Pathfinder Unchained: Paizo Breaks From 3.5

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I'm currently trying to find a solid source for this, but Paizo is releasing a new supplement called Pathfinder Unchained (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?356530-Pathfinder-Unchained-in-2015) which looks to make some major breaks from the 3.5 model.

More info on this blog (http://www.gamer-xp.com/paizo-announced-pathfinder-unchained-a-break-from-3-5e-rules/)


The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game contains numerous rules considered sacred by players and GMs alike. Since the system itself was based upon RPG "technology" already more than 20 years old, "backwards compatibility" often meant sticking with the familiar, even if tradition was filled with cobwebs and decades-old assumptions. Pathfinder Unchained*dares to take a fresh look at the system itself, altering some of the fundamentals of the game and giving fresh optional takes on classic rules.

You know what sticks with me most about this? The mentality. It sounds like Paizo is finally getting ready to release a Pathfinder that's its own thing, a direct competitor to D&D, scrapping much of the framework and rebuilding it. Frankly, I'm very intrigued. Variety is the best thing that can happen to RPG design, and having a heavyweight like Paizo bringing some amount of rules variety into mainstream RPGs is awesome.

[137beth]

Google
site:paizo.com "pathfinder unchained"

The first result is a product discussion for a product called "Pathfinder Unchained". The entire Paizo.com domain seems to be temporarily down for me, so I can't tell what it actually is.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Google
site:paizo.com "pathfinder unchained"

The first result is a product discussion for a product called "Pathfinder Unchained". The entire Paizo.com domain seems to be temporarily down for me, so I can't tell what it actually is.

Looks like it's down for me as well, but on any google search result, below the link it gives the URL, and to the right of that is a tiny arrow pointing down. You can click that arrow and select to view a cached page. That's actually not loading either, but I got the text-only version (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ka623ZTQFzwJ:https://paizo.com/products/btpy97vo/discuss%3FPathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Pathfinder-Unchained-Hardcover&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1) to load. Here's the pertinent information:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained (OGL) Hardcover
Paizo Publishing, LLC
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Pathfinder Unchained (OGL) Hardcover

Our Price: $39.99

Preorder expected August 2015
Add to Cart
Facebook Twitter Email

Break your chains!

The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game contains numerous rules considered sacred by players and GMs alike. Since the system itself was based upon RPG "technology" already more than 20 years old, "backwards compatibility" often meant sticking with the familiar, even if tradition was filled with cobwebs and decades-old assumptions. Pathfinder Unchained dares to take a fresh look at the system itself, altering some of the fundamentals of the game and giving fresh optional takes on classic rules. Inside this collection of alternate rules and options you'll find completely redesigned versions of the barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner classes. Delve into a new system for resolving player actions designed to speed play and dispel confusion. Many of the new systems (such as the revised classes) work seamlessly with the existing Pathfinder rules. Even the most staunchly traditionalist player will appreciate the book's math-lite system for on-the-fly monster creation and the new system for generating dynamic magic items that go far beyond a simple +1 to add lore and interest to the campaign. Players will love the book's new resource pool for martial characters, allowing for exciting new tactical options, as well as the robust new system that allows spellcasters to modify their spells with powerful spell components.

This 256 page hardcover addition to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game is designed to be used by GMs and players that want to change the way their game is played. You can pick and choose the systems you want to change or you can adopt a number of them for a truly new play experience. With Pathfinder Unchained, you can have the game you want to play!

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscription.
Product Availability

Preorder - Expected approximately August 2015.

[TheIronGolem]

Too vague to make any real judgements. Still, would be nice if we get something that includes Pathfinder's focus on customizability and variety of player options but cuts away the nastier aspects of 3.x like Caster Supremacy.

[137beth]

Hmm, I might consider getting that and seeing what I could port to 3.5. It looks like it will be their 2015 GenCon release. Paizo's mechanics haven't impressed me in the past, but I'll reserve judgement until I see it.

[Pinkie Pyro]

Sounds like pathfinder unearthed arcana to me...

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Sounds like pathfinder unearthed arcana to me...
Ditto; I've also heard people speculating that it's a precursor to their own Pathfinder 2.0, which makes a lot of sense to me. A clean break is exactly what Pathfinder needs to differentiate itself (again with the "breaking free of Wizards' shackles" mentality) as a new game.

