| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, I've had the PF Unchained PDF for a little bit. I think I've had it in my downloads since March. Unfortunately, I've found that though I like reading adventures in PDF occasionally, rules are something I really need a book to hold and sit down to read.
So, I finally got the hardcover in a recent order from Paizo.
O....M....G....
This book is awesome!
I love what they did to Rogues and Monks.
However, now that I've read through it, how do you go about using it?
Do you just replace the old stuff wholesale, or do you pick and choose?
Which is PFS legal, and what is not.
Can two people use two different Monks at the same time, or two different Rogues, one from Unchained, the other from core?
I'm tempted to just life this wholesale and whatever conflicts with the other rules, use the unchained rules...is that how everyone else is doing it?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unchained has a bunch of optional rules and systems that you can mix and match to implement in your games as you like. Use the systems you like, and tweak them to fit your gamestyle. Background Skills and Variant Multiclassing are easy to drop in for instance, but revised action economy makes bigger changes to how the game is played.
Only the classes are legal for PFS play. You can play either Core or Unchained Monks, Barbarians, and Rogues - even mix at the same table - but, the unchained rogue is pretty much a straight upgrade from the core rogue.
The unchained summoner leads to fewer problems than the original, and any new characters must use the Unchained version in PFS. In home games you could see them side-by-side, but you would want to tweak one or the other.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been slowly implementing subsystems from Unchained in my home games. I used Automatic Bonus Progression and Dynamic Item Creation in my Hell's Rebels game, and I'm using Background Skills and possibly Stamina in my Iron Gods game. I plan to keep using pretty much all of these systems, though I don't know that there are any others that I plan to implement at any point.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ABP makes adjudicating NPC loot so much easier, it's a wonder it wasn't implemented right at the start!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a mixed bag, some garbage, some decent, some good. I already had a better version of ABP in play for a couple of years before Unchained. The UnRogue is a step in the right direction. UnMonk is a sidegrade at best, a downgrade if you factor in Monk archetypes (which it can't use). UnSummoner makes the class much, much weaker and takes away everything interesting about it, and UnBarbarian is just an unnecessary nerf to a solid class because adding 2+2 was apparently hard for some people.
Background skills are neat, but nothing gamechanging since a lot of GMs did this anyway. I'd like fractional bonuses if it weren't for all the OTHER things in this system discouraging multiclassing that it DOESN'T fix. Good as a standalone for people that really want to MC though.
Stamina is a good idea but requires way too much bookkeeping for which feats you have and if they were from a source released before Unchained and what their Stamina benefit is...it really would have been best if it'd been in the game from the start and used as a core assumption for all combat Feats. Revised Action Economy is so bad. Variant multiclassing is, 9 times out of 10, not worth the trade-off.
All in all if I knew what was inside before I got the book I wouldn't have paid money for it.
Can't speak for other tables but mine uses the rogue from it along side the core rogue.
...Why?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My GM banned the Core rogue in favor of the Unchained rogue, so I went into a big joking outrage over it, demanding to play my "favorite class".
But seriously, why? :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who likes the Revised Action Economy? It obviously needs tweaking, but it really does help out to enable martials who aren't archers, lack reach, and don't pounce.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The revised action economy rules were also my favorite part of the book, and the ones which have added the most fun to our games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how they specifically outlined skill uses with ranks you have.
Nothing like running from the magical true sight guards who turn a corner to find an old lady hobbling along "He went thata way!" you crone with your 15 disguise ranks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one who likes the Revised Action Economy? It obviously needs tweaking, but it really does help out to enable martials who aren't archers, lack reach, and don't pounce.
My fav part of the book, honestly. I've implemented it in games I run, and have no intentions of going back to the old ways. Of course, I have some amendments to it that really just feel like common sense at the end of the day. Most 1-round-duration swift actions become free actions (i.e. Arcane Strike, "Litany" spells, etc). I made Rapid Shot and Manyshot behave like Two-Weapon Fighting does.
