said above 'Achetypes that work for multiple classes.'
One thing I thought about for a while was Words of Power. I know a lot of people want more support for it but I think it has a better chance of being associated with different kinds of magic rather than trying to semi-replicate arcane and divine. Namely I think an Alchemy specific 'words of power' would be an awesome thing to do in Unchained. Imagine it: instead of just having a spell in a bottle, your create your own mixture making your own effect. It would feel like you're an Alchemist. You could also make new kinds of schools for alchemy representing chemical effects. I'm biased towards this idea because its somewhat of a homebrew thing I've been working on but I think it could work in an unchained book.
There's some things that should be in an unchained book but wouldn't fit quite right because of third party products that cover it already. Everyman Games in particular has a few. Redoing leadership as a game mechanic rather than a feat, retooling morale events so that combat social events work better, standardizing size effects.
Then there are things that feel kind of like legacy issues that some people throw house rules at early; Like weapon size categories. I wound up allowing small creatures to wield medium sized weapons as a step heavier weapon (one-handed becomes two-handed, light becomes one handed, and so on) with a cumulative penalty for going steps past that range.
{. . .}
Also, I believe prestige classes are a dead design space. A while back, Sean K Reynolds made a video explaining why the Paizo design team stopped releasing new prestige classes in player companion and hardcover books.
{. . .}
But then the most recent prestige classes came out not all that long ago, and they do award the potential (unfortunately rarely used) for entering an advanced class connected to an organization and/or philosophy after you have proven yourself to a certain extent. Hellknight is probably the best-designed example of this, and thematically, Inquisitor and Paladin/Antipaladin would really make more sense as prestige classes. Don't get me wrong, I think the mechanics of these classes are fine, but you'd think a religion wouldn't want to trust any random person off the street to be a behind-the-scenes special agent that can go above the normal rules of the faith a holy warrior with special powers (as opposed to expendable holy warriors to be ground up in the Worldwound or something like that).
I can see Witch and Cavalier being unchained. I don't want to just arbitrarily try to unchain classes that I have whatever squabbles with but I think anything that needs to be simpler or just doesn't represent itself well it could use a retooling. In the case of Witch and Cavalier I think getting rid of the mandatory pets. Overall I think that any concept should have the option at it's base to not have a pet for the sake of simplicity. Pets equal extra character sheets, more things to track, and more bodies on the field. With the Witch and Shaman their familiars are somewhat out of the way but with Cavaliers this can be a outright obstacle.
Actually, Witch already has a few archetypes that trade out the Familiar. Orc Scarred Witch Doctor may be the most (in)famous, but Cartomancer (arguably even cooler), Gravewalker (appropriately creepy for a villain), and Half-Elf Bonded Witch (good idea but needs further development) also do this. Also, Magus offers the excellent Witch hybrid archetype Hexcrafter, which is not obligated to get a Familiar.
I think VMCs could be taken to the next level. Imagine Prestige Classes as VMCs. In a way it would become as Cyrad said above 'Achetypes that work for multiple classes.'
{. . .}
Variant Prestige Classing would be pretty cool. Maybe make these consume feats at levels 5, 9, 13, and 17, with the one at level 5 being something relevant to qualifying for the actual prestige class.
* * * * * * * *
Another thing I'd like to see in Unchained 2 would be Variant Multiclassing for the ACG classes (and eventually the Occult Adventures classes). For instance, Oracle VMC Bloodrager might be just the thing to replace Rage Prophet (Oracle VMC Barbarian is so close . . . but doesn't fully work unless you're going super-epic and/or take levels in Rage Prophet anyway, and then only if VMC Barbarian doesn't get Errata'd to keep you from qualifying for Extra Rage Power, analogous to the restrictions on VMC Oracle and VMC Witch).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this class online somewhere? I'd really like to see it.I suppose I meant "no one ever plays" them in relation to other classes. They are definitely up there as most rarely played classes, if not the King of that list.The cavalier is LITERALLY the King of our Kingmaker campaign! ;-)
But to speak about Cyrad's point, 5th Edition has built archetypes into their classes. It's a very elegant system.
And speaking of the mystic theurge, I once designed a spellbinder class that was capable of gaining access to spells from EVERY spellcaster class. It began with 1st level spells, and then increased spell levels at 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20. It was based on the 3.5 binder, too, so instead of spell slots per day, spells were available once per 5 rounds. (This mechanic would probably need to be changed!) You had access to 1 spell list at 1st level, and additional ones at 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20. Spells prepared was VERY limited, I think 1 at 1st and then increasing at 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 20, for a max of 8 at 20th level. There were some bonus class features sprinkled in, similar to the arcanist stuff, in fact.