It may not be that. But if it is, I'm excited.

[Chernobyl]

Sounds like pathfinder unearthed arcana to me...
Sounds like an excuse to sell a bunch of new sourcebooks to me. :smallconfused:

[Segev]

My guess would also be "PF Unearthed Arcana." PF made its break by being the refuge for D&D gamers when 4e came out and...wasn't the D&D those gamers wanted. To make PF 2.0 not be at least a solid nod in the direction of 3.5 would be a big mistake. I can guess they're trying to make sure they're positioned to compete with D&D Next when it comes out, but they will need to be careful not to position themselves the way 4e did, or they'll just die.

[PsyBomb]

I'd be perfectly happy with a PF version of Unearthed Arcana, actually, but it sounds deeper than that. UA didn't much touch on deeper system assumptions, instead going for paradigm shifts on the same framework. There are a lot of ways to play the game that I personally love (2d10 system, Creative Edits, P6, and a couple of others) that would be great to see codified. Maybe even one of the coveted Custom Class assembly sections, like BESM did (and that was probably my favorite part of the system)

[T.G. Oskar]

Sounds like pathfinder unearthed arcana to me...

Agree with this.

Consider that one of the things that Wizards placed on the OGL was almost the entire content of Unearthed Arcana (if not the entire content), which includes some paradigm shifts that range from small (variant classes, Spelltouched feats) to medium (Players Roll All the Dice, stuff from d20 Modern) to large (Gestalt Rules, Recharging Magic) to extreme (the Bell Curve). PF Unleashed will probably be the same, working with translating all those UA rules into PF without the "Backwards Compatibility" bit. They already adopted many of these things (Archetypes vs. Variant Classes, Hero Points vs. Action Points), but they'll probably adopt bell curve, point-buy d20 (a la Mutants and Masterminds; a classless system where you create the character as you'd like) and maybe diceless (that would be more extreme than not using a d20). That could also be an excuse to add Vitality/Wound points, Taint, Honor and so forth.

To make it a precursor of its own system would be counter-productive. Right now, Pathfinder is reaching its point of maturity, with enough sourcebooks to allow people to determine their direction. Their action would be the equivalent of what the developers of Legend of the Five Rings did with their own game: after a specific edition, they made their own rules. However, they were shifting editions pretty quickly; Pathfinder is still in its "first" edition, so changing to a 2nd Edition so early and without excuse (Wizards of the Coast had the excuse of renovating the rules because of the polarity of 4e) and then completely changing paradigms by introducing a sourcebook that would serve as an informal poll for a new system doesn't make that much logic, when their sole purpose was to gather the 3.5 fans into a system that was familiar to them, but also distinct enough (since "having a balanced game" isn't what the system ended up being).

Sure, they want to set a reaction to D&D Next, but it'll be...strange, to say the least. On one hand, Pathfinder should be comfortable with those customers it already has: it's proving that the OGL still has great relevance, and the lethal would to WotC was delivered. On the other hand, D&D Next/5e aims to be a much, MUCH simpler system for those veteran players, hopefully recovering them and using them as a springboard to newer players (if the system is easy to understand for the vets, they'll be able to showcase it to the newbies; if the system is easy to understand to the newbies, they'll remain playing while the vets will remain DMing, so it's a kind of baton pass in that regard). To defeat D&D Next right at its core, Pathfinder would have to be further simplified, which has two problems IMO. First, they'd be losing the fans they captured when WotC shifted to 4e, and that's a major loss. Second, they'd be facing competition from not one, but various simple systems (the AGE system is as easy to understand and play as Next's rules, and in fact I noticed a distinct similarity between some aspects of both games). So they'd be also competing with those systems, which are either developed and starting to be released or maturing enough without approaching complexity.

In short: I doubt Paizo will be changing from a OGL-based d20 system any time soon. This sourcebook will be the same as what Unearthed Arcana did to 3.5 to an extent: introduce new ways to play the game (the other part of what UA did to 3.5 was that it made easily available a series of variants to the game, most of which were often stored in sourcebooks, enough to make other OGL-based products attempt their own variations). Attempting to face Next so quickly will end in disaster, considering it's still too early to determine if the edition change will be successful to WotC or not.

