[Unchained] Jason Buhlman confirmed Summoner is in for some nerfs

[Psyren]

Now that we're getting more concrete info and this is more or less becoming "The Unchained Thread, I'll link to the discussion over the blog posts as they get released.
Blog Post 1 discussion ("Time to Break Your Chains") (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?402945-Unchained-Jason-Buhlman-confirmed-Summoner-is-in-for-some-nerfs&p=19053260&viewfull=1#post19053260)
Blog Post 2 discussion (Unchained Skills and Feats) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?402945-Unchained-Jason-Buhlman-confirmed-Summoner-is-in-for-some-nerfs&p=19087958&viewfull=1#post19087958)


Nothing new obviously for the folks who have been keeping up with Unchained but I thought I'd share this here anyway. Jason popped into a social media thread where a GM was a bit upset about the Summoner. (Now with blog previews!)

Rather than quote everything I'll just post some SnagIts:

http://i.imgur.com/9eddfJt.png

http://i.imgur.com/RY6Q9Pb.png

http://i.imgur.com/95Cp8tI.png

http://i.imgur.com/3Ja6dcO.png

http://i.imgur.com/tinmgjn.png

Again, nothing earth-shattering - mostly I'm posting here because it's a nice peek behind the curtain as to one reason why the summoner ended up the way it did (Jason designed it almost solo) and what the designers think about its current state (i.e. not satisfied with it.) There's also a really nice tidbit in there about Pathfinder Unchained previews starting up in a few weeks. I also like the peek at their selection process for Pathfinder Unchained; you can extrapolate that they are unhappy with rogues and barbarians too as a result, which is nice to know that they feel the way the fans do.

Of course, for the folks who are happy with the current version of Summoner (*coughSnowbluffcough* :smallwink:) that isn't going anywhere - though it's possible, for the PFS folks, that only the Unchained version becomes legal or something.

[Barstro]

I'm unconvinced that it needed nerfing. What it needed was concrete rulings on how particular things worked; like enlarge person cast by an enemy on a Synthesist.

Either way, I hope they get it right.

[Anlashok]

Skeptical. All the talk about it makes it seem like the Unchained summoner is just going to be a ****tier class, not a more interesting one.

And of course, nothing on oracles or wizards or arcanists.

[Zanos]

I always found that casters usually play nice, or synergize with a party in such a way that people actually have fun. I have not experienced wizards/oracles/sorcerers/clerics/etc. actually making other party members feel irrelevant unless the character in question had specifically designed their spell selection to be anti-synergetic with the rest of the party, in which case they're a jerk.

Meanwhile summoners get a companion stronger than a Barbarian with built in access to a ton of great abilities on the cheap while also casting "6th" level spells but actually having a list that includes many higher level spells at lower levels, so they effectively get many spells at the same point as full-casters, and break the action economy just by virtue of existing.

I'm glad it's slated for some official nerfs.

[Psyren]

I'm unconvinced that it needed nerfing. What it needed was concrete rulings on how particular things worked; like enlarge person cast by an enemy on a Synthesist.

Either way, I hope they get it right.

Stuff like that is the most minor of the minor though. A simple FAQ can cover this question, if it's indeed something that needs an official answer rather than a GM deciding on it based on what makes sense to them or is more fun. Given how easy it is for the Synthesist to change his size though, I would rule that they don't need Enlarge on top of that, as they could quickly and easily get to Huge+ that way.



And of course, nothing on oracles or wizards or arcanists.

The honest truth is that those don't really cause trouble outside of forum theoryland. I could count the threads that complain about wizards (outside of the Playground/BG) on one hand, compared to the slew that have issues with Summoner and Magus. And at least the Magus' problems boil down to "man, my player got a spellstrike crit one time and rolled a whole bag of dice" - i.e. it's something they GM can design around pretty easily. Summoner complaints range from raw damage output, to dozens of attacks, to unbeatable grapples, to bogging down combat with piles of minions, to rendering the skill monkeys obsolete with a skilldolon, to their list being prime fodder for spell stealage, to being nigh-unkillable - on and on and on, the problems just pile up in thread after thread after thread, and as Jason rightly said there are just too many problem points for simple errata to address.