If I had to rank things...
1. Revised Action Economy
2. Stamina & Combat Tricks
3. Automatic Bonus Progression
4. Unchained classes
5. Skill Unlocks
6. Dynamic Item Creation
7. Diseases & Poisons
We give Combat Stamina to all Full Base Attack classes, with absolutely 0 complaints. Other classes may simply select the feat anytime they qualify. I have a modified ABP chart that includes everything minus the legendary gifts and weapon/armor attunement. Also, I have the bonuses from the chart listed as untyped, just so players can enjoy their abilities to the fullest (Rings of Protection never played well with Protection From Evil). Unchained classes are just the player's choice (minus Summoner, because reasons). Skill Unlocks are surprisingly neat; kudos to Heal and Sense Motive. Dynamic Item Creation is just flavorific. Disease & Poison tracks, while less diverse, offer a different take on afflictions.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
UnMonk is a sidegrade at best, a downgrade if you factor in Monk archetypes (which it can't use)
I would argue monk archetypes were always high-tuned upgrades stapled onto the clearly immensely flawed core monk chasis. Of course monk archetypes are strong. They were always meant to be strong to compensate for the godawful monk class. Unless those Core Monk archetypes were overpowered (tetori, zen archer, sensai, quiggong), nobody would touch the class with a 10 foot pole.
The UMonk class is solid and very capable on its own and can keep up with other classes. It would be a horrible mistake to bring back some of the old archetypes (except maybe tetori because I like what it did despite being overpowered) without serious rebalances to the point that they barely even seem the same archetype. It is healthier from a game design standpoint to ban old archetypes so they can start fresh and release properly balanced archetypes for the new UMonk.
...and UnBarbarian is just an unnecessary nerf to a solid class because adding 2+2 was apparently hard for some people.
You joke, but some people have next to zero system mastery and it does actually help immensely. The numbers do eventually get a bit overwhelming for some poeple. But that's besides the point and not really a big concern for most players.
It clearly left out some niche things about rage but those are fairly simple to houserule back in (bonuses to Fort saves, Strength skills and checks). Otherwise, the two are fairly comparable and have ported over most of the important rage powers.
Stamina is a good idea but requires way too much bookkeeping for which feats you have and if they were from a source released before Unchained and what their Stamina benefit is...it really would have been best if it'd been in the game from the start and used as a core assumption for all combat Feats.
So we go from mocking simplicity to complaining about complexity? The stamina system requires as much if not less book-keeping than most casters, and the benefits are fairly decent and easy to learn as you gain feats over time. The best thing about stamina is the ability to improve attack rolls on demand and give fighters a good resource to empower the one thing they have in abundance. Feats. Fighters not just being mindless beatsticks is a good thing and giving them some cool powers is a wonderful improvement. Not that it changes things too much but I have certainly been having fun with it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
RAE- as written it's a bit incomplete and feels rushed, I have since amended and tested my own version of it which is online for free, and my players and I all love it. It takes everything that I liked from 5e and lets me play the characters and options from PF. Again, it's only after my house rules that I feel this way so grain of salt (still though it's mind-boggling how much this system alone lessens the gap in C/M D).
Skill Variants- I've tried all the skill variants and the only one we still use is the Background Skills, which I love. I go back to my "everything good from 5e in PF instead" stance for this one. Consolidated skills aren't bad, but leave a little to be desired, and the grouped skills were difficult for my players to grasp and enjoy, considering the Scholar group was just so much better than any of the other choices. I'm also quite partial to the variants on expanding the uses of craft/profession skills to cover other skills niches for role playing reasons, very nice touch.
Item rules- I like these a lot, but my players find it daunting to use so I don't. We do employ some of them though, like being able to bypass the extra 50% cost to put your big 6 items on other magic items. We also really like the scaling items. The rules for crafting haven't come up, but that's mostly due to the fact that my players know that they have to follow them and it discourages Magic Item Crafting for optimization purposes which is what I wanted, so that's a good thing imo.