And, if going to specifics: Paizo already broke from 3.5. It did at the very moment Wizards of the Coast took the Dungeon and Dragon magazines from them.

[Morty]

This is interesting. I've always seen Pathfinder as reactionary and backwards-looking, so this comes as a big surprise to me. I'm looking forward to seeing what they do with all this.

[Squirrel_Dude]

It certainly has me intrigued, though I perhaps wish that this mentality had come sooner, I'll take what I can get. PF Unchained, and the PF Strategy Guide are two of the upcoming books that I think could give us some insight into how the game designers there think about the game.

[Iwasforger03]

I'm gonna wait for more news to get really excited, but the sheer amount of expected new material sounds awesome.

[Snowbluff]

Ditto; I've also heard people speculating that it's a precursor to their own Pathfinder 2.0, which makes a lot of sense to me. A clean break is exactly what Pathfinder needs to differentiate itself (again with the "breaking free of Wizards' shackles" mentality) as a new game.

It may not be that. But if it is, I'm excited.
I doubt it will be that. Things like supremacy aren't something that was merely present in the system. They stuck by these things like white on toast.

Sounds like an excuse to sell a bunch of new sourcebooks to me. :smallconfused:

Oh shush. :smalltongue:

[deuxhero]

I'm most curious why the Barbarian (who is a serviceable class, and while not too great out of combat at least it can try with its skills) and not the fighter is there. Has anyone really called for a Barbarian overhaul? A few oddities needed fixing sure, but an overhaul?

[Psyren]

This is a great way to come out with "PF Maneuvers" and other things that will help martials without alienating those DMs for whom the Fighter is still doing the most damage at the table.


Sounds like an excuse to sell a bunch of new sourcebooks to me. :smallconfused:

No ****! That's kind of what they do. :smalltongue:

[137beth]

Sounds like an excuse to sell a bunch of new sourcebooks to me. :smallconfused:

The entire RPG industry is a giant conspiracy to get your money. It's been admitted by a Paizo-insider! (http://paizo.com/products/btpy9371/discuss?Mythic-Monsters-I-Demons#10)

[Squirrel_Dude]

In the vein of them giving "maneuvers" to fighters, it could also perhaps lead to a point-based casting system like psionics that they have previously commented is something that they didn't want to do.

[deuxhero]

They said that? I know they said they don't want to do Psionics like that because DSP already did it.

[Ravens_cry]

That'd be a little redundant, as Dreamscarred Press already did a Pathfinderization of psionics.
I'd like to see more support for the Word casting system, personally.

[Iwasforger03]

Dreamscarred did Psionics. Now Martial Maneuvers, they could come out with their own system. If Dreamscarred feels up to it or if Paizo sets out to accomplish it, the two could even be fully compatible to each other, which would be... awesome, to say the least. Otherwise we could have two systems to play with. Sadly, I feel that the likelihood of Paizo doing anything already done by a 3rd party as far as full systems like Psionics and Martial Maneuvers go is... low.

[Snowbluff]

Dreamscarred did Psionics. Now Martial Maneuvers, they could come out with their own system. If Dreamscarred feels up to it or if Paizo sets out to accomplish it, the two could even be fully compatible to each other, which would be... awesome, to say the least. Otherwise we could have two systems to play with. Sadly, I feel that the likelihood of Paizo doing anything already done by a 3rd party as far as full systems like Psionics and Martial Maneuvers go is... low.

*coughs* Dreamscarred did maneuvers.
(http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?308912-PF-DSP-Dreamscarred-Press-announces-ToB-inspired-product-II-The-Rematch)
Which is good, because I wanted someone good to do it. I like what they did. I haven't bothered buying it because it's not allowed at my table. It's good.

[stack]

My bet is half-fleshed out optional rules hat will only see sporadic use at any table and never get any support after the initial book. Oh, hi word casting, how are you?

[Psyren]

They have a good relationship with DSP and they'd have to know that attempting to steal their thunder with "official psionics" would likely just cause a backlash among the fans. So whatever this ends up being, I doubt it will have anything to do with psionics.

[Eldaran]

But DSP has Path of War too, so PF Maneuvers would step on their toes as well. Unless it's a complementary work.

[Snowbluff]

But DSP has Path of War too, so PF Maneuvers would step on their toes as well. Unless it's a complementary work.