[Anlashok]

The honest truth is that those don't really cause trouble outside of forum theoryland. I could count the threads that complain about wizards (outside of the Playground/BG) on one hand, compared to the slew that have issues with Summoner and Magus. And at least the Magus' problems boil down to "man, my player got a spellstrike crit one time and rolled a whole bag of dice" - i.e. it's something they GM can design around pretty easily. Summoner complaints range from raw damage output, to dozens of attacks, to unbeatable grapples, to bogging down combat with piles of minions, to rendering the skill monkeys obsolete with a skilldolon, to their list being prime fodder for spell stealage, to being nigh-unkillable - on and on and on, the problems just pile up in thread after thread after thread, and as Jason rightly said there are just too many problem points for simple errata to address.

No. The honest truth is that the Summoner is an easy target because it has a higher floor than the wizard and the devs at Paizo have a hard-on for 9th level casters. It's nothing more complicated than that.

[Vhaidara]

Honestly, I like the idea they had (play the monster). I also agree that a Summoning focused class was a terrible way to go about it. While it is one of the absolute most flavorful classes PF has released, it is almost impossible to balance Summoning magic (for combat use) in a way that is both fair and fun for all involved (this includes the people not doing the summoning). I don't think I've seen a system do it well to date. Spheres actually did a solid job with it, though that ran into its own problems (multiple summons each at about 3/4 the strength of an eidolon) that resulted in me houseruling a limit on how much you can invest into Conjuration.

I feel they should have taken a path (this is for "playing the monster") similar to my Mutant. Instead of summoning the monster and playing that, actually let people play the monster.

As far as the Unchained Summoner, I have very little hope. As I mentioned, Conjuration is a problem child of a school because it does SO much. Any class that focuses on it will either be crippled by that focus (The way a class focusing on Illusion [non-shadow spells] or Enchantment would be) or brokenly overpowered (which we have now)

Something I've always wanted to see was archetypes for the 6 level casters that removed their casting. A Magus whose magic comes entirely from Arcane Pool (preferably this would explicitly allow archetypes like Bladebound and Kensai), upping the base chassis to full BAB. A Summoner who's only magic is summoning the eidolon, who fights alongside his bonded partner. Alchemist is cool, it has to prep spells before combat.

[Arbane]

Have they come up with a way to make Fighters less bad?

[Psyren]

No. The honest truth is that the Summoner is an easy target because it has a higher floor than the wizard and the devs at Paizo have a hard-on for 9th level casters. It's nothing more complicated than that.

Except it's not Paizo complaining about the Summoner - It's real-life players and GMs, constantly. You just won't see it if you stay solely in the echochamber. Paizo is merely reacting to those complaints.

Practically nobody was complaining about Wizard or Cleric before the APG existed, when Summoner never existed to be a target (easy or otherwise.) Druid's nerfs meanwhile took care of the lingering issues it had since 3.5, and it's fine too. Sorcerer's one major issue - Paragon Surge - came and went.

Of the 9th-level casters they've added since, only Witch raised an eyebrow or two due to the Slumber Hex, and the 24 hour clause quickly laid those murmurs to rest. A further eyebrow was raised due to Scarred Witch Doctor, but nobody has had major issues there either. Oracle and Shaman warranted not even a blip, and the few issues people had with Arcanist were ironed out during playtesting (primarily by shunting it to the sorcerer's delayed track.)


Have they come up with a way to make Fighters less bad?

We'll have to wait and see.

[PsyBomb]

Have they come up with a way to make Fighters less bad?

Supposedly they have a new resource system to add to the so-called Mundanes. We will have to see how it plays out

[Vhaidara]

Supposedly they have a new resource system to add to the so-called Mundanes. We will have to see how it plays out

Maybe it'll be an X/day resource. Then I can have a single consistent reason for disliking Paizo classes (I hate resource management, every time I use it it bites me in the ass one way or the other)

[Kurald Galain]

Except it's not Paizo complaining about the Summoner - It's real-life players and GMs, constantly. You just won't see it if you stay solely in the echochamber. Paizo is merely reacting to those complaints.