SPELLBINDER
BAB: +½
Good Saves: Will
Hit Dice: 1d6
Class Skills: Appraise, Craft, Fly, Knowledge arcana, Profession, Spellcraft, Use Magic Device.
Skill Ranks per Level: 2 + Intelligence modifier.
Spellbinders are proficient in all simple weapons and light armor.
LEVEL ABILITY
1. Cantrips, Eschew Materials, Spellbinding (1st level spell, 1 spell, 1 spell list)
2. Spellbinding (2 spells)
3. Spellbound +1
4. Spellbinding (2nd level spell, 3 spells)
5. Spellbinding (2 spell lists)
6. Spellbinding (4 spells)
7. Spellbinding (3rd level spell), Spellbound +2
8. Spellbinding (5 spells)
9. Spellbinding (3 spell lists)
10. Spellbinding (4th level spell)
11. Spellbound +3
12. Spellbinding (5th level spell, 6 spells)
13. Spellbinding (4 spell lists)
14. Spellbinding (6th level spell)
15. Spellbound +4
16. Spellbinding (7th level spell, 7 spells)
17. Spellbinding (5 spell lists)
18. Spellbinding (8th level spell)
19. Spellbound +5
20. Spellbinding (9th level spell, 8 spells)
Cantrips (Sp): A spellbinder can use a number of cantrips, or 0-level spells, equal to 1 + ½ his class level. Each day when the spellbinder binds his spells, he selects a number equal to 1 + ½ his class level from any spell list he is bound to. These spells are cast like any other spell, but they may be used again without waiting the normal 5 round delay that spellbinders must wait when casting spells.
Eschew Materials: A spellbinder gains Eschew Materials as a bonus feat at 1st level.
Spellbinding (Sp): Each day, a spellbinder may perform the ritual of spellbinding. During this 15 minute ritual, the spellbinder selects one of the following spell lists: alchemist, bard, cleric/oracle, druid, inquisitor, magus, paladin, ranger, sorcerer/wizard, summoner, or witch. At 5th level, the spellbinder may select 2 spell lists, this increases to 3 spell lists at 9th level, 4 spell lists at 13th level, and 5 spell lists at 17th level.
Next, the spellbinder selects one 1st level spell from the chosen spell list. At levels 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 20, the spellbinder may select an additional spell, up to a maximum of 8 spells at 20th level. These spells can be cast at will, but the spellbinder must wait 5 rounds before any specific spell can be cast an additional time. When the spellbinder binds spells, he can choose to select less than his normal maximum number of bound spells. Later in the day, he can perform an additional ritual of binding and choose additional spells, up to his maximum number of bound spells. A spellbinder can only perform the ritual of spellbinding a number of times per day equal to his Charisma modifier (minimum 1).
At 1st level, the spellbinder can select 1st level spells. Beginning at 4th level, the spellbinder may select one 2nd level spell. The spellbinder can only bind 1 spell of the highest level he can bind; all additional bound spells must be at least 1 level below the highest level spell he can bind (minimum 1st level). At levels 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20, the highest level spell the spellbinder can bind increases by 1, to a maximum of 9th level spells at 20th level.
To spellbind or cast a spell, a spellbinder must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a spellbinder's spell is 10 + the spell level + the spellbinder's Charisma modifier. Regardless of the normal category of the spell list the spellbinder is bound to, the spellbinder casts arcane spells. He does not suffer arcane spell failure when wearing light armor, but does suffer the normal arcane spell failure chance when wearing medium or heavy armor, or when using a shield.
Spellbound (Su): At 3rd level, the lingering power of bound spells infuses the body and soul of the spellbinder. He gains one of the following spellbound powers. At 7th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, the spellbinder gains an additional spellbound power. If a spellbound power is selected more than once, the bonuses stack.
+1 to caster level checks to overcome spell resistance
+2 to concentration checks
+1 to the save DC of the spellbinder’s spells
+1 to class skill checks
+2 to initiative
+1 to saving throws
+2 to spell damage
Energy resistance 5 against one of the following energy types: acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic.
Reduce arcane spell failure by 10%
Select 1 spell. You may apply 1 metamagic feat you know to the selected spell. The adjusted spell level of the affected spell cannot exceed the highest level spell you can spellbind.
Crossbows and Guns, Safeties Off: Yeah, I think they should consider reworking them. Crossbows and guns both get no bonus to damage (barring special class features), are way too slow to reload, and so on and so forth. And why is it you can get compound bows with a more powerful draw, but not crossbows? And, of course, guns treating attacks as touch attacks within a certain distance seems to cause a lot of people problems.
{. . .}
+! on each.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned races yet, but if not, let me do so. If nothing else, Unchained 2 could borrow the 5e idea that all playable races are humanoid (even warforged), so as to be free of "does that spell affect aasimar/tieflings?"
