Unchained Classes, why do so many Players and DMs like them


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Unchained Classes, many DMs are saying stick with the unchained versions of rogue, barbarian, monk, etc.
In my opinion, unchained versions of classes is Paizos way of rebalancing the original core class. They should have done it right the first time.


Because Unchained Rogue and Unchained Summoner are huge improvements ove rthe original class' design, and a lot of GMs I suspect haven't read over the rest and assume Monk and Barbarian are the same.

Unfortunately they're NOT.

The Exchange

Well, yes, the unchained versions are in fact Paizo's rebalancing of the core classes. I, personally, vastly prefer them over the original classes because of the greater flexability and value they add to a party. Barbarians used to always feel like Fighters with worse AC and less feats, but now their reworked rage makes them more unique. The same could be said for Monk, which now can be played in a lot of different ways thanks to the universal Ki points.

Overall there's no accounting for taste, so everything except the Unchained Summoner is optional, but from my experience playing locally with the new versions I'd say they did an excellent job. In any case, there are probably lots of other threads that explain my position better than I can.


I'm not sure unchained versions are better. Yes, they are improvements, but look at the barbarian, some of the special rage powers were removed, thus improving them one way and weakening them in another.
Now look at rogue. All the really good rogue talents were removed in unchained. Rogue might be more powerful, but I prefer my options for those other rogue talents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know the Unchained Rogue can still use a lot of the old Rogue talents right? Plus a lot of their new talents are really cool and the debuff attacks are incredibly flavourful and awesome.

The new Barbarian is kind of a toss up, some of the new rage powers are some of the coolest they've ever had, but I do miss some of those that are gone now.

The Summoner goes a long way to balancing an incredibly powerful class so obviously that's a good thing.

The only one I am a little iffy on is the Monk... It is better than the old base monk, but with archetypes the old monk is still probably the better class. I hope the unchained version gets some archetypes of its own.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The Unchained Barbarian is a straight nerf to the class. Its Stances are fairly garbage, it deals less damage overall (its morale bonuses are no longer multiplied by 1.5 when using a 2H weapon), and none of the new or reworked Rage Powers are very good. The only thing remotely decent about it is getting temp HP, and that's for ease of use, not because it's better. Barbarians were never "Fighters with worse AC". Barbarians generally had BETTER AC than Fighter because of Beast Totem, and all of their Rage Powers gave them unique abilities Fighter couldn't get, so I have no clue where that's coming from.

Unchained Monk is a better beatstick in melee with a 2H sword than the original Monk, but that's about it. With archetypes (especially Zen Archer, Sohei, and Sensei) the Monk has many more options for use, and doesn't have to spend Ki to activate EVERY ONE OF HIS CLASS FEATURES.


Rynjin wrote:
The Unchained Barbarian is a straight nerf to the class. Its Stances are fairly garbage, it deals less damage overall (its morale bonuses are no longer multiplied by 1.5 when using a 2H weapon), and none of the new or reworked Rage Powers are very good. The only thing remotely decent about it is getting temp HP, and that's for ease of use, not because it's better. Barbarians were never "Fighters with worse AC". Barbarians generally had BETTER AC than Fighter because of Beast Totem, and all of their Rage Powers gave them unique abilities Fighter couldn't get, so I have no clue where that's coming from.

You're not required to use stances; in fact, you can still use the entire Beast Totem line unmodified (p. 13 Unchained) along with a slew of other rage powers. It is true you deal 'less damage,' but 2 damage per hit at level 20 is hardly game-breaking. Come & Get Me is also still there, under the name of 'Taunting Stance.' Also, while not part of the class, the Unchained action economy is a benefit to any Barbarian who didn't want to go down the Beast Totem line.

The biggest nerf, which you seem to have completely missed, is that the Unchained version of Superstition no longer applies to supernatural abilities. If you're going to complain about the Unchained Barbarian, that's a much more valid issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unchained Rogue is a clear buff which I like. It's not the end all fix for it as its still a mundane class but its now a joke. Even though I'm typically on the side that martial caster disparity is exaggerated by comparing to abusive builds and strategies allowed by casters but even I feel like the Rogue was unreasonably terrible especially with so many other classes that can effectively play a Rogue. Unchained Rogue is something I'd actually play.

