please explain "unchained" classes


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 127 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Kaouse wrote:
Even if you think rage cycling was an "issue" that absolutely needed to be solved, it would have been easy to prevent abuse by making them once per minute, rather than once per day. Which is exactly what they ended up doing for the Unchained Barbarian's temp HP, anyway.

Your argumentation is backwards. Just because a fix wasn't good, doesn't mean the fix wasn't necessary.

Kaouse wrote:
Unless you think that a martial class getting access to stuff like Flight, Spell Sunder, Strength Surge, Ultimate Clarity etc. was an "issue," (...)

In this very thread I wrote "The class could do with a) a rage power to fly", four months befor your first post. I copy pasted that statement in my response to your first thread. So either you literally don't read my posts, or you're deliberately misrepresenting my point of view. I even said "I mostly agree on your basic points", meaning I do agree that unBarb should have more upsides beside doing damage. I celebrated the oversight of unMonk having access to Empty Body at 4th level for this exact reason, because "thanks to that, unMonk has a cool but not overpowered ability that grants the class much needed versatility."

But this doesn't change the fact that the choice to make an unchained Barbarian was good, only that the choices of how to rework rage powers (both in writign the new ones and selecting allowed old ones) wasn't.

Kaouse wrote:
The only issue that the Barbarian needed "fixing" was dropping dead when leaving Rage, and Raging Vitality already fixed that.

Needing a feat from a later book is not a "fix". Especially since players are likely to not realize the problem until it actually affects them.

Ragecycling is a cheezy abuse that hampers roleplaying, there's no arguing that. In a roleplaying game, having an option that prevents roleplaying mechanically highly desirable is an issue that needs fixing. Rage cycling basically brakes the "stormwind fallacy".


Derklord wrote:
Needing a feat from a later book is not a "fix". Especially since players are likely to not realize the problem until it actually affects them.

Especially if they're a new player who picked barbarian for the flavour and didn't really know what they were doing. "You fall over, you pass out, your rage stops, and your rage HP go away, what does that leave you on?" "er... minus 20" "oh, you're dead, oops" is not a great conversation to have.


Derklord wrote:
Stuff

Fair, I accept the unmonk remarks though any class that requires cash money spent per encounter is suspect in my book. My GM's tend to be stingy with resources though so that is probably personal bias.

Disagree on the other martial characters however. Gunslingers do not need an inherent accuracy boost because they target touch AC. The whole strength of the class is that you can take absurd penalties to your accuracy and dish out reliable damage against things way outside your weight class. Avenger Vigilante is, indeed, the accuracy boost for the Vigilante in the form of +5 BAB over 20 levels. That is the whole point of being an Avenger, being a pseudo-Rogue with +5 BAB over a regular rogue or ninja. Brawler doesn't get a conventional accuracy boost but it does gain +5 accuracy on combat maneuvers. Cavaliers and Samurai are subpar in many aspects and a lack of accuracy boost hurts them quite a bit. Its not good to be sharing their company on a class analysis list.

Rather than focus on characters without built in accuracy boosts though...Fighter, Anti/Paladin, Barbarian, Bloodrager, Ranger, Shifter, Slayer, and Swashbuckler all have accuracy boosts built into their chassis as full BAB classes. Let me just say that I don't think the Unmonk burning a ki point to get a level scaling accuracy boost for rounds per level would be unreasonable and leave it at that. It would simply put it in better company.


Cavaliers and samurai who want one get their accuracy boost from their order


ShroudedInLight wrote:
Disagree on the other martial characters however.

You can't. My statement of "By default, Brawler, Gunslinger, Avenger Vigilante don't have any bonus to attack rolls, and Cavalier and Samurai only when charging." is objectively true. That's a fact, you can't disagree with facts.

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Gunslingers do not need an inherent accuracy boost because they target touch AC.

Yes, they don't need one (except Bolt Ace), but they don't have one, making my statement true, and yours false.

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Avenger Vigilante is, indeed, the accuracy boost for the Vigilante in the form of +5 BAB over 20 levels.

We were talking about full BAB characters, for which Vigilante only qualifies if it already has selected avenger. At which point it doesn't have an accuracy boost, making my statement true, and yours false.

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Brawler doesn't get a conventional accuracy boost but it does gain +5 accuracy on combat maneuvers.

I could have specified here like I did for Cavalier and Samurai, but your blanket statement is definitely proven false here.

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Cavaliers and Samurai are subpar in many aspects and a lack of accuracy boost hurts them quite a bit.

You even admit that these don't have an accuracy boost, making my statement true, and yours false.