I concur. I've been playing a lot of PF over the last year, in a variety of groups, and what people complain about simply does not match at all with what people on forums complain about.

This is probably because forum arguments tend to assume level 20, whereas actual gameplay tends to be around level 5 instead. And yes, the one class that gets lots and lots of complaints is the summoner.

People don't complain about the witch (only about the slumber hex); nor about the magus (only about intensified shocking grasp); nor the gunslinger (only about how guns don't belong in fantasy settings); nor even the druid (only about certain specific animal companions). People do complain about summoners. A lot.

[Psyren]

I concur. I've been playing a lot of PF over the last year, in a variety of groups, and what people complain about simply does not match at all with what people on forums complain about.

This is probably because forum arguments tend to assume level 20, whereas actual gameplay tends to be around level 5 instead. And yes, the one class that gets lots and lots of complaints is the summoner.

People don't complain about the witch (only about the slumber hex); nor about the magus (only about intensified shocking grasp); nor the gunslinger (only about how guns don't belong in fantasy settings); nor even the druid (only about certain specific animal companions). People do complain about summoners. A lot.

Yep - and as I pointed out, a big reason for this is that with the Summoner, it's not one thing. It's not a single hex, or a single metamagic, or a single weapon type. They are outperforming other classes at their own schtick, or they are bogging down combat, or they are warping the ability to get spells from other lists around themselves, or they are being primary tank and primary caster simultaneously etc. You can do these things with a T1 class if you build it right, but the summoner makes it far too easy, happen far too early, and be far too difficult to counter without ramping up the difficulty for everyone else.


Honestly, I like the idea they had (play the monster). I also agree that a Summoning focused class was a terrible way to go about it. While it is one of the absolute most flavorful classes PF has released, it is almost impossible to balance Summoning magic (for combat use) in a way that is both fair and fun for all involved (this includes the people not doing the summoning). I don't think I've seen a system do it well to date. Spheres actually did a solid job with it, though that ran into its own problems (multiple summons each at about 3/4 the strength of an eidolon) that resulted in me houseruling a limit on how much you can invest into Conjuration.

See, I think the Alchemist proved you can do this well - a versatile class that lets you "play the monster" or even (with the Preservationist archetype) can be a dedicated summoner too. It can even try its hand at doing both, though very few play it that way. And finally, it can even do other things on top of those two - ranged dps, or being a dedicated crafter, or buffer, or healer, or light skill- or knowledge-monkey - and yet it ends up T3 despite it all.

The summons aren't the problem, save for the bogging down aspect I mentioned above if there are too many of them. If you limited them to one summon at a time but powered it up a bit, I doubt we would see the summons being the problem that they are. The Eidolon is a much bigger issue - I think it should be stronger than an animal companion, but not nearly as strong as it is now.

[squiggit]

Er. I agree with the general premise but have to disagree with Kurald about the specifics. Gunslinger gets nearly as much hate as the summoner because of its damage and touch attacks, not just because it uses guns, though some people hate that too. Likewise for the Magus and Witch and hell even the barbarian gets a lot of crap on the Paizo boards, though those last three not as much as the first two.

Also disagre that classes like wizards are only good in "theory land". They just don't have as much out of the box power and require more decision making (and decision making full of traps to trick new players). That doesn't mean the wizard isn't good or extremely strong or unable to obsolete other party members, it just makes that fact irrelevant for the optimization level Paizo is targeting.

[Vhaidara]

See, I think the Alchemist proved you can do this well - a versatile class that lets you "play the monster" or even (with the Preservationist archetype) can be a dedicated summoner too. It can even try its hand at doing both, though very few play it that way. And finally, it can even do other things on top of those two - ranged dps, or being a dedicated crafter, or buffer, or healer, or light skill- or knowledge-monkey - and yet it ends up T3 despite it all.

*looks into preservationist*

Is...is that a pokemon trainer?