Unchained Barbarian is simpler to play but at a cost. I'm glad it exists because I have players that still have trouble keeping track of the things rage does but from an optimization point of view it has as many nerfs as buffs so its a hard sell.

Unchained Summoner, I feel is a heavy nerf but one that I think a lot of GMs wanted considering that it's the most complained about class I've seen in the game.

Unchained Monk is something I have mixed feelings on. With third party products and the amount of archetype support it has I haven't had a real problem with the Monk in a long while so personally it was something I didn't need. As a whole I like a lot of things that were added to it but as Rynjin mentioned it has too many abilities that need ki that previously didn't need it. Additionally it's bonus feat selection still sucks and it doesn't get more ki to compensate. If I were a player I'd just run a normal monk with some third party stuff above this monk. On the other hand if the automatic bonus progression is in play, vow of poverty actually is useful so your milage may vary.


Cheburn wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
The Unchained Barbarian is a straight nerf to the class. Its Stances are fairly garbage, it deals less damage overall (its morale bonuses are no longer multiplied by 1.5 when using a 2H weapon), and none of the new or reworked Rage Powers are very good. The only thing remotely decent about it is getting temp HP, and that's for ease of use, not because it's better. Barbarians were never "Fighters with worse AC". Barbarians generally had BETTER AC than Fighter because of Beast Totem, and all of their Rage Powers gave them unique abilities Fighter couldn't get, so I have no clue where that's coming from.

You're not required to use stances; in fact, you can still use the entire Beast Totem line unmodified (p. 13 Unchained) along with a slew of other rage powers. It is true you deal 'less damage,' but 2 damage per hit at level 20 is hardly game-breaking. Come & Get Me is also still there, under the name of 'Taunting Stance.' Also, while not part of the class, the Unchained action economy is a benefit to any Barbarian who didn't want to go down the Beast Totem line.

The biggest nerf, which you seem to have completely missed, is that the Unchained version of Superstition no longer applies to supernatural abilities. If you're going to complain about the Unchained Barbarian, that's a much more valid issue.

TBH I stopped reading it after a certain point. It shouldn't have been included in the book in the first place, and everyone said it should be dropped in favor of an Unchained Fighter from day 1.

Barbarian needed no nerfs, however minor, and that's what it got. Meanwhile, it didn't get any significant buffs, and its "quality of life" changes are only helpful to new players in the first place.

It's not a matter of specifics, the fact that it exists at all is its main problem.

And "Unchained Action Economy" is not part of the class re-work, it's a completely different, optional, and kinda clunky rule system and shouldn't be used to talk about the power of any class itself, any more than we should start saying Two-Weapon Fighters are better because Automatic Bonus Progression was printed in that book.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember reading somewhere the unchained barbarian makes it easier to be a two weapon barbarian. That combined with the fact that ending a rage can no longer kill you seem to be significant quality of life improvements.

I doubt fighter will ever get an update, Paizo is too afraid of upsetting the grognards that want fighters to be the bastion of boredom.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Unchained Monk is a huge boost over a Core Monk. Against an archetyped Monk (not even looking at the big, obvious archetypes; comboing, say, Monk of the Lotus and Ki Mystic gives you some pretty cool combinations as well), it's less of a boost.

Unchained Rogue vs Core Rogue is a straight boost.

My understanding is that the goal for the Unchained Barbarian was simplifying the class, not boosting it. Barbarians were already one of the best Martial classes, which may be why a slight decrease in power may have been viewed as acceptable.

I can't comment on Summoners.

I do think that it is often forgotten on message boards like these that optimization is not always the goal.

Knitifine wrote:
I doubt fighter will ever get an update, Paizo is too afraid of upsetting the grognards that want fighters to be the bastion of boredom.

Isn't Combat Stamina supposed to be their boost, particularly if it is limited to Fighters?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JAMRenaissance wrote:
Knitifine wrote:
I doubt fighter will ever get an update, Paizo is too afraid of upsetting the grognards that want fighters to be the bastion of boredom.
Isn't Combat Stamina supposed to be their boost, particularly if it is limited to Fighters?