­

ShroudedInLight wrote:
Its not good to be sharing their company on a class analysis list. (...) It would simply put it in better company.

Maybe you should stop caring about some utterly arbitrary "company", and look at how good the actual class is. If you a) do the math, or b) play the class, you'll see that unMonk is doign fine. What you're doing here is look at 1% of the class while ignoring the other 99%. The existence of an accuracy boost is not what differentiates the good from the bad martials. Lacking one is not the issue Cavaliers and Samurai have, otherwise, those classes would be fine with the right Order.


Derklord wrote:
Your argumentation is backwards. Just because a fix wasn't good, doesn't mean the fix wasn't necessary.

On the contrary. If a fix makes something worse, then it's completely unnecessary. If you take your car to auto shop to fix a busted tire and the thing comes back with 4 broken windows and no working signal lights, you're not gonna be okay because the tire is fixed, are you?

No, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, only fix what's broken, don't mess with everything else.

Quote:

In this very thread I wrote "The class could do with a) a rage power to fly", four months befor your first post. I copy pasted that statement in my response to your first thread. So either you literally don't read my posts, or you're deliberately misrepresenting my point of view. I even said "I mostly agree on your basic points", meaning I do agree that unBarb should have more upsides beside doing damage. I celebrated the oversight of unMonk having access to Empty Body at 4th level for this exact reason, because "thanks to that, unMonk has a cool but not overpowered ability that grants the class much needed versatility."

But this doesn't change the fact that the choice to make an unchained Barbarian was good, only that the choices of how to rework rage powers (both in writign the new ones and selecting allowed old ones) wasn't.

The choice to leave the Unchained Barbarian without access to flight was an intentional one on the part of the developers. So too, was the choice to nerf a number of rage powers into irrelevancy. Weakening the Barbarian class was every bit as much the "point" of the Unchained Barbarian, just like weakening the Summoner was the "point" of the Unchained Summoner. They just weren't as forthcoming as they were with the latter.

Which brings me to my next point - an Unchained version of the class wasn't needed. Especially to fix what is at it's core, a single issue - Rage. You know what they could have done instead? Given the class a reprint! Feats and spells get reprints and erratas all the time, why not reprint a class feature to avoid the issue of Sudden Barbarian Death Syndrome (and if necessary, tackle rage cycling at the same time)?

You know what else they could have done? Create an archetype with the changed Rage mechanic! This new rage would have a clause that prevents death, and might also have a clause preventing rage cycling. They could even force PFS players to use this version of the Barbarian, just like they force Summoners to play Unchained.

Quote:
Kaouse wrote:
The only issue that the Barbarian needed "fixing" was dropping dead when leaving Rage, and Raging Vitality already fixed that.
Needing a feat from a later book is not a "fix". Especially since players are likely to not realize the problem until it actually affects them.

Um, there are a ton of "fix" feats. Just look at the Fighter with Item Mastery feats. Or the Medium with Legendary Influence. There's a host of feats that are specifically meant to help fix a class with serious issues. There's nothing wrong with having players pick up Raging Vitality to fix the single issue with the class.

Or just do what I do when I play Barbarian, and not adjust my HP when I rage. Helps me keep conscious of my true limits. There are a ton of things that unaware newbie players need to be kept conscious of. Like playing a martial with no access to flight being forced to sit in the corner against a flying foe cuz they didn't have a decent ranged option prepared.

Quote:
Ragecycling is a cheezy abuse that hampers roleplaying, there's no arguing that. In a roleplaying game, having an option that prevents roleplaying mechanically highly desirable is an issue that needs fixing. Rage cycling basically brakes the "stormwind fallacy".

Yeah, see, I disagree. Rage Cycling is an interesting mechanic that is great to roleplay, because it means that you are in control of your own emotions, rather than the other way around. The ability to shift your mood instantaneously from jovial to serious and then back to normal is seen in a lot of places in media.

Wrath, from Full Metal Alchemist (Manga/Brotherhood version) is a good example of this. Despite being the Homonculous embodying the emotion closest to Rage, he himself is always cool, measured and collected. He can go from a happy smile to a serious death glare in an instant. Goku, from DBZ, can do the same. He can have a chat with somebody, go all serious to block an attack, then go right on back to having a chat with them.

Even the ability to control your emotions and change them on a dime is something that can be seen as emotional training, which is literally what happens in the final training arc for Gash Bell [1](Zatch Bell in English, though the anime adaptation never made it to the final arc where this happens).