You just got Swordsaged. Or should I say... stalkered? :smallamused:

[Squirrel_Dude]

They said that? I know they said they don't want to do Psionics like that because DSP already did it.It's an old quote, and I don't feel like tracking it down, but needless to say they were more in favor of something in the vein of "psychic magic" (aka 9 levels of casting spells) than 3.5's version of psionics.

Personally, I'd really like to see a point-based casting system for sorcerers. I've always thought that a point-based system is the best way to do spontaneous casting/spontaneous caster stamina.

[Ssalarn]

Having been at the banquet when Jason announced this one, I think the focus is really going to be on either addressing classes they feel they did wrong initially (Jason specifically said the book was going to include a Summoner who wasn't ridiculously over-powered and game wrecking), or to come back around and look at classes from a fresh perspective that isn't bogged down with old system baggage. He mentioned that there would be a barbarian who was "easier to run at the table", a monk with full BAB, and an improved Rogue. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Fighter make the final cut in this book either, I suspect they just haven't reached a point in their conceptualization where they actually have anything concrete to say about that yet.

I got the impression that this is going to be kind of like a Pathfinder "Essentials" book; there will be alternate versions of several classes that are made to be simpler and easier to run and adjudicate and can be run side-by-side with their core counterparts, even if they do things in a slightly different way. Jason said they were'n't doing a Pathfinder Essentials, but I suspect that that was more to divert the negative connotation that a lot of people associated with that 4e line when there was this belief that was a stealth edition change instead of the streamlined supplement that worked hand in hand with the core line that it was intended to be.

Basically, my impression is that after the book is out you'll probably have two different versions of the Rogue, Barbarian, Summoner, Monk, and others that are made to play in the exact same game as the current classes, but which are looked at from a new perspective that doesn't hold backwards compatibility or tradition as immutable design paradigms.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Given that one of their examples of "backwards compatibility be damned!" is a Monk with full BAB, I'm not optimistic.

[Ssalarn]

Given that one of their examples of "backwards compatibility be damned!" is a Monk with full BAB, I'm not optimistic.

Care to elaborate? A full BAB Monk is already a big step up. With full BAB the monk is getting

d10 hit dice, helping reduce his MAD by shoring up his hit points
earlier access to better combat feats
faster progression on BAB dependent abilities, such as Power Attack and Deadly Aim
stronger support within the core class chassis for the movement related abilities typically associated with the monk since he no longer loses from his to-hit when he moves more than 5 feet
and likely one or two more things that aren't leaping to my mind at the moment

It's basically a big part of what people have wanted from the Monk for some time. It also greatly simplifies Flurry of Blows, or opens the door for Flurry of Blows to just be one "style" option for the monk. I'm already greatly intrigued by what they could with this one simple change, and given that it's going to be a 256 page hardcover I suspect that that will be only a small portion of the changes we see in the final book.

[malonkey1]

Care to elaborate? A full BAB Monk is already a big step up. With full BAB the monk is getting

d10 hit dice, helping reduce his MAD by shoring up his hit points

<snip!>

One thing that always bugged me was the tying of BAB, HD, and Skill Points. For example, why could we not have a d10 half-BAB mage designed for tanking? Or a d6, 3/4 BAB frontliner focused on damage reduction or attack avoidance?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Care to elaborate?
"Monks with full BAB" is not the kind of big, radical change they seem to be hinting at in the announcements. Instead, it's about the bare minimum monk fix that homebrewers have been making for decades. It's copy-pasting one column of a table. It has little impact on power and absolutely no impact on how the game fundamentally works.

[Snowbluff]

Care to elaborate? A full BAB Monk is already a big step up. With full BAB the monk is getting

It's not much in terms of change. Sure, it's better, but that's not indicative of an overall improvement in the class design.

One thing that always bugged me was the tying of BAB, HD, and Skill Points. For example, why could we not have a d10 half-BAB mage designed for tanking? Or a d6, 3/4 BAB frontliner focused on damage reduction or attack avoidance?

I don't get it, either. It happened in PF. It was a little more varied in 3.5.

[Larkas]

Maybe even one of the coveted Custom Class assembly sections, like BESM did (and that was probably my favorite part of the system)

THIS would be awesome!