Supposed to be? Yes. Does it actually fix the problems? Not really.


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

Honestly, the fact that ending a rage can kill you is something I liked about Barbarians - it very much fits their trope, and gives me some neat storytelling possibilities as a GM. That change is one of the main reasons I dislike the unchained barbarian.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheburn wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
The Unchained Barbarian is a straight nerf to the class. Its Stances are fairly garbage, it deals less damage overall (its morale bonuses are no longer multiplied by 1.5 when using a 2H weapon), and none of the new or reworked Rage Powers are very good. The only thing remotely decent about it is getting temp HP, and that's for ease of use, not because it's better. Barbarians were never "Fighters with worse AC". Barbarians generally had BETTER AC than Fighter because of Beast Totem, and all of their Rage Powers gave them unique abilities Fighter couldn't get, so I have no clue where that's coming from.

You're not required to use stances; in fact, you can still use the entire Beast Totem line unmodified (p. 13 Unchained) along with a slew of other rage powers. It is true you deal 'less damage,' but 2 damage per hit at level 20 is hardly game-breaking. Come & Get Me is also still there, under the name of 'Taunting Stance.' Also, while not part of the class, the Unchained action economy is a benefit to any Barbarian who didn't want to go down the Beast Totem line.

The biggest nerf, which you seem to have completely missed, is that the Unchained version of Superstition no longer applies to supernatural abilities. If you're going to complain about the Unchained Barbarian, that's a much more valid issue.

They also lost all the rage powers that grant flight.


You forgot to mention the dispropotionally high cost of abilities and that the Unchained monk has the same Ki pool as the original Monk... so its tiny.

On top of that, they dont have access to archetypes that alliviate the ki starvation that the regular monk does (sensei is nice and Hungry Ghost Monk can very easily regain ki).

Three simple thing would help the Unchained Monk to be awesome... change the Ki pool to act more like a panache or grit pool, reduce the cost of the abilities by a few points, and treat the abilities very similair in design as grit/panache powers. I.e. some are active so.long as you have a pool and others cost a few points. It would have been very easy since they already have the mechanic in place. Just reflavor it (again) and.bam! Better monk...

What would also help is if they make a style designed to be a Kaioken type thing. Have a style the lets a monk kind of do like a gather energy thing that the Kimeticist does and gives them a few Ki points that last for a round or so for a move action. So you spend your move action to charge up, then use your standard to do something. Idk, it would be EXTREMELY helpful for the monk. It also lets you play blaster monks xD

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like Unchained Monk. It tends to be a better fit for players who want a simpler class and is easier to use effectively in combat. I still use core monk for a lot.of ideas though, since its archetypes allow for more interesting play. It has better combat mobility thanks to Flying Kick, and the other style strikes add an interesting dynamic to the fighting styles. Probably my only real complaint is that it places a huge demand on expending ki, but didn't shore up the ki pool at all, so you end up having to make most UnC Monks as low DEX hulks, focusing on STR and WIS if you want to be effective. You get Zangief or E. Honda when a lot of people might want to play Chun Li or Cammie. Since that's a common complaint about the core monk, it's a little disappointing to see it reiterated here. Overall though, I like it and consider it a positive addition to the game.

Unchained Barbarian is a resounding "meh" for me. I don't feel like their stated goal of making it more accessible and simple was particularly well accomplished, and it really just feels like they were too timid to make the kind of sweeping changes that could have made UnC Barb interesting.

Unchained Rogue was a good buff for melee Rogues, though it would have been nice to see more ranged support.

Unchained Summoner was a solid fix, giving the spell list a much-needed grooming and adjusting the point costs and availability various evolutions so they're more in line with what they should be. Nothing to really complain about there.

Most of the other stuff from Unchained I could care less about, though the Stamina system is potentially interesting, the Skill Unlocks are a step in the right direction. Automatic bonus progression for scaling without magic items is handy for some campaigns.

I actively dislike some of the other options introduced, including the system for removing iterative attacks which has too many problems to list and the revised action economy.

Overall it's a solid book though.

Community & Digital Content Director

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed some posts. Personal insults don't add anything to the conversation.


Oh! The other problem with Unmonk is that it just make the monk into the brawler...