Classes- I use hybrid rules for my monks, taking the bits and pieces of both classes that I like since I felt some of the options in the Unchained monk were pointless, like giving up good will saves just to get class abilities that effectively give it back. The unchained barbarian I haven't touched because I don't want to relearn a class that I had no issues with. I've seen summoners destroy games first hand, so I'm glad to see a revision. All rogues are Unchained Rogues for me.
Stamina Tricks- I just wrote the fighter guide where I actually learned all of them, and most of them are astounding. It's a hidden class feature and I can't advocate enough for what it does for fighters getting it for free and any other class wanting to buy into it with a feat. It's fantastic, opens up more options (by bypassing the INT 13 prerequisite on combat feats) and some of them don't even have costs, and function like grit. I cannot say enough good things about it, this was the unchained fighter and it was good.
Casting Variants- I have used none of these, as my players don't want to learn a new magic system and neither do I. Most of the time I see players run casters to avoid offensive d20 rolls and this system ruins the game for those players.
Variant Multiclassing- I use it, and I have tweaked some of them to have different options to better capture the aspects of multiclassing into those classes. For example, I have a Pistolero Gunslinger who plans to stack the sneak damage up to 10d6 (accomplished sneak attacker) who needed to give up Uncanny Dodge and Evasion, so in place of those three VMC options I'm letting him take a rogue talent. He's happy, I'm happy. I've done similar things with the classes that grant cantrips at 11th level. I also give VMC fighters Combat Stamina for free at 1st, as well as counting levels for fighter feats.
A lot of these systems make the exiting rules better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love what they did to Rogues and Monks.
Unchained provides a big upgrade package to the rogue, true. But if you look closely into the numerous books since Core, you can find way more boosting material there - it's just scattered all over the place. Since the Core rogue isn't that strong, it's more likely that new material will improve it. So far only the 'just 1d6 sneak per 2 class levels' has been set in stone (more or less).
I built a half-elf lately, and after a lot of cherrypicking from different books I don't feel any need for an Unchained rogue:
Alternate racial traits
* ARG: Ancestral arms (earthbreaker) (do some damage without sneak attack)
* Heroes of the Wild: Fey thoughts (Knowledge (nature), Fly)
Traits
* APG: Elven Reflexes (+2 initiative)
* APG: Fast Talker (+1 Bluff - not much, but will be used often for feint)
Archetypes
* APG: Rake (demoralize quickly to get a higher effective AC, more Bluff for feint)
* APG: Scout (sneak attack after charge & some movement)
Feats
* Dirty Tactics Toolbox: Dirty Fighting (unlocks feint & dirty trick feats while providing additional benefits)
* APG: Improved Dirty Trick (sand in their eyes - nuff said)
* ACG: Twinned Feint (basically the Cleave feat of feinting)
* UC: Quick Dirty Trick (better action economy is always good)
* maybe more (planned only till level 12 yet)
Rogue talents
* UM: Vanish spell for Major Magic rogue talent (invisible for 4+ rounds? long enough if used in combat)
* Blood of Shadows: Gloom Magic (darkness which doesn't impact you)
* Blood of Shadows: Greater Gloom Magic (deeper darkness which doesn't impact you)
* Ultimate Intrigue: Stalker Talent (e.g. +20 feet of speed) (needs GM fiat for Core rogue though)
Favored class bonuses
* APG: Half-elf (+1 feint)
* ARG: Elf (+1 use of Vanish)
* APG: Human (getting a second advanced talent at level 10 - if the GM doesn't veto)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we go from mocking simplicity to complaining about complexity? The stamina system requires as much if not less book-keeping than most casters, and the benefits are fairly decent and easy to learn as you gain feats over time.
It's a combination of factors that makes this functionally untrue. The first is that Stamina is an optional system, meaning many (if not most) tables aren't going to use it. I've applied to 3 game that allow it, and the one I got into allowed it only for Fighters...which despite all the upgrades I still really boring to play. So remembering the benefits for every single combat Feat released before Unchained is something you learn as you go, much like the rest of the system. Unlike the rest of the system, it is not something you will be learning in every game. it takes longer.