But honestly, Alchemist is like Bard: it dabbles. When you refer to "play the monster" with alchemist, I assume you mean things like Beastmorph and Jekyll/Hyde Mutagens. And that works for some things, but you can't really play like a monster from low levels.


The summons aren't the problem, save for the bogging down aspect I mentioned above if there are too many of them. If you limited them to one summon at a time but powered it up a bit, I doubt we would see the summons being the problem that they are. The Eidolon is a much bigger issue - I think it should be stronger than an animal companion, but not nearly as strong as it is now.

Like I said, I actually feel that something like the possible Mirrored Soul Summoner from DSP (all theoretical) where you have a Summoner and an eidolon who are essentially two halves of one combatant would work much better. And the first step is gutting casting from it.

The thing is, you can take away the casting. You can take away the Summon Monster. But the Eidolon is the Summoner's thing, just like Alchemy is the Alchemist's and Spellstrike/Spell Combat is the Magus'. It's what separates them from a Conjuration focused Wizard or Sorcerer

[NightbringerGGZ]

The Summoner needed a nerf. I've played with it in the past and actually retired my first one due to how it was outshining other party members despite some purposeful under-optimization on my part. I'll be interested to see if this is a whole new attempt at the class though. One of the ideas I've toyed with in the past is a class where the main character is locked down when you summon your Eidolon to a great extent, but you have more than one Eidolon that can be chosen to summon. A large part of the problem with the class is that you're given two 3/4 BAB characters with full action economy to play with right at first level.

[Raven777]

And that works for some things, but you can't really play like a monster from low levels.

"Hello. I am a Beastmorph/Vivisectionist with an extra pair of arms and a mean temper (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/discoveries/paizo---alchemist-discoveries/feral-mutagen). I would like to introduce you to my friends Bite Attack, Claw Attack, Claw Attack, Dagger and Dagger. Did I mention I can see perfectly in the dark and smell your fear?"

[Kurald Galain]

Er. I agree with the general premise but have to disagree with Kurald about the specifics. Gunslinger gets nearly as much hate as the summoner because of its damage and touch attacks, not just because it uses guns, though some people hate that too. Likewise for the Magus and Witch and hell even the barbarian gets a lot of crap on the Paizo boards, though those last three not as much as the first two.
It is probably true that my circle of players is an echo chamber in the same sense as that the GITP forums are, only with a somewhat different echo.

That said, I would like to hear what kind of crap the magus/witch/barbarian get, and why.


Also disagre that classes like wizards are only good in "theory land".
In my experience so far, wizards don't become problematic until they get 5th or 6th level spells.

[Psyren]

The thing is, you can take away the casting. You can take away the Summon Monster. But the Eidolon is the Summoner's thing, just like Alchemy is the Alchemist's and Spellstrike/Spell Combat is the Magus'. It's what separates them from a Conjuration focused Wizard or Sorcerer

And I agree with this - they shouldn't lose the eidolon entirely. But there's a lot of room to weaken the Eidolon without removing it completely or ruining it. There is absolutely no reason for an eidolon to ever be as good a skillmonkey as a dedicated rogue, yet that's what we got. At best, you should be able to optimize your eidolon for a specific skillset - say, make it very good at sneaking, and that's it. And there is no reason for one to be as strong as a dedicated barbarian. Working in conjunction with your resources it should maybe be able to rise to such heights, and be dependent on your magic to do so, with all its dispellability and limited durations and limited times/day and other limitations - but it should not ever be capable of becoming that strong or that smart just through selecting evolutions.


That doesn't mean the wizard isn't good or extremely strong or unable to obsolete other party members, it just makes that fact irrelevant for the optimization level Paizo is targeting.

I never said it "wasn't good or extremely strong or unable to obsolete other party members." But there is a big gulf between potential and actual, and I would say the average wizard in practice has a much wider disparity here than the average summoner does, and that's on top of summoner's other problems.

[Kurald Galain]

"Hello. I am a Beastmorph/Vivisectionist with an extra pair of arms and a mean temper (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/discoveries/paizo---alchemist-discoveries/feral-mutagen). I would like to introduce you to my friends Bite Attack, Claw Attack, Claw Attack, Dagger and Dagger. Did I mention I can see perfectly in the dark and smell your fear?"