What I wish they did was implement the style of thw monk of the seven winds into the core idea of monk.

Give monk a bonus to hit everytime the moved. Then give the monk a free 5 ft step everytime they hit. So the more they hit, the more they move, the more they move, the more they hit. That would allow the monk to truly be a.mobile counter part to his brawler compatriot.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd prefer Chained Summoner with unchained eidolon choices. I liked the chained spell list.


Starbuck_II wrote:
I'd prefer Chained Summoner with unchained eidolon choices. I liked the chained spell list.

That specifically supposed to be a nerf


Unchained was still extremely safe while giving the appearance of shaking things up a lot.

The classes overall are fine:
Rogue is great, but the complexity Paizo has entrenched itself on for Unchained Ninjas is silly. It's a great dip for a lot of the best things. but still has many of the worst problems outside of feat chains. Saves are crap, 3/4 BAB with no spells is crap, and a handful of skill unlocks does not beat an alchemist or investigator.

Monk is good, though a lot different than the base monk. I like flurry working like natural weapons, but they are so scared of making monk "broken" while pretending tiers don't exist for optimization. I wish they buffed damage some, but focused more on making monks great at styles and maneuvers that exist already. I would still play an unchained monk over core, if only because I want to be a punch-y monk.

Barbarian is a hilarious nerf trying to copy non-3.5 barbarian rages. The only that made barbarians so effective was the complex rage rules and superstition.

Summoner is an improvement, but the class is still just a really really poorly thought out class. It's still slow in combat, and I have no interest playing it. It is a good change for those that care about PFS.

The rest of the book is what I care about, but still safe. They had an opportunity to adjust multiclassing and prestige classes in the core rules without making things worse. Fractional BAB should have been core in 3.5, and prestige classes are still just a useless legacy according to Paizo. VMCs are just wasted potential.

Background skills is a good fix, but consolidated and grouped skills miss the point (especially consolidated). A lot of systems have massive rules attached for something people were looking to trim things down (like crafting), but there is some good content there.

The game play chapter might as well not be there but someone might like them, and the magic system has a lot of holes around WBL adjustments. I feel like some things were grabbed from other systems without trying to adjust them to fit into Pathfinder.

I wish there was monster creature using an experience pool system instead of everything CR all the time. It's still pretty good from what I read.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Starbuck_II wrote:
I'd prefer Chained Summoner with unchained eidolon choices. I liked the chained spell list.

Yeah... The unchained Summoner's spell list is great, but its Eidolon options are too restrictive, IMO. Specially the ones with alignment restrictions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Honestly, the fact that ending a rage can kill you is something I liked about Barbarians - it very much fits their trope, and gives me some neat storytelling possibilities as a GM. That change is one of the main reasons I dislike the unchained barbarian.

But it also requires the party to have a healer if there is a barbarian.

Also how does not actually getting tougher fit their trope, with old Barbarian you weren't actually negating damage but piddly DR 5 at late game since as soon as you stopped raging you lost that "extra health you got" and all the negative health is still there. (Old barbarian might have actually had a purpose there if wound thresholds came out before UC barbarian but it didn't so it might as well be useless.) Now you are getting extra hit points for every battle, actually making you tankier in the long run, which is a far better trope then dying after losing your unmodified hitpoints anyway.

Silver Crusade Contributor

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Starbuck_II wrote:
I'd prefer Chained Summoner with unchained eidolon choices. I liked the chained spell list.
Yeah... The unchained Summoner's spell list is great, but its Eidolon options are too restrictive, IMO. Specially the ones with alignment restrictions.

I don't normally mind alignment restrictions, but the USummoner's bother me. You can't magically enslave an outsider of another type. You can't have a good character with a devil offering its services while attempting to tempt the character. There's a lot of good concepts that are inaccessible - which annoys me, because I like the subtyped eidolons better too.


DoubleGold wrote:

Unchained Classes, many DMs are saying stick with the unchained versions of rogue, barbarian, monk, etc.

In my opinion, unchained versions of classes is Paizos way of rebalancing the original core class. They should have done it right the first time.

I feel like you answered your own question here.

Should they have been done right the first time? Yes. Were they? No. These classes are that correction, so people like them. What part of that do you not understand?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
They should have done it right the first time.