And it is not like dwarfs and elves couldn't use something new and exciting......
I don't know if it will do anything about that particular problem, but keep an eye out for Inner Sea Races in September 2015.
That said, I'd like to see Monster Types Unchained. For instance, Fey, Monstrous, Outsider, and Undead become modifiers/templates that are applied (often more than one at once) to a base type such as Humanoid, and do not make their targets immune to spells unless they at least have a categorical immunity (such as Undead being immune to mind-affecting spells and spells that require a Fortitude Save but do not affect objects). Also, Aberration is a catch-all category and should be explicitly labeled as such -- this contains creatures that are diverse enough that they should NOT have standardized characteristics.
While we're at it, also get rid of the strangeness of some creatures not having an ability score and Animals being limited to Intelligence 1 or 2:
1. Incorporeal creatures not having a Strength score leads to weird problems when they gain the ability to interact with the material world, whether by their own materialization, or by getting hold of Ghost Touch items. For conversion: Anything that currently doesn't have a Strength score by default gets a Strength score of 10(*), subject to size modifiers.
2. A nonexistent Intelligence score doesn't make much sense for something that can obey commands, or even for Vermin with the most rudimentary problem-solving capability; even automated combat and basic navigation requires considerable computation. For conversion: Make this 1; retain the Mindless property to describe things that are automatons that can only obey literal commands and/or react purely instinctively. Reserve Intelligence scores less than 1 for our present-day primitive robots that can barely stay standing and are barely a step up from machines completely dependent upon remote control.
3. Anybody who has actually been around a variety of animals ought to realize that shoehorning them all into Intelligence 1 or 2 (and for that matter, True Neutral alignment) isn't giving them enough credit (and Vermin don't even have this limit, even though the majority of them are listed as lacking an Intelligence score). Unchain the Animals -- most Animals would still have Intelligence of 1 or 2, but dogs, elephants, some primates, some birds, and some cetecea would often have more.
3a. While we're at it, the D&D 3.5/Pathfinder distinction between Vermin and Animals is frustratingly close to being phylogenetically correct while still being a bit off. (If it were totally off, it wouldn't bother me so much.) Put cephalopods in Vermin where they belong, but let them have intelligence of more than 2 (as noted above for certain types of Animals).
4. Always thought it was strange that Constructs do not have a Constitution score, but then get separate bonus hit points, and Undead do not have a Constitution score, but then substitute for it with Charisma. Sure, they are not biological, but construction quality still matters. For conversion of Constructs: By default, assign them a Constitution score that gives them the closest possible number of size-dependent bonus hit points (Constitution 10(*) if no bonus). For conversion of Undead: By default, assign them a Charisma score equal to their Charisma score, unless the Constitution score that they had in life was known, in which case use that instead, but not taking into account any Constitution Damage/Drain that they suffered before becoming Undead, even if it was not directly responsible for their transition.
(*) Ability score 10 in turn becomes ability modifier +0 when doing the further Ability Scores Unchained modification below.
And after that (probably have to wait for Unchained 3), I'd like to see Pathfinder do what Mutants & Masterminds 3.x did and drop the ability scores in favor of the modifiers (ability score 10 becomes +0; ability score 8 becomes -1; ability score 12 becomes +1; etc.). Main problem would be feats that have some odd ability score value (most commonly 13) for a prerequisite. These are annoying enough that it would probably be best to just round the +1.5 obtained in this conversion down to +1.
Lots of good stuff...
yes. Yes. YES!
1) I agree it is weird with incorporeal creatures. Hoenstly, I think a better fix is saying an incorporeal creature uses their Charisma in place of Strength when interacting with objects. It makes thematic sense.
2) I disagree with the notion of giving mindless creatures intelligence. In terms of game mechanics, it's good that there's a fundamental aspect of a creature that prevents them from reasoning. In terms of theme, your points are highly debatable. Whether or not insects can think is something even scientists debate about. A good analogy for how Pathfinder mindless creatures work is to imagine them as programs. A mindless creature completely follows their instincts, functioning only within pre-programming. A construct is programmed to understand and follow orders just as Google Search interprets what information you're looking for.
3) I don't understand the point of this change. Besides, an Intelligence of 3 also means the creature is sentient.
3a) Vermin are mindless. Animals are intelligent. That's actually a really big deal with game mechanics, which is why the creature type system exists in the first place.
4) By definition, a Constitution means the quality of a creature's internal biology. If the creature lacks one, there's no reason for them to have a Constitution score. There's already a system for construct quality in the game.