The second is a lack of an easily accessible online resource that tells you what they do. The PFSRD page is buried deeeep into the site, and all jumbled onto one page just like it is in the PDF. If I want to look up a single spell, I use the website, not my book, because it's a lot faster. Last I checked the Stamina rules don't even have their own page, so I have to navigate through the Unchained hub on that site just to get to them. The PRD isn't any better as I recall.
And the third is, again, remembering if your Feat even HAS a Stamina benefit in the first place. This is the most minor of the three, but you generally know that if you have a spell, you have a spell. Even with Mythic you only have a very small number of Mythic spells so you can easily note what they are and the extra benefits on your sheet.
With Stamina given some of the new books that have come out (particularly for Fighters), there's a roughly equal chance that all, none, or half of your Feats benefit from Stamina because Paizo has a really s$@@ty track record for supporting their optional systems.
As a Fighter, that's a lot of Feats. You probably don't have enough room on your sheet to note all the benefits. Meaning you have to memorize extra benefits for 5/10/15/20 Feats (and for Feats you're already unfamiliar with this is a problem) or rely on relatively hard to quickly access PDFs or web pages and scroll up and down looking for your Feat in a list that is barely organized.
Casters have the same basic problems, but their spell information is more easily accessed, and so it doesn't waste more time at the table when you need to look up your spells.
And is a FAR cry from the Barbarian's level of bookkeeping which boils down to "Hey, remember to add +X to Y things when you Rage".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stamina is definitely a thing that would work better if it was a metacurrency available to martially inclined folks that was baked into the system from the beginning. So rather than retrofitting feats with stamina benefits, you could design feats with stamina considerations from the beginning.
That the stamina system is good and works but is a headache from all the bookkeeping and tracking down all the effects that are printed in books other than the books your feats are in, is a strong argument for some revised/unchained version of the core rules.
|
It's a mixed bag, some garbage, some decent, some good. I already had a better version of ABP in play for a couple of years before Unchained. The UnRogue is a step in the right direction. UnMonk is a sidegrade at best, a downgrade if you factor in Monk archetypes (which it can't use). UnSummoner makes the class much, much weaker and takes away everything interesting about it, and UnBarbarian is just an unnecessary nerf to a solid class because adding 2+2 was apparently hard for some people.
Background skills are neat, but nothing gamechanging since a lot of GMs did this anyway. I'd like fractional bonuses if it weren't for all the OTHER things in this system discouraging multiclassing that it DOESN'T fix. Good as a standalone for people that really want to MC though.
Stamina is a good idea but requires way too much bookkeeping for which feats you have and if they were from a source released before Unchained and what their Stamina benefit is...it really would have been best if it'd been in the game from the start and used as a core assumption for all combat Feats. Revised Action Economy is so bad. Variant multiclassing is, 9 times out of 10, not worth the trade-off.
Agreed and seconded. I was expecting a UnFighter. Instead we received the UnBarbarian. It's as if the devs delibrately ignored the class that needed the most changing to change one that was and is fine as imo.
So we go from mocking simplicity to complaining about complexity? The stamina system requires as much if not less book-keeping than most casters, and the benefits are fairly decent and easy to learn as you gain feats over time.It's a combination of factors that makes this functionally untrue. The first is that Stamina is an optional system, meaning many (if not most) tables aren't going to use it. I've applied to 3 game that allow it, and the one I got into allowed it only for Fighters...which despite all the upgrades I still really boring to play. So remembering the benefits for every single combat Feat released before Unchained is something you learn as you go, much like the rest of the system. Unlike the rest of the system, it is not something you will be learning in every game. it takes longer.