Wait? So you'd prefer things stayed at the same broken balance forever without the dev's ever trying to correct it?


The monk, rogue and summoner are better core class chassis than their original version. While they aren't written as compatible with archetypes and some class options, I suspect whether or not that is enforced varies from table to table.

Monk is simpler, easier to play, and harder to screw up. It still relies on more outside assistance than other classes but is now something I wouldn't discourage players from taking. I feel some of their class abilities should count as feats for prerequisite purposes and that the monk bonus feat list should be revisited.

The rogue has stuff and includes some simple active defense options. Rogue as a control/hampering class with some extra damage is great but like the monk, I feel some of their class abilities should be able to cover certain feats for prerequisite purposes.

Summoner is less powerful through spells and more versatile through summons. They have loads more options making them less likely for players to all make the same summoner.

Barbarian is simplified weaker and doesn't seem as easy to make compatible with old choices. I don't have any players opting for this replacement class.


For me, I like the Unchained Rogue, cause really it gets back one of its features. Skill ranks. Rogues have lots of them. Rogues with Int have even more of them. But due to a large lack of skill rank related things, Skill value was absolute trump. Getting that ability to throw an extra +10 +20 or so on a skill made casters able to rather easily trump anything someone with just ranks and stats could do.


Milo v3 wrote:
Quote:
They should have done it right the first time.
Wait? So you'd prefer things stayed at the same broken balance forever without the dev's ever trying to correct it?

Given the design team's mixed track record at actually trying to fix the balance of the game ... maybe. Honestly, a lot of the recent balance patch errata have damaged as much as they've fixed.

As for Unchained classes:

Summoner: Mostly an improvement, but they might have gotten a bit too restrictive with the eidolons. After all, part of the appeal for me was the "build your own monster" aspect of them.

Rogue: Definitely makes the rogue better, but most of the fundamental issues with the rogue chassis are still there.

Monk: As others have said, UnMonk is massively ki-starved and lost almost all his passive defenses in exchange for the improved version of flurry.

Barbarian: Why? Seriously, just why? Getting temporary HP instead of HP that disappear when you leave rage (potentially leading to death) is the only really worthwhile change that happened. The rest of the changes are either nerfs in the name of simplicity, outright nerfs, or just head-tilting. I liked the idea of combat stances, but why is the barbarian the guy who does combat stances? That really seems like more of a fighter thing.


Chengar Qordath wrote:


Given the design team's mixed track record at actually trying to fix the balance of the game ... maybe. Honestly, a lot of the recent balance patch errata have damaged as much as they've fixed.

Irrelevant, since unchained doesn't act like errata, but optional rules. You don't need to use them. If they screw up on the balance to the same or more extent, it's fine, because you can still use the Core Barbarian or Core Monk.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DoubleGold wrote:

Unchained Classes, many DMs are saying stick with the unchained versions of rogue, barbarian, monk, etc.

In my opinion, unchained versions of classes is Paizos way of rebalancing the original core class. They should have done it right the first time.

I feel like the Unchained classes are better cores to work with all-around. The Summoner is much more balanced than its original incarnation, and I don't think anyone disagrees that it was needed. The Rogue gets some huge combat buffs along with a unique method to get more out of their skills. The Monk was more of a sideways step in that it gained a lot of offensive abilities while losing some important defense and utility, and while Flurry of Blows is fixed the size of their Ki pool leaves a lot to be desired considering how much of the class uses it. As for the Barbarian, they didn't actually lose out on much damage-wise - just 1-2 points per hit. Superstition was nerfed but, let's be honest, it's fair. The bonus still applies to a very large portion of saving throws, is still ridiculously high, and got a stealth buff too - as a Competence bonus it now stacks with Heroism so your saves can be even higher than they used to. As for Rage no longer causing death, that hurts some concepts but fixes some glaring mechanical issues and will certainly save more than a few characters.