I believe natural attacks take a -5 penalty if you're also using weapon attacks. That said, yes, multi-attack characters are also a problem in PF.

[Vhaidara]

"Hello. I am a Beastmorph/Vivisectionist with an extra pair of arms and a mean temper (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/alchemist/discoveries/paizo---alchemist-discoveries/feral-mutagen). I would like to introduce you to my friends Bite Attack, Claw Attack, Claw Attack, Dagger and Dagger. Did I mention I can see perfectly in the dark and smell your fear?"

Low levels, meaning, to me, 5 and lower. This would be at 4 if you spent your level 3 feat on Extra Discovery, and meanwhile, you still have Alchemy, which doesn't really fit in with a "play the monster" type build.

Also, have fun mass whiffing with your penalties for TWF and natural attacks after manufactured weapons.

[(Un)Inspired]

Can you guys explain to me why people don't like the Barbarian, Summoner, Gunslinger and Magus' ability to deal a lot of damage?

If you want to be able to deal a lot of damage with your character isn't it nice to have such a wide array of classes to choose from?

Isn't having party members that can dish out a ton of damage a good thing? PCs are (typically) a team right? If your friend is playing a barbarian and pounces on your enemy dealing 500 damage shouldn't that be a cause for celebration?

[Vhaidara]

Isn't having party members that can dish out a ton of damage a good thing? PCs are (typically) a team right? If your friend is playing a barbarian and pounces on your enemy dealing 500 damage shouldn't that be a cause for celebration?

Only if it is a confirmed enemy and not Gandalf pretending to be Saruman.

[(Un)Inspired]

Only if it is a confirmed enemy and not Gandalf pretending to be Saruman.

Yeah but Gandalf is like Obi Wan Kenobi, right? Doesn't he just bounce back more powerful then you can possible imagine if he dies?

[Kurald Galain]

Can you guys explain to me why people don't like the Barbarian, Summoner, Gunslinger and Magus' ability to deal a lot of damage?

A straightforward barbarian build (high strength, the biggest sword you can find, and power attack) will severely upstage e.g. a rogue without even trying.

Now personally I conclude from this that the rogue is probably too weak, but I can imagine people drawing the opposite conclusion.

[Raven777]

Low levels, meaning, to me, 5 and lower. This would be at 4 if you spent your level 3 feat on Extra Discovery, and meanwhile, you still have Alchemy, which doesn't really fit in with a "play the monster" type build.

Also, have fun mass whiffing with your penalties for TWF and natural attacks after manufactured weapons.

"I sure (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/multiweapon-fighting-combat) will (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/monster-feats/multiattack-combat)."

[squiggit]

It is probably true that my circle of players is an echo chamber in the same sense as that the GITP forums are, only with a somewhat different echo.

That said, I would like to hear what kind of crap the magus/witch/barbarian get, and why.
Paizo forums generally don't like the magus, gunslinger and barbarian because they hit really hard. They generally don't like Witch mainly just because it's SoD in an easy to use package.

The common thread honestly just seems to be how strong they are out of the box. You don't need to do anything crazy to do a ton of damage with a charging barbarian and you don't need a lot of optimization to shocking grasp full attack for a lot of damage. Or to get a lucky roll and slumber a big nasty enemy Gunslinger tends to require more tricks to hit high numbers, so I honestly just think it's more horror stories about dual wielding double barreled pistols than any actual experience.

Beyond that I see Gunslingers targeting Touch and Magi getting two attacks before anyone else (other than natural attackers) as more specific complaints.

[weckar]

Can someone explain this to an unchained novice: Will it actually hard-replace good chunks of the existing rules, is it more of an Arcana Unearthed thing with optional rules, or is it a fully new edition of Pathfinder?

[Kurald Galain]

Magi getting two attacks before anyone else (other than natural attackers) as more specific complaints.

Or, you know, anyone with Rapid Shot or the TWF feat :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, if "hitting really hard" is the problem, I'm actually surprised they're not worried about natural attackers or any smite-based paladin...