Of the feats that I have used as a fighter with a stamina option, only about half are ones I need really care about. And if I did care about them, I would probably memorize them. For instance, Barroom Brawler's stamina power is essentially a Quickened ability, but Power Attack's bonus is totally useless in most scenarios. The feats you have usually remain static, probably pertain to your build in some way, and because of the genuinely miniscule amount of other things you need to worry about with most fighters (and martials in general), are probably the only things you need to memorize about your class features.
I agree the support is probably going to be largely non-existant but the problems you see with the system are fairly untrue and definitely not as bad as you worry them to be. Having used the system, it is really simple in practice and as easy as just flipping through the book for the feats you do have ahead of time and adding them to a side sheet or something. Most only come up in edge cases (like Power Attack or Weapon Focus) but others are probably something you use all the time (like Barrroom Brawler or any of the Combat Maneuver tricks).
It becomes more unwieldy if you start making use of things like Martial Flexibility, because then you need to keep track of even more feats. Then, I can agree that it does add a whole new level of book-keeping, but any class with Martial Flexibility already has a history of requiring extremely intense system mastery and book-keeping.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
UnMonk is a sidegrade at best, a downgrade if you factor in Monk archetypes (which it can't use)I would argue monk archetypes were always high-tuned upgrades stapled onto the clearly immensely flawed core monk chasis. Of course monk archetypes are strong. They were always meant to be strong to compensate for the godawful monk class. Unless those Core Monk archetypes were overpowered (tetori, zen archer, sensai, quiggong), nobody would touch the class with a 10 foot pole.
The UMonk class is solid and very capable on its own and can keep up with other classes. It would be a horrible mistake to bring back some of the old archetypes (except maybe tetori because I like what it did despite being overpowered) without serious rebalances to the point that they barely even seem the same archetype. It is healthier from a game design standpoint to ban old archetypes so they can start fresh and release properly balanced archetypes for the new UMonk.
I can't find it right now, but on a Umonk thread, when I brought up that Umonk was definitely better than core monk, and about equivalent to core monk with stacked archetypes (always qinggong & at least one more) but that the Umonk was far easier to build, a designer (I forget which) chimed in to say that that was basically what they were going for.
It was never meant to be an upgrade to a archetype stacked monk, it was an easy to build upgrade to the trap option which is the un-archetyped core monk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't find it right now, but on a Umonk thread, when I brought up that Umonk was definitely better than core monk, and about equivalent to core monk with stacked archetypes (always qinggong & at least one more) but that the Umonk was far easier to build, a designer (I forget which) chimed in to say that that was basically what they were going for.
It was never meant to be an upgrade to a archetype stacked monk, it was an easy to build upgrade to the trap option which is the un-archetyped core monk.
I feel like the UnMonk and the UnBarb are both ultimately successful in that they provide a way that's much harder to make a bad version of that character type by accident, a much easier way to make a pretty good version of that character type on purpose, and a much harder way to make a super-powerful version of that character type on purpose.
Though this does make me wonder where the Unchained Fighter is; they've sort of done it with retrofits via AWT and AAT, but it would be nice if they put it all in one place instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The barbarian was always fine, so I never got the need for an unchained version of her. Woulda been nice for an unchained fighter, or maybe an unchained version of one of the less well-built non-Core classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say unMonk is a definite upgrade for all for all normal unarmed or melee weapon based Monks. Basically only the ones that drastically alter the playstyle (Zen Archer, Tetori, Sohei, maybe Far Strike and Maneuver Master) can compete with (or surpass) the unMonk.
Regarding unBarb: Yeah, they claimed to remake the Barb to make it easier, but I'm pretty sure the main reason was to put an end to the cheesy loophole abuse of rage cycling.
Without rage cycling, a cBarb isn't really stronger than a unBarb, but I'm still waiting for a feat or archetype that allows the unBarb to enter a Rage Stance as a swift or free action.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Zen Archer, Tetori, Sohei, maybe Far Strike and Maneuver Master) can compete with (or surpass) the unMonk.
I'd add Sensei & Drunken Master to that mix. (Especially if you stack them.)