[weckar]

Archetype packages can already do that, to a degree.

[Ssalarn]

"Monks with full BAB" is not the kind of big, radical change they seem to be hinting at in the announcements. Instead, it's about the bare minimum monk fix that homebrewers have been making for decades. It's copy-pasting one column of a table. It has little impact on power and absolutely no impact on how the game fundamentally works.

I would imagine that in a 256 page book the full BAB boost is probably just the start of any potential change. Assuming that the blurb in a product announcement is going to cover the full breadth of changes introduced seems... shortsighted. To me it seems to be a very solid indicator that they know where they need to go and they've taken the correct first step necessary to go there. As I mentioned above, that one little tweak creates a whole swath of positive changes and isn't even enough to take up a single page. That leaves a lot of room for further improvements.

It also shows that the Paizo team has been listening, because "full BAB monk" and Jason Buhlman coming out and directly stating that they're improving the Rogue are pretty direct acknowledgements that the classes are inherently flawed, an acknowledgement that the Paizo staff hasn't really made to date (well, current members of the Paizo staff anyways...).


One thing that always bugged me was the tying of BAB, HD, and Skill Points. For example, why could we not have a d10 half-BAB mage designed for tanking? Or a d6, 3/4 BAB frontliner focused on damage reduction or attack avoidance?

Skill points are less directly directly tied to BAB and HD. The Fighter and Ranger have the same HD and BAB but a world of difference in both class skills and skill points per level. Really, the Fighter's kind of the odd man out as the only other full BAB Paizo class with 2+Int skills is the vastly superior Paladin, who can pump Charisma, self-heal, gain limited spellcasting, the same proficiencies, and gain either an auto-enchanted weapon or an intelligent mount at full druid progression.

[Psyren]

Regardless of what makes it into the final product I think this is a smart move. By putting better rogues/monks/fighters into a UA-style supplement like this, they can appeal to the folks who wanted those classes to be stronger without alienating the folks who find them to be fine at their tables.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would imagine that in a 256 page book the full BAB boost is probably just the start of any potential change.
I should hope so, but the fact that they felt the need to specify "full BAB monk," as if it was worthy of note, is what makes me worry.

[Psyren]

I should hope so, but the fact that they felt the need to specify "full BAB monk," as if it was worthy of note, is what makes me worry.

It is worthy of note. They have to market to everyone, not just CharOp.

[Ssalarn]

Regardless of what makes it into the final product I think this is a smart move. By putting better rogues/monks/fighters into a UA-style supplement like this, they can appeal to the folks who wanted those classes to be stronger without alienating the folks who find them to be fine at their tables.

I think this is really a huge piece of it. They're helping provide the things a lot of people have been asking for at a time when the biggest and oldest dragon in RPG gaming is getting ready to make a big comeback play. By providing improved options for some of the most maligned, underpowered, or under-supported classes while maintaining the integrity of the current system for those who enjoy it, they're strengthening their position in a market that is going to become a fairly fierce battleground in the near future. I suspect that this, along with the Advanced Class Guide, are part of a fairly bold play to try and prove out whether they're really a competitive gaming company moving in to the future, or if they were just a fortunate regent holding the throne for a king who's getting ready to return after a long exodus in an ill conceived crusade.


It is worthy of note. They have to market to everyone, not just CharOp.

Very much this. This is a big olive branch out to the characters who love the idea of the monk and have found themselves stymied or discouraged by the level of system mastery required just to bring him competitive with other martial classes. There were some players who were crowing with joy at that little snippet, and for them, "full BAB monk" was the only thing Paizo needed to say to secure a sale.

[Psyren]

I think this is really a huge piece of it. They're helping provide the things a lot of people have been asking for at a time when the biggest and oldest dragon in RPG gaming is getting ready to make a big comeback play. By providing improved options for some of the most maligned, underpowered, or under-supported classes while maintaining the integrity of the current system for those who enjoy it, they're strengthening their position in a market that is going to become a fairly fierce battleground in the near future. I suspect that this, along with the Advanced Class Guide, are part of a fairly bold play to try and prove out whether they're really a competitive gaming company moving in to the future, or if they were just a fortunate regent holding the throne for a king who's getting ready to return after a long exodus in an ill conceived crusade.