Long story short, different people have different opinions and what you may think is "breaking immersion" may be perfectly in line with what somebody else believes. I do not believe that Rage Cycling is an issue that requires fixing, and I think that the Unchained Barbarian's "fix" to the issue is far worse than the issue ever was.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaouse wrote:
On the contrary. If a fix makes something worse, then it's completely unnecessary. If you take your car to auto shop to fix a busted tire and the thing comes back with 4 broken windows and no working signal lights, you're not gonna be okay because the tire is fixed, are you?

No, no, no, no! Your argument is utterly absurd. To keep with your metaphor, you're saying that because the repair shop made it worse, the busted tire was never a problem, and you could have just ckept drivign around with it, no problem. That's just plain ridiculous.

I could argue every single point you make in your post, but if you completely refuse to adhere to logic, I think that would be a waste of my time.


I never said that driving around with a busted tire wasn't a problem. You're attacking a strawman and then immediately resorted to an ad hominem (saying that I refuse to adhere to logic).

We agree that Sudden Barbarian Death Syndrome (the broken tire in my example) was a problem, yes?

We also agree that Unchained Barbarian's loss of flight and other rage powers (the missing windows and signal lights) is also a problem, yes?

So in essence, we took our car (the class) to the mechanic (the developers) to fix a specific problem (Sudden Barbarian Death Syndrome) and ended up with a car missing some of it's previous key components (Flight, Spell Sunder, Ultimate Clarity, etc.), but with the previous problem (SBDS/the tire) being fixed.

What part of this example is logically inconsistent?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaouse wrote:
I never said that driving around with a busted tire wasn't a problem. You're attacking a strawman and then immediately resorted to an ad hominem (saying that I refuse to adhere to logic).

Stop lying. You said "If a fix makes something worse, then it's completely unnecessary."

I didn't make an ad hominem either, because that 'offending' statement, even if you take it as offensive, was not part of any argumentation. I'm not saying "I'm right/You're wrong because you don't adhere to logic", I'm saying "I'm won't further argue with you because you don't adhere to logic".


2 people marked this as a favorite.

For what it's worth I think the idea of rage cycling being played off as a great RP opportunity is the biggest lie in this entire thread.

It's supposed to be rage, as in uncontrollable anger. Not a guy popping uppers and downers every other round.

It's pure system abuse. Nothing more. There is nothing stopping someone from having the same RP for unchained other than said system abuse.


The idea that mechanical advantage is the only thing that provides great rp opportunities is pretty common in TTRPG's honestly


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
Kaouse wrote:
I never said that driving around with a busted tire wasn't a problem. You're attacking a strawman and then immediately resorted to an ad hominem (saying that I refuse to adhere to logic).
Stop lying. You said "If a fix makes something worse, then it's completely unnecessary."

If a trip to the auto shop for a busted tire results in a fixed tire, but also broken/missing windows and signal lights, then YES, that trip to the auto shop was completely unnecessary. The class had problems before Unchained. After Unchained it has more, albeit different, problems. That's what I call an unnecessary fix.

At this point, we're arguing semantics because you can't bring yourself to admit that Unchained made the class worse overall, even for people who weren't abusing rage cycling.

Cavall wrote:

For what it's worth I think the idea of rage cycling being played off as a great RP opportunity is the biggest lie in this entire thread.

It's supposed to be rage, as in uncontrollable anger. Not a guy popping uppers and downers every other round.

It's pure system abuse. Nothing more. There is nothing stopping someone from having the same RP for unchained other than said system abuse.

Yeah, I disagree, and I've already stated my reasons why.

Super Saiyan transformations also used to be expressions of pure, unbridled rage, too. Now look at them. They're casual modes of power that the characters can turn on and off at will. A quiet expression of power is something widely seen across all media.

Surprise! Other people have different opinions than you when it comes to the fluff of a core mechanic!

If I had to guess though, the real problem here is the same problem that people have with every martial once they start gaining decent options - the "it's not realistic, so it breaks my immersion" argument.

Ignoring the fact that I've already laid out a way in which it could easily be fluffed to be realistic, this argument is a rather silly one to hold in a game with wizards and sorcerers stopping time, creating their own demiplanes, turning invisible, etc.

Worse still, even if I accept the premise that rage cycling was flawed and needed fixing, it still doesn't address the fact that the class was made irrevocably worse even for players who don't abuse rage cycling.

The loss of specific rage powers with high narrative strength like Spell Sunder, Flight and Ultimate Clarity, rage powers being made incompatible with one another through the Stance mechanic, and rage powers going from once/rage to once/day (instead of something more reasonable like once/minute), are all things that harm players who didn't abuse rage cycling. Either address these points, or admit that the Unchained Barbarian, while fixing some core issues, still introduced other issues that weakened the class overall.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Being so angry you could fly was stupid in the first place. There. I said it.