Sure the Unchained versions have some issues, but they're simple fixes in home games where Unchained actually matters. Want the Rogue to be better at skills? Maybe give them a scaling bonus to skills they chose with Rogue's Edge. Monks are failing too many saves and run low on Ki? Change their Will Save progression and pick a Ki progression that fits your group's needs (I use the original Ki Pool with Level+Wis in my games). Does your Barbarian want to have some of that "Fights so hard they pass out and possibly even die" flavor? Grant raging Barbarians the Diehard feat. Not liking the Summoner changes? Suck it up, they were broken I kid, I kid, just give them a few more evolution points or use the old spell list. Archetypes will need some work for the Monk to fit correctly but shouldn't be too hard to convert. The beauty of Unchained is that it gives you some great ideas and some rules and class designs to fiddle around with to fit your game's needs. It's not perfect, but it's a good start.


the unchained Barb can actually have a really good DPR since you can basically get it so you get the fighter capstone at lv16. You get these HUGE accuracy buffs, and one of them doubles for crit confirmations and you increase the crit multiplier by 1. and superstition was nerfed, but now it stacks with the rage bonus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps people were hoping for something a little less conservative. I know I was.


Trogdar wrote:
Perhaps people were hoping for something a little less conservative. I know I was.

What, in a book called Pathfinder UNCHAINED? What a kidder you are!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"the designers of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game unleash their wildest ideas, and nothing is safe"

funny yolk


Unchained was that the designers weren't chained by what 3.5 did nor by what they had already done. not that the classes were being unchained, unleashed for maximum power.

Also I feel the classes weren't the main focus of the book.

Apparently Jason is a very mild guy, if his wildest ideas for the Monk were less than what we have now ;)


Chess Pwn wrote:
Apparently Jason is a very mild guy, if his wildest ideas for the Monk were less than what we have now ;)

Considering what seem to be his views on what is "too powerful", I don't doubt it.


One of the first responses to the concept of class re-writes was to ask whether or not Unchained would effect PFS, so its no wonder that Unchained was somewhat restrained to be non-disruptive to the status quo of the rest of the game. I remember one podcast interview that called it Pathfinder Somewhat-Restrained as opposed to Pathfinder Unchained.

That said I think the base of the new classes are better designed.

Barbarian is simpler to use and could use better rage powers to compensate for the disadvantages of having an Atk/Dmg boost as opposed to a Str boost. But it's mode of rage is still a better design and has more room for alteration and functions for rage powers.

Some will complain about how the Summoner had it's options glutted but reall it's a Summoner that has fewer opportunities to be as big of a problem as it once was. All over I've seen people who've banned Summoners allow Unchained Summoner.

Unchained Monk is five steps up and four steps down but that's still a step up and I think it's better designed but just doesn't have the support it needs. It needs more and better Ki Powers, it needs more style strikes, it needs more bonus feat options. But the sheer fact that Ki Powers are modular gives room for adding and fixing and making things more interesting. Its just that it's ki powers suck by just being repurposed class features that need the ki when some of those really should have been active so long as you have X amount of ki. Regardless of that UnMonk is still a better design compared to the normal monk at it's core because the normal monk has fairly locked class features and its only through archetypes that it really opens up.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I prefer the Unchained classes because they're more elegantly designed than those they were based off.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

My thoughts:

- Unchained Summoner fixes a ton of imbalances the original class had. Awesome.

- Unchained Rogue fixes a s%&*ty class. It needs some archetypes to work fully - Ranged builds need some sort of service, namely. But it’s awesome.

- Unchained Monk delivers the promise of a fully mobile, powerfully hitting unarmed martial without the necessity of adding a thousand splatbooks and such. It's an amazing class that let's my players figure out how to play it without a major headache. I have not seen a shred of evidence that it is a downgrade in any way. It has some design flaws: low Ki, slow intake of Style Strikes, Flying Kick is mandatory. But it is head and shoulders above the vanilla Monk. The same people who say the Zen Archer is amazing are the people who say the Unchained Monk is nothing but a good beatstick, while the Zen Archer is nothing but that. The only way I can reconcile these points of view is that people wanted something specific from the UnMonk - high AC, high saves, good damage, good accuracy, lots of utility - which just isn't feasible or balanced. I can make many more viable builds with the Unchained Monk than with the vanilla Monk, which is 100% dependent on Pummeling Style. The UnMonk is greatly dependent on Flying Kick, but not in the same amount. TLDR: Try it out. UnMonk works out great.