Since the errata Master of Many Styles does a pretty solid monk if you use it in combination with natural weapons (since it loses flurry it can combine unarmed with nat weapons rather well). Though without nat weapons it's somewhat sub-par. (before errata it was a stupidly good dip - but a horrible main class)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is that despite these new rules, you can't just apply them to any game.
Economy is awesome, but when you look at half the stuff you need to be ruling on a lot of things.
Many of us can't check this before hand and if this happens during combat it's up to DM, which may create some friction on the table.
RAW there are several things that don't work anymore that did before (using Swifts for example) and that's annoying.
It's nice we get a revised, but when it's not used in PFS, might as well don't exist, because there's already tons of people who already made something better
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I get the wish for a variant rage system (I like rage as it is, but I know people who definitely do not), but it didn't need to be a whole class. It's sort of awkward.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, I use Background Skills 100% (with some exceptions; Perform is an adventure skill for Bards, Craft Alchemy is an adventure skill for Alchemists, etc.). I'm a fan of fractional bonuses as well, since it makes multi-classing a little less painful. Variant Multiclassing is hit-or-miss for me, but I use it as an option for my players.
Unchained Barbarian, Rogue, and Summoner replace the original classes at my table, but players can choose which of ht two monks they want to take - since U-Monk invalidates most archetypes, I figure it's only fair.
The Combat Stamina system is nice as well, though I keep it as a "buy a feat to use this" system. I'd originally planned to give it to Fighters for free, but then they came out with advanced weapon and armor training options, plus item mastery, and a few feats to make maneuvers and styles less onerous, so I figure fighters really didn't need another system put on them (not for free, at least.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I use all three skill variants. Skills are something the group doesn't like to spend a lot of time on, so it's broad and simple.
Stamina system is in use - we also adopted the Unchained Fighter 3PP class by Everyman games. I never liked barbarians because temp stat adjustments is something the group (and I) just don't like , but I do like the unchained version. Unchained Monk we just took options from it, and incorporated it into the Talented Monk from Rogue Genius Games. We use the original summoner and Eidelons, but use the unchained spell list.
Haven't really messed with the new action economy yet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am lobbying our group to adopt Fractional Bonuses. It's turning out to be a harder sell then I thought it would be. That may be because I am currently the only character with a prestige class. :(
Obviously I am a fan of it. Multiclassing is enough of a powerdown as it is without adding anomalies due to the FLOOR()-then-add algorithm. It's a simple change to implement and it fixes a real problem with the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stamina is definitely a thing that would work better if it was a metacurrency available to martially inclined folks that was baked into the system from the beginning. So rather than retrofitting feats with stamina benefits, you could design feats with stamina considerations from the beginning.
That the stamina system is good and works but is a headache from all the bookkeeping and tracking down all the effects that are printed in books other than the books your feats are in, is a strong argument for some revised/unchained version of the core rules.
Should I compile the list and breakdown what they do in my own words as part of the fighter guide (once I'm done)?
Unchained is honestly one of my favorite books.
I use APB, Unchained Action Economy, Unchained Rogue, and Unchained Summoner in my games. They all plug and play without much modification, although Unchained action economy adds hiccups sometimes, especially when things are reduced from like a move action to a swift action due to a feat.
ABP is pretty great [especially when you can figure out how to read the blog chart, but that's another story. It still works with just what the book says mostly fine.]
The games I'm in also allow for variant multiclassing, but no one ever takes the option because of how uneven the options are.
Fractional Progression is cool, but I kind of wish CL also progressed along with BAB somehow. But thats what spheres of power is for I guess.
Revised Action Economy, Background Skills and the Un-classes are all regular house rules at my table. So is my own version of the Automatic Bonus Progression that I had long before Unchained came out.
I think the book is great. But, some of the rules (OK, mostly Revised Action Economy) need some real work to be usable and balanced. On the flip side, there are several great threads on modifying Revised Action Economy. Since the entire book falls under "house rules", it really doesn't matter if you make a few changes.