Exactly. In fact, I'd be willing to wager they've wanted to do stuff like this for awhile, but knew they would need a trump card to play against 5e's inevitable counterstrike.

[Ssalarn]

Exactly. In fact, I'd be willing to wager they've wanted to do stuff like this for awhile, but knew they would need a trump card to play against 5e's inevitable counterstrike.

I had the exact same thought. I might be reading too much into it, but it almost seems like the ACG and related playtest was a very elaborate feint towards 5e and this book might prove to be the real response that makes or breaks them.

With Pathfinder Unchained, they're not just saying "Look, we listen to our fans and we give them the materials they want", they're also saying "Hey, look at what we're capable of producing when we're not weighed down by the junk that WotC made". It's really making a pretty strong two-pronged statement at exactly the right time. It could very well be the book that is ultimately responsible for deciding if Paizo is still a gaming company 5 years from now, or if they shrink back down into an Adventure Path company supporting someone else's game.

[Snowbluff]

I dislike how often Paizo discussions come back to "this is for the money" rather than artistic integrity and creating quality material.

[georgie_leech]

I dislike how often Paizo discussions come back to "this is for the money" rather than artistic integrity and creating quality material.

I suspect it would happen for D&D if 3.5 was still being written for. Ultimately it is a game, and the primary product for the company, so a certain amount of the thought behind the decisions needs to be about the economics. Not saying it's the only concern, just that it's a real one.

[Snowbluff]

I suspect it would happen for D&D if 3.5 was still being written for. Ultimately it is a game, and the primary product for the company, so a certain amount of the thought behind the decisions needs to be about the economics. Not saying it's the only concern, just that it's a real one.

I really wish developers could be in a position where this was not a problem more often. If what you say about 3.5 is true, it's probably a good thing that it ended when it did.

[TheIronGolem]

I should hope so, but the fact that they felt the need to specify "full BAB monk," as if it was worthy of note, is what makes me worry.

As a mechanical change, in and of itself, it's not especially noteworthy, no. A baby step.

But as a signifier of an attitude shift in how the Monk is designed, it may be quite significant.

From a class-design perspective, BAB isn't just a number, it's also a measuring stick for how "fighty" a class is intended to be. That the Monk is getting kicked up a notch here shows that Paizo has finally began to understand not only that the Monk needs fixing, but that they have at least an inkling as to how to fix it.

Whether they'll actually get the job done right, of course, remains to be seen.

Additionally, I'll point out that the new Monk's class features will certainly be in flux right now, so there's likely to be little or nothing on that front that they can point to in a press release, whereas "Now with 33% more BAB!" is a selling point they can safely announce now.

[georgie_leech]

I really wish developers could be in a position where this was not a problem more often. If what you say about 3.5 is true, it's probably a good thing that it ended when it did.

Eh, ultimately they need people playing the game, or it isn't a game, just a bunch of disjoint rules on paper. I don't think it's primarily about economics in this case anyway. Rather, while I think the *timing* is economics, I haven't seen enough to say whether the changes are them pandering to the masses as it were or are genuinely trying to advance their creation in unique and interesting directions. They overlap sometimes; the SRD was in part a conscious choice to make the d20 system the easiest system to begin working with (already have the base mechanics in place, why bother experimenting with others?), which means that a lot of RPG's at the time could be thought of "D&D but with X," and I'm more than comfortable chalking up a great deal of 3.5's success with that ease of access.

[Snowbluff]

Eh, ultimately they need people playing the game, or it isn't a game, just a bunch of disjoint rules on paper. I don't think it's primarily about economics in this case anyway. Rather, while I think the *timing* is economics, I haven't seen enough to say whether the changes are them pandering to the masses as it were or are genuinely trying to advance their creation in unique and interesting directions. They overlap sometimes; the SRD was in part a conscious choice to make the d20 system the easiest system to begin working with (already have the base mechanics in place, why bother experimenting with others?), which means that a lot of RPG's at the time could be thought of "D&D but with X," and I'm more than comfortable chalking up a great deal of 3.5's success with that ease of access.

Yes and no. Things like accessibility get people into the game, but I wouldn't consider it 3.5's strong point. It pretty much only continues now for the variety of material and strong metagame. Of course, whether if the interesting bits were purely pandering or not is unknown.