- Unchained Barbarian is better than the vanilla Barbarian in terms of design. It's worse in terms of power, which the vanilla Barbarian didn't need to lose. Overall, I think the UnBarb should be used over the vanilla Barbarian because of ease of use and the removal of rage cycling, which was a stupid mechanic and made no sense in-game. It was an example of metagaming exploits that had no place in a fantasy simulation.


UnMonk is a strict side-grade. Yeah, it's great that it's a better beatstick when you run out of ki, which, given the nature of UnMonk, and the fact that it still has on average at 10th level... maybe 9, possibly 10, is going to happen, as basically every ability you have that's worth a damn costs at least two.

So... whoopee for being better when you're running on E?

Liberty's Edge

Unchained Summmoner:
It's more balanced than base Summoner, though I dislike the restrictiveness of the class. I also feel like the Evo pool could have used a little more than it gets, even with the free one's. All in all a good change though.

Unchained Rogue
Still not going to breaking any games, still worse than Bards, Investigators, and specially built Alchemists at being a skill monkey. But it's got things going for it, and while I wish it got a little more neat things, it was a good change. Makes me actually have some desire to play it.

Unchained Monk
Meh. I like a lot of it's mechanics now but I think it needs a larger ki Pool, or less expensive ki powers, or more Ki features that work as long as you have 1 point in your pool.

Would be nice if you could use a lot of the old Archetypes.

Unchained Barbarian
All in all I don't like it much. The only thing really appealing to me about it is the redone Rage Mechanic itself. In home games I just give old Barbarian the new one's Rage Mechanic and call it done.

Some of the new Rage Power Stances are nice, mostly the accuracy one. But every time I sit down to build one, the Accuracy Stance is the only one which has any real appeal to me.

I dislike things like Spell Sunder and Come&GetMe were baked into stances. Mostly I dislike that you can't reliably Spell Sunder anymore.

Overall Evaluation Based on which I Prefer
Old Summoner > Unchained Summoner (Better balanced or not, the restrictions on the new one just kills it for me).

Old Rogue <<< Unchained Rogue (Nothing to be Said)

Old Monk < Unchained Monk (I think the new one seems more exciting when I look at it, but I've never been a big Monk guy.)

Old Barbarian > Unchained Barbarian (Dislike many of the old Rage powers being forced into stances.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

UnMonk is a strict side-grade. Yeah, it's great that it's a better beatstick when you run out of ki, which, given the nature of UnMonk, and the fact that it still has on average at 10th level... maybe 9, possibly 10, is going to happen, as basically every ability you have that's worth a damn costs at least two.

So... whoopee for being better when you're running on E?

You keep using that word, "strict". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Also, it does not figure whether they are good with ki or without ki in the comparison.

The Monk has s~%$ accuracy forever, has bad HP for a low AC melee class, is tied down to Pummeling Charge, needs to archetype away from the core fantasy to deliver good results, is fully dependent on magic items to work well, has terrible breakpoints in power.

The UnMonk will always be more accurate, is easier to understand, is free to take any style without sacrificing its HALLMARK trade of mobility (granted, by being dependent of Flying Kick), ALWAYS deals more damage than a vanilla Monk, ALWAYS, regardless on how much Ki it has.

Human Monks can easily solve the Ki issue - with Honored Fist of the Society and the FCB, they can have usually 13 ki by level 10, AND ALL UNMONKS HAVE ACCESS TO KI LEECH AS A QINGQONG POWER.

I can understand people who are disappointed with some stuff about the UnMonk, I really do. But it is leagues and miles a more functional class than the Monk and it does not require archetyping the s+$# out of it to work.

It is missing some extra Ki? They can release a couple of options to regain some more quickly through Ki Powers or feats. That's a simple fix.

Low Will save? Not a real issue, as most UnMonk builds should have higher Will saves than a Wizard, Oracle or whatever high-Will non-Wisdom based class.

If you want to see what I'm talking about, I can post builds for you to try it out. But don't knock it just because you read a summary of its abilities and you didn't find Spell Sunder + Divine Grace + 9 level casting on it.

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Unchained Classes, why do so many Players and DMs like them All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.