And justifying system abuse by saying not doing it is stopping you from roleplaying is even worse.

Unchained barbarian is great, and was made for everyone playing tired of system abuse and clunky mechanics.


Cavall wrote:

Being so angry you could fly was stupid in the first place. There. I said it.

And justifying system abuse by saying not doing it is stopping you from roleplaying is even worse.

Unchained barbarian is great, and was made for everyone playing tired of system abuse and clunky mechanics.

Don't forget growing claws, sprouting spikes (that eventually hurt Good creatures that get too close), getting a toxic bite, giving their mount DR/magic, and summoning spirits that protect them and attack their enemies. Oh wait, those are the powers the Unchained Barbarian still gets. Growing a pair of wings and flying? Really not that strange.

Like I said last time, I am going to continue to call it a nerf because it explicitly pruned the rage power list of the better powers and a bunch of not great powers that apparently didn't fit their idea of Barbarian. If you can give me one good reason why Dragon Totem Wings was removed while the rest of its line was included then I'll reconsider. But until then it's just a stealth nerf Paizo slipped in while claiming to fix the class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cavall wrote:
Being so angry you could fly was stupid in the first place. There. I said it.

AKA "it's not realistic so it breaks my immersion" AKA called it.

IMO, what's really stupid is having no access to flight (or even a decent range option) in a game where a vast majority of later level enemies have flight.

Quote:
And justifying system abuse by saying not doing it is stopping you from roleplaying is even worse.

How terrible of me, to alter the fluff of an ability like that? I forgot, this game isn't meant for me to use my imagination, is it? Forgive me for playing a character in a way you did not envision. /s

At any rate, like I said before (and even went as far as to bold and italicize for emphasis), this doesn't really address all of the stuff that was nerfed even for people who weren't using your so-called system abuse.

In other words, you constantly pivoting to the "system abuse" argument is just a strawman at this point.

Quote:
Unchained barbarian is great, and was made for everyone playing tired of system abuse and clunky mechanics.

I'm guessing you consider Flight, Spell Sunder, Strength Surge, Ultimate Clarity and all the other stuff I brought up as "system abuse and clunky mechanics," then?

How terrible those Barbarian players must be, for selecting a rage power and doing exactly what it says that they can do. Such an abuse of the system! /s


Kaouse wrote:
Cavall wrote:
Being so angry you could fly was stupid in the first place. There. I said it.

AKA "it's not realistic so it breaks my immersion" AKA called it.

IMO, what's really stupid is having no access to flight (or even a decent range option) in a game where a vast majority of later level enemies have flight.

Quote:
And justifying system abuse by saying not doing it is stopping you from roleplaying is even worse.

How terrible of me, to alter the fluff of an ability like that? I forgot, this game isn't meant for me to use my imagination, is it? Forgive me for playing a character in a way you did not envision. /s

At any rate, like I said before (and even went as far as to bold and italicize for emphasis), this doesn't really address all of the stuff that was nerfed even for people who weren't using your so-called system abuse.

In other words, you constantly pivoting to the "system abuse" argument is just a strawman at this point.

Quote:
Unchained barbarian is great, and was made for everyone playing tired of system abuse and clunky mechanics.

I'm guessing you consider Flight, Spell Sunder, Strength Surge, Ultimate Clarity and all the other stuff I brought up as "system abuse and clunky mechanics," then?

How terrible those Barbarian players must be, for selecting a rage power and doing exactly what it says that they can do. Such an abuse of the system! /s

You didnt "call" anything of the sort, since it's completely... and I mean COMPLETELY unrelated to any talking point I've brought up about why unchained is just fine. Dont even pretend you know what I like or dont like about gaming. And again, stop twisting it to be something you're talking about since it never was. You're ability to goalpost move is matched only by your ability to pretend closing down system abuse somehow stops you from roleplaying.

And I have no issue with flight, theres a dozen ways to get it. Use one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Derklord wrote:
*yelling at the computer screen*

You don't need to be so angry about stuff mate. It makes having a conversation rather difficult. I don't hate the Unmonk or think they are a bad class, I just don't think their redesign was perfect and the topic of the thread has become one for thoughts about the unchained classes. One of the core Monk's issues was being MAD and having low attack rolls. They are still MAD, and they still have low attack rolls for a martial character. Screaming about how lots of classes don't have attack roll boosts isn't relevant to the fact that the redesign of the monk did not fix many of the core issues that made the core monk feel anemic.