[Iwasforger03]

I think i know what i'd like for fighter. The one part of fighter that never changed from 3.5 to Pathfinder was its 11 bonus fighter feats. Give us new chains of fighter feats, stuff only fighters get, the are just awesome. Incredibly stuff it only makes SENSE for fighters to take, because the sheer number of feats involved means only a fighter HAS enough feats to do it. Simple feats to, but give us good feats. Awesome Feats. Don't have to change the damnedest thing about Fighter itself if you give us feats. Hell, give us feats that interact with Fighter class abilities! Weapon Training, Bravery, Armor Training, feats just for Fighter Archetypes. GIVE US FEATS. I will be a happy player.

[Snowbluff]

Fighter-specific feats could be poached by Magus (Maguses? Magi?) and Eldritch Knights.

[Iwasforger03]

And I'm ok with that. Samurai can poach them too. But NOTHING, and I do mean NOTHING, has the sheer NUMBER of feats a Fighter has. USE THAT DAMNIT.

edit: Screw a feat granting +2 to dmg. Give me more things to interact with pwr attack. Give me feat chains that give massive dmg spikes, or specific atk actions. Give me feats that say, do this, and you can get +5 to AC and a bonus on atks, etc. Give me Feats so good, they use up two slots, yet are somehow still only one feat. Give me Feats that say "You can cuts spells out of the air." Give me feats that give Fighters Ki, then give me feats that let me take that ki pool and run the **** away with it. Give me feats that grant class skills and extra skill pts per level to Fighters, even if its just stuff like perception, sense motive... Give me Feats that REPLACE PRIOR FEATS as an UPGRADE to that feat, so that you save feat slots and don't have to pay a feat tax to get the better effect! Feats are my weapons, but I don't have comparable options to damn near anything! Gunslinger and Monk have better feat trees focused on them than I do, and They qualify for 90% of MY feats as well!

[Psyren]

I dislike how often Paizo discussions come back to "this is for the money" rather than artistic integrity and creating quality material.

It's possible to do both, but timing the latter is important. Creating a quality product is one thing, but creating a franchise/brand is much harder. Many stellar books/games/movies have died on the vine due to insufficient buzz, and many franchises have done the same due to peaking too early; you always want to leave room to grow.

Pathfinder started as a grand experiment. "Can we make money on rules that are legally required to be free?" The answer has been a resounding yes, so now they are confident enough to rock the boat a little.

[georgie_leech]

Yes and no. Things like accessibility get people into the game, but I wouldn't consider it 3.5's strong point. It pretty much only continues now for the variety of material and strong metagame. Of course, whether if the interesting bits were purely pandering or not is unknown.

That's just it. It got such a diverse range of material because of the large group of players, which is also why it retained so may; everyone was playing it. Contrast that with 4E, which, while I enjoy it, has nowhere near the diversity of material. There's a lot of it, to be sure, but little was experimental compared to the base as, say, incarnum or psionics or maneuvers or even Truenaming was. The accessibility is what drew people to the game, and the large player base is what allowed for experimentation and more material. You can see the same thing in reverse with the PS Vita. Lack of early adoption meant few good games were made for it, which led to fewer people buying it, which led to fewer games...

In a way, I'd say the accessibility was 3.5's strong point, but now it's the diversity, and we wouldn't have had the latter without the former. That's all I mean by saying that considering the economics can lead to a stronger game.

[137beth]

"Monks with full BAB" is not the kind of big, radical change they seem to be hinting at in the announcements. Instead, it's about the bare minimum monk fix that homebrewers have been making for decades. It's copy-pasting one column of a table. It has little impact on power and absolutely no impact on how the game fundamentally works.

This sums up my main complaints with a lot of Paizo character options. It's not that they are (all) badly written, it's that there isn't much more in them than there is in a lot of homebrew.

On the flip side, I think they did a decent job with Ultimate Campaign, so I'm hoping that this will be of comparable quality. It will be a test of whether they can apply the same skills they used for the "side-show" of downtime to the main system.

[Kudaku]

Didn't really know where to mention this, but Paizo just posted direct (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gh#v5748eaic9s4y) and indirect (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9s4x) FAQs on Paragon Surge. Been waiting for these for a loong time!