I think that was entirely the point of the book. It was never a codified series of rules changes for the variant systems, but a tool for DM's to work with in incorporating the systems into their game. And I think that is really neat. It is entirely useless for a PFS situation, which has been brought up numerous times in this thread, but it is great for home games wanting to update their game, which are the vast majoirty of game situations. With a bit of work on the DM's part (and tools here on the forums), they can be really potent ways of refreshing the game and rounding out some inherent problems.
I don't think it ever should have been a book for the players (besides the classes, of course). And it wouldn't have worked if it was completely rounded out rules. I think it is a book to help springboard design within the PF system, and that is something PF lacked up until now. The fact that people have worked to develop on the rules in the book means it has done it's job.
|
Big fan of the book. Love the revised action economy, enough so that I'm happy to put in the extra work to nudge it along.
Unchained classes are much better in general, can't speak for the summoner since I haven't played it but it seems more balanced than the original.
The big benefit of the uBarb is that raging allows different builds now. My bonuses can add to Dex builds or other builds since it's an almost identical flat bonus. Most of the rage powers are improved as well, I hate 1/rage powers anyway.
I think the ABP works but we only tried it in our wrath of the righteous campaign, so not a good yard stick.
I love the book. I use ABP, variant multiclassing, stamina, skill unlocks, uMonk and uRogue, and the poison & disease track. ABP is my favorite part of the book since it eliminates big-6 obsession and allows my NPC villains to be more powerful without drowning them in magic items for the PCs to loot.
I mostly agree. I guess the bone I have to pick regarding RAE is the "Swift action = Simple action" part. If you don't think about it too hard, it seems fine. But it really doesn't work in many cases and almost no guidance was given on how to handle those cases. I think that is what makes it seem "unfinished" to some folks. That said, it is still a great book.
A small houserule I implemented was that most 1-round duration Swift Actions become Free Actions. Mostly pertaining to things like Arcane Strike, "Litany" Spells, and a few Magus Arcana. It doesn't fix the whole thing, but it helps.
The plus side is now we can finally do more than 1 swift action per turn. I'm sure a few Warpriests and Inquisitors are happy about that.
|
|
It reads as problematic and I thought it would be more so in play, but having played the last half of wrath of the righteous with the RAE rules our group adapted very well, and we had a lot of swift actions in the party between the casters, paladin, inquisitor and the mythic rules. It actually served to tone down the power a bit and promoted some interesting tactics. We actually allowed multiple swift actions in a round - well up to three obviously - and this really took the sting out of the RAE/swift dilemma without any appreciable power creep. Of course more "streamlined" groups may be able to leverage more with this.
Worth noting is the dramatic shift in combat towards two weapon fighting and flurry of blows. We saw a big improvement in these combat styles.
TWF and archery get rather interesting. So does Mounted Combat.
The barbarian was always fine, so I never got the need for an unchained version of her. Woulda been nice for an unchained fighter, or maybe an unchained version of one of the less well-built non-Core classes.
I did like the stances!
I like a lot of things from there, but have not tried those that seriously change the game yet. Stamina looks cool and would be a good extra mechanic for martials, the unchained classes were hit and miss (I think they changed the flavor of the summoner a bit much and it should have been the fighter and not the barbarian who got the update), and I think extra background skills are definitely worth putting in a game.
The stamina tricks are the unchained fighter
For real, it does so much more than just boost feats, a lot of prerequisites get skipped like the newer classes are designed to do and several of them function at no cost.
Don't doubt
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the book. I use ABP, variant multiclassing, stamina, skill unlocks, uMonk and uRogue, and the poison & disease track. ABP is my favorite part of the book since it eliminates big-6 obsession and allows my NPC villains to be more powerful without drowning them in magic items for the PCs to loot.
This is an aspect of GMing that I struggle with.... making BBEG powerful enough but preferably not via items as they will end up being looted.