(*) Didn't unchained already do this? I know this is the case for Five Moons RPG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) I agree it is weird with incorporeal creatures. Hoenstly, I think a better fix is saying an incorporeal creature uses their Charisma in place of Strength when interacting with objects. It makes thematic sense.
2) I disagree with the notion of giving mindless creatures intelligence. In terms of game mechanics, it's good that there's a fundamental aspect of a creature that prevents them from reasoning. In terms of theme, your points are highly debatable. Whether or not insects can think is something even scientists debate about. A good analogy for how Pathfinder mindless creatures work is to imagine them as programs. A mindless creature completely follows their instincts, functioning only within pre-programming. A construct is programmed to understand and follow orders just as Google Search interprets what information you're looking for.
3) I don't understand the point of this change. Besides, an Intelligence of 3 also means the creature is sentient.
3a) Vermin are mindless. Animals are intelligent. That's actually a really big deal with game mechanics, which is why the creature type system exists in the first place.
4) By definition, a Constitution means the quality of a creature's internal biology. If the creature lacks one, there's no reason for them to have a Constitution score. There's already a system for construct quality in the game.
(*) Didn't unchained already do this? I know this is the case for Five Moons RPG.
So, basically your "arguments" for keeping all those things the same is...'there are already rules for that'? We know what the rules are, we're discussing how the change them.
(1) Charisma for Strength does make sense. This is kind of the opposite direction for how Shadowrun calculates your Astral attributes: Intellect = Dex, Will = Bod, and Charisma = Str.
(2) "Mindless creatures" and "Intelligence"...these are all game mechanical terms that only mean what they mean in the game. The term Intelligent itself is often reserved for so called sentient species. The very fact that there is debate about whether insects "think", kinda leaves the game mechanics open for...debate.
The problem with "mindless" creatures is that it is a fallacy. We are all "programmed", and most of our actions are not very "mindful". The degree to which we can operate within our programming is pretty much what the game ability Intelligence is measuring. It's recall accuracy, and mental control; it is not creativity. That Google engine you mentioned has a pretty good Knowledge bonus, and instant recall. One could certainly argue that the skill ranks do the work there, but what about the machines and their operating software? Where does one draw the line of "Intelligence".
Ironically, multiple d20 science fiction games give starships and other powerful computers Int scores to reflect their processing power. Why not Iron Golems?
(3) Well, once you stop classifying Intelligence by sentience, and equate it to learning, recall, and problem solving, you have to scale the smarter animals a little higher. Admittedly, the "dumbest" humans would perhaps have a higher score than 3 on this scale, and there may not really be room in the d20 design for this to be done.
(4) That pretty well fits the game definition. I believe that, like several things in d20 rules, the non-ability scores are products (victims) of the application of logic that has unintended results. Within the definition of Constitution and it's function for most creatures, equating a machine or animated corpse to a Con of -- makes perfect sense. Especially the "unaffected by things that require a Fort save...unless it also affects objects"...(and then it has it's drawers down.) But, Con's basic and most widely derived function is how "tough" a creature is, both for Fortitude and Hit Points. It worked pretty well for most things in 2000, but we fast forward to PF and now you can crit most undead and all constructs, now some undead get Charisma bonus to Hit Points. It makes more sense to give them immunities and resistances consistent with their physiology, and leave the "Constitution" alone.
Finally, I concede that this is all subjective, and that compromise may be needed. So, in place of simply doing away with the logic of non-abilities, we could give certain creatures "stand-in" abilities to reflect their natures. For instance, creatures of animal intelligence could have a "cunning" or "instinct" ability higher than Int that they use for functions of Int like skill points. (No, they aren't learning languages and basket weaving. If you've ever statted a bad ass big cat and found their "cat skills" lacking, you know they need more points.) Also, things with no Con score could be assigned "toughness" to base Hit Points and Fort saves off of.
Sorry for wall o text.
Hmm. It would be interesting to see Weapon Focus/Specialization/Greater Weapon Focus/Greater Weapon Specialization grant additional effects if you have a feat like Signature Weapon.
You might be on to something here, Luthorne!
I actually rewrote that chain in alternate paths: martial characters to allow for some diversity.
Unchained 2: Chains unleashed
on topic:
FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If you allow the stamina system then fighters are doing pretty good, I'd say. I would still throw them an extra couple skill points, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Prestige Classes Unchained. Make them worthwhile, but not more so than staying a single class.
Unchained 2: Electric Bugaloo.
Funny how people kept posting after you had already won this thread.
Is "Unchained: BAB Groove" too subtle?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained 2: Unchain My Heart
Pathfinder- Romance Edition!
(EDIT: I feel like this post needs a link to the "Succubus in a Grapple" and "Do PCs Need Underpants When Wearing Armor" threads.)