[Squirrel_Dude]

Didn't really know where to mention this, but Paizo just posted direct (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1gh#v5748eaic9s4y) and indirect (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9s4x) FAQs on Paragon Surge. Been waiting for these for a loong time!I'd complain that it took too long (because it did do that), but for now I'll just be thankful that the tier 0 Oracle is no more.

[Psyren]

I think they should have gone farther and specifically decoupled it from Eldritch Heritage/Expanded Arcana, but this is good enough for now.

[Snowbluff]

This is barely a nerf. A compentent oracle would just choose the best 3 spell for the day. I'm a fan of simulacrum and other down time spells, which are typically outside a spontaneous casters reach.

[Iwasforger03]

For those of you who Care: Fighter Feat Chain ideas (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?360931-Fighter-Only-Feat-Chain-Ideas&p=17742169#post17742169)

My initial foray into home brew suggestions/solutions for Fighter Feats. It also proves an example of the kinds of fighter shenanigans i'd like to see out of Pathfinder Unchained.

[deuxhero]

One sacred cow I'd love to see slaughtered is the monk being wisdom based.

Naming unarmed fighter characters from fiction that have high charisma is way easier than naming ones that ahve high wisdom.

[PsyBomb]

One sacred cow I'd love to see slaughtered is the monk being wisdom based.

Naming unarmed fighter characters from fiction that have high charisma is way easier than naming ones that ahve high wisdom.

Watch any Wuxia action movie, and there you'll find them. An ACF/Archetype to shift to Charisma would be cool, though.

[Psyren]

I don't see that happening, deuxhero - zen and similar concepts are too closely related with Wisdom for that to be decoupled.

Now, letting them add Wis to attack and damage more easily - that would possibly be something I would expect from PFU instead.

[BlackDragonKing]

I'm cautiously optimistic about this announcement; it seems to me like the need to preserve some sacred cows has made Paizo tread too cautiously in the past with things, holding back good ideas from their full potential so as not to hurt Fighty McGee and his good pal the Rogue's feelings. Being able to design without that restriction hanging over them could free up a LOT of space for improvement, while at the same time holding up a shield of optional features so that tables will pick and choose what unchained material is coming to their table.

It's a bit of a long shot, but I'm kind of hoping they might take a chance to revisit some feats as well; if backwards compatibility is indeed damned, a possibility, albeit a slim one, exists that they could take this chance to try out alternate versions of some old, maligned feats that people have avoided or complained about due to some icky aspects turning people off.

Vital Strike, for example, the Chain That Should REALLY Be One Scaling Feat. There are several feats that play off of Vital Strike as it is, so an alternate version that scales the extra bonus dice to your BAB would be tremendous in my book rather than a Vital Striker having two feat slots that don't DO anything when he's done.

If Pathfinder Unchained and the ACG have some material in them that takes sword fighting out of its little 5-foot box and brings glorious mobile combat as a viable option to the game, I'll be very happy.

[Prime32]

I don't see that happening, deuxhero - zen and similar concepts are too closely related with Wisdom for that to be decoupled.

Now, letting them add Wis to attack and damage more easily - that would possibly be something I would expect from PFU instead.What I'd love to see is an ability something like "Flurry of Blows (Ex): A monk's strikes can catch an opponent off-guard, opening them up to further punishment. Whenever you make a successful attack, you may immediately make another attack against the same target as a free action. This attack is at your highest attack bonus but must be made with a monk weapon or unarmed strike. You may use flurry of blows any number of times per round, but only once against each target. At Xth level you may make up to two flurry attacks against the same target per round, and at Yth level this limit is increased to three."

That and an Arcane Bond equivalent for their unarmed strikes, or just giving them a built-in enhancement bonus (with the way +1s can penetrate material-based DR already in PF, Ki Strike doesn't even have a niche).

[Kudaku]

There is another FAQ (http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2r93x?New-FAQ-New-Spells-Known) out which seems aimed at Paragon Surge Oracles - enjoy.

At the moment Paragon Surge lets you pick up either one or two spells known limited to your class list via Expanded Arcana, which are locked in for 24 hours. I have to say I actually kind of like that. Spontaneous casters are considerably more flexible than before and can help out with circumstantially useful spells (fabricate, remove disease, teleport etc), but are nowhere near as adaptable as the prepared casters.