[PsyBomb]

Can someone explain this to an unchained novice: Will it actually hard-replace good chunks of the existing rules, is it more of an Arcana Unearthed thing with optional rules, or is it a fully new edition of Pathfinder?

We don't know yet, but probably like Unearthed by the way Paizo is talking

[Snowbluff]

Yay.

Can we get some hard facts? Not to hate on the yep train... but I hate being teased. It does say he says he's making it more modern, when Summoners about as modern as it got. :l

[Milo v3]

From stuff I remember from snippets of the dev's, the eidolon is remaining but you pick like a theme for it or something rather than making it up however you want. From that I'd assume it'd be like more like how animal companions are handled than anything else.

I am curious how the whole mundane subsystem will work with it's Fatigue points (though I still hate that name).

As for what gets the most complaints and arguements on the paizo boards, I'd probably say Rogue... So many threads saying paizo hates rogues and complaining that Slayer and Investigator are overpowered.

[Snowbluff]

From stuff I remember from snippets of the dev's, the eidolon is remaining but you pick like a theme for it or something rather than making it up however you want. From that I'd assume it'd be like more like how animal companions are handled than anything else.
Um, you do pick a theme for it. Biped, aquatic, quadruped or serpentine. The customization is what made it good, so it sounds like they'll accomplish just sucking the fun out of it.

What I don't want is an AnC sort of thing. Just... no.


I am curious how the whole mundane subsystem will work with it's Fatigue points (though I still hate that name).

As for what gets the most complaints and arguements on the paizo boards, I'd probably say Rogue... So many threads saying paizo hates rogues and complaining that Slayer and Investigator are overpowered.
Rogues were bad, but I don't think Slayer or Investigator came off as particularly strong, especially consider existing material like the Ranger and Vivisectionist, as well as contemporaries like the hunter.

A stamina system sounds... interesting, but considering current martial rules, we can probably safely ignore it.

[AnonymousPepper]

So what are they doing to Gunslinger?

Paizo pls don't touch the only mundane class I like :smallfrown:

[Ilorin Lorati]

Ugghhhh, Gunslinger. I wish they would just rip the gun rules up and start over.

[Snowbluff]

So what are they doing to Gunslinger?

Paizo pls don't touch the only mundane class I like :smallfrown:
http://images6.fanpop.com/image/answers/3422000/3422788_1386102318971.29res_499_286.jpg
So you like gunslinger, huh?

Ugghhhh, Gunslinger. I wish they would just rip the gun rules up and start over.
Personally feelings aside (my own predilection for summoner isn't entirely objective), he does bring an interesting point. The gun rules do suck, though.

"Fatigue points: Everyone has grit."

[Blackhawk748]

"Fatigue points: Everyone has grit."

Move along Paizo, you saw nothing here!

[(Un)Inspired]

Does anyone know why the book is titled Unchained? If it full of nerds shouldn't it be called Pathfinder: Chained?

[Snowbluff]

It's because the chain connecting the mouse wheel to the generator is broken.

Move along Paizo, you saw nothing here!

https://celestialkitsune.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/screenshots_56540.jpg?w=450
Search your feelings, Blackhawk. You know it to be true.

[Psyren]

Anyway, if "hitting really hard" is the problem, I'm actually surprised they're not worried about natural attackers or any smite-based paladin...

I listed a number of issues people have with the Summoner; hitting really hard is probably the least of these - and it's not even inherently a problem, it only sticks out when you combine it with other things. It's more along the lines of "you can hit really hard, while one of my class features can hit really hard while I'm over here doing all this other stuff, all in the same round."


Can someone explain this to an unchained novice: Will it actually hard-replace good chunks of the existing rules, is it more of an Arcana Unearthed thing with optional rules, or is it a fully new edition of Pathfinder?

It's optional stuff like UA I believe. Though for PFS they may use it as stealth errata by simply banning the non-Unchained versions of X. (Though that may actually work in the Rogue's favor.)

And of course, "optional" can very quickly become "mandatory" for some DMs as well.


Yay.

Can we get some hard facts? Not to hate on the yep train... but I hate being teased. It does say he says he's making it more modern, when Summoners about as modern as it got. :l

Well, he confirmed there'll be previews in the blog so... nothing for it but to wait it seems.

[Milo v3]

Does anyone know why the book is titled Unchained? If it full of nerds shouldn't it be called Pathfinder: Chained?

Because it's paizo getting "unchained" from trying to do backwards compatibility with rogues and barbarians and stuff, since they apparently wanted to change them a lot when they were writing the Core rules but couldn't modify them past a certain point.

[AnonymousPepper]

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/answers/3422000/3422788_1386102318971.29res_499_286.jpg
So you like gunslinger, huh?"

I LOVE Gunslinger.

[Blackhawk748]

It's because the chain connecting the mouse wheel to the generator is broken.


https://celestialkitsune.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/screenshots_56540.jpg?w=450
Search your feelings, Blackhawk. You know it to be true.

http://media.giphy.com/media/SXcgjAPQnWOhW/giphy.gif

[Snowbluff]

http://media.giphy.com/media/SXcgjAPQnWOhW/giphy.gif
http://jurnalotaku.kilatstorage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/trap-paling-menyesatkan-via-sgcafe-4.jpg


I listed a number of issues people have with the Summoner; hitting really hard is probably the least of these - and it's not even inherently a problem, it only sticks out when you combine it with other things. It's more along the lines of "you can hit really hard, while one of my class features can hit really hard while I'm over here doing all this other stuff, all in the same round."
Synthesist Synthesist Synthesist Synthesist Synthesist...



It's optional stuff like UA I believe. Though for PFS they may use it as stealth errata by simply banning the non-Unchained versions of X. (Though that may actually work in the Rogue's favor.)

And of course, "optional" can very quickly become "mandatory" for some DMs as well.
*shutters* I hope it turns out okay, then. On the other hand, I seem to have convince my



Well, he confirmed there'll be previews in the blog so... nothing for it but to wait it seems.
Well, as you just found out with grit, I shouldn't be allowed to speculate for our sanity.

I LOVE Gunslinger.
*removed cigar *"Mother of God..."

I'm not going to derail this. YOU'RE WELCOME, internet. :smallwink:

[Vhaidara]

If it full of nerds

You cannot keep us chained...

[Blackhawk748]

You cannot keep us chained...

*in a terrible Scottish accent* I WILL BE FREE!!!!

[(Un)Inspired]

You cannot keep us chained...

Damn phone always autocorrecting me.

[Snowbluff]

*removed cigar *"Mother of God..."

I'm not going to derail this. YOU'RE WELCOME, internet. :smallwink:


You cannot keep us chained...


*in a terrible Scottish accent* I WILL BE FREE!!!!


Damn phone always autocorrecting me.

I hate you guys.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/053/650/maria_holic_mariya_shidou.jpg

[PsyBomb]

The Gunslinger class is decent, it's the GUN rules that need to die in a fire. If those can be fixed, then the class will work better. Ironically, the class most able to abuse the gun rules isn't the Gunslinger... it's the Synthesist Summoner (which is a WEAKER archetype of Summoner, go figure). Gundolon build can double Ubercharger output for 1-2 rounds at a time. Gets kinda sad after a bit.

[Snowbluff]

The Gunslinger class is decent, it's the GUN rules that need to die in a fire. If those can be fixed, then the class will work better. Ironically, the class most able to abuse the gun rules isn't the Gunslinger... it's the Synthesist Summoner (which is a WEAKER archetype of Summoner, go figure). Gundolon build can double Ubercharger output for 1-2 rounds at a time. Gets kinda sad after a bit.

Mhm. Dip a level of Mysterious Stranger. I've done this before.

Quelaag from Dark Souls is my next build. Thoughts?

[squiggit]

Am I the only one who finds the gunslinger pretty harmless?

[Mithril Leaf]

The summoner is strong, but I'd say they don't have their priorities in order if they nerf things for the Tome of Battle reasons before they buff things for being quite weak.

Give the rogue full BAB and a scaling bonus to all trained skills and maybe I'd consider it time for a Summoner nerf.

[Milo v3]

The summoner is strong, but I'd say they don't have their priorities in order if they nerf things for the Tome of Battle reasons before they buff things for being quite weak.

Give the rogue full BAB and a scaling bonus to all trained skills and maybe I'd consider it time for a Summoner nerf.


They are buffing things that are weak, monks are definitely getting buffs and I think I heard rogues are getting something.

[Zanos]

They are buffing things that are weak, monks are definitely getting buffs and I think I heard rogues are getting something.
I don't think rogues need more buffs after the alchemy update was released.

[Milo v3]

I don't think rogues need more buffs after the alchemy update was released.

Not sure how the alchemy book helped rogues an immense amount, I mean, anything that helps rogues would investigators just as much.

[Zanos]

Not sure how the alchemy book helped rogues an immense amount, I mean, anything that helps rogues would investigators just as much.
Just joking about how alchemist is basically superior to rogue in all respects.

[AGrinningCat]

Interested in this mundane system. I'm in agreeance that if it's x/day it's going to be ****, so hopefully we'll see something that keeps martials with the idea of 'swing sword all day' and casters as 'x/day'

This is Pazio though, so I'm not holding my breath.

Edit: I want rogue to be good.
http://i.imgur.com/feKrh70.png

[Kurald Galain]

Right. So is this a fair summary of people's issues?


Magus: intensified shocking grasp, and it basically gets TWF for free.
Gunslinger: it attacks touch AC instead of regular AC.
Witch: slumber hex. As far as I can see, all complaints about the witch boil down to the slumber hex, really.
Barbarian: it deals 1d12+12 damage out of the box.
Summoner: complaints range from raw damage output, to dozens of attacks, to unbeatable grapples, to bogging down combat with piles of minions, to rendering the skill monkeys obsolete with a skilldolon, to their list being prime fodder for spell stealage, to being nigh-unkillable (quoting Psyren on this one).



I should add from my personal experience that all gunslingers I've seen in gameplay in the past year have been underwhelming, as have all witches except for the one built on spamming the slumber hex.

[Coidzor]

I suppose we'll see how they are at nerfing things without SKR-induced stupidity.

I rarely hold out hopes that a nerfing will go well, though, it seems to be one of those things that is generally quite hard to do.

[Barstro]

I listed a number of issues people have with the Summoner; hitting really hard is probably the least of these - and it's not even inherently a problem, it only sticks out when you combine it with other things. It's more along the lines of "you can hit really hard, while one of my class features can hit really hard while I'm over here doing all this other stuff, all in the same round."

And, if the enemies do ANY of the easy ways to stop me (Putting me to sleep because I'm metagaming and never took that one feat, banishing (or whatever actually does work), fighting in enclosed areas where huge creatures cannot fit, etc.), I'm going to cry and say the DM is being unfair. We will have three encounters each day, no more. Anything else is the DM being vindictive.:smallfurious:

[Snowbluff]

And, if the enemies do ANY of the easy ways to stop me (Putting me to sleep because I'm metagaming and never took that one feat, banishing (or whatever actually does work), fighting in enclosed areas where huge creatures cannot fit, etc.), I'm going to cry and say the DM is being unfair. We will have three encounters each day, no more. Anything else is the DM being vindictive.:smallfurious:

Yeah, most of summoner's rules run into Grod's Law, like the equipment and sleeping thing.

[avr]

And, if the enemies do ANY of the easy ways to stop me (Putting me to sleep because I'm metagaming and never took that one feat, banishing (or whatever actually does work), fighting in enclosed areas where huge creatures cannot fit, etc.), I'm going to cry and say the DM is being unfair. We will have three encounters each day, no more. Anything else is the DM being vindictive.:smallfurious:
A summoner isn't especially vulnerable to sleep; they have a good will save at least, and an elf is a perfectly decent summoner if you're paranoid about that. Banishing/dismissing their eidolon or summoned monsters takes a decent level spell and a failed will save and leaves the summoner unharmed. Summoned monsters rather than a combat eidolon can fit in tight spaces just fine, and summoners should be fine with multiple encounters