Does the Unmonk do some cool things? Sure! Ki powers becoming modular, ditching the old 3.5 static monk in favor of adopting the Qui-gong monk style of adaptation allows for much more interesting/varied characters. Style strikes, while frustratingly limited to unarmed strikes without significant investment, are a neat addition to the class. Gaining proficiency with everything with the monk weapon quality was freaking inspired. The unmonk is smoother, easier to understand, and most importantly modular in design allowing for creative builds.

The point is "All of those things are cool, but did the change fix the problems with the Monk?" and I'm not sure the answer is yes. The changes made the monk feel more mystical, easier to play, and the class is good enough at combat with enough tools available to be min-maxed effectively. However, design wise I'm just not sure the goals of the unchained class were met. Players had problems with the Monk, the monk still has those problems. Instead, other areas of the monk were buffed and polished. The calculus for figuring out whether polishing other areas makes up for not addressing the core concerns is not a hard kind of math and will leave things up to personal opinion.


To me the monk was very set and had clunky rules for fists. Pathfinder was always about having options and monks honestly had so few.

Unchained helped that, so I've no proble there but I'm not a Monk player honestly.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And can we stop listing DBZ as something to aspire to? Good lord, people complain about power creep then bring up a cartoon that might as well be titled "power creep, the cartoon"


I forget how many DBZ characters were, at last count, capable of blowing up entire planets. (Four?)


Slim Jim wrote:
I forget how many DBZ characters were, at last count, capable of blowing up entire planets. (Four?)

All of them. The only exceptions being Bulma, Chichi, Mr Popo, Mr Satan, Videl, Chiaotzu, and maybe Yamcha. And the animals, but they aren't fighters anyway so they don't count.


The original monk had some legacy design problems and needed more options.

They should have done what they said they were going to do and revised the rules on Improved Natural Attack and monk's Unarmed Strike.

The unchained monk gave a few more options but then gave monks a weak will save, which is an abomination.

A monk redesign should have focused on giving monks style feats, combat maneuvers, and worked more like the brawler.


Ryan Freire wrote:
And can we stop listing DBZ as something to aspire to? Good lord, people complain about power creep then bring up a cartoon that might as well be titled "power creep, the cartoon"

Things that are basic to every noteworthy DBZ fighter at the very start of the series:

- Flight
- Ranged Attacks
- AoE Attacks

You really cannot function without these things in the world of DBZ without being turned into a joke.

Despite what you may think, Pathfinder is really much the same, at least at higher levels (early levels are more like the original Dragonball in terms of power).

Funnily Enough, it's easy to play a DBZ character in Pathfinder...as a caster. They get Overland Flight, they get ranged touch attacks and AoE attacks, and they have a resource pool that they can run out of. They can't destroy planets, but destroying small towns and cities is a breeze at higher level, with stuff like world wave and even just Control Winds.

You know who can't do any of that? Martials. Martials as a whole lack flight and AoE, and their ranged options require immense investment just to deal with the vast number of inherent penalties (like shooting into melee, did that really need to exist?). Long Story short, if you're trying to be a DBZ character, Unchained Barbarian is a poor choice.

Since we've already just accepted and internalized casters being DBZ-lite, why would it be so wrong for martials to have a few basic tools that allow them to do their freaking job? Why must the martial that comes closest to having these necessary tools (the Core Barbarian, who still lacks AoE) be nerfed to not having them?


DBZ is a s~%+ setting in a cartoon with the depth appropriate for like...elementary schoolers.

YOU may have accepted casters being DBZ lite...I certainly havent.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Long story short if you're trying to make a DBZ character this game is a poor choice.

Also Mr Hercule Satan is not a joke he was the G#$ d%*n champion of the world, you leave him alone.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Can I make Naruto using uMonk, or will Teisatsu Vigilante be a better choice?


Gorbacz wrote:
Can I make Naruto using uMonk, or will Teisatsu Vigilante be a better choice?

Neither. Things Naruto can do:

-Walk up walls
-Walk on water
-Transform into other objects
-Summon clones to aid him
-Attack with Rasengan Variants
-Gain buffs from the Kyuubi

From a purely objective standpoint, Sorcerer is your best bet.

-Spider Climb
-Water Walking
-Disguise Self / Polymorph
-Army Accross Time / Summon Monster X
-Shocking Grasp + other evocations
-Rage spell + other buff spells

This is sort of what I mean when I say casters are DBZ-lite; not because of overwhelming power, but because of overwhelming options.

101 to 127 of 127 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / please explain "unchained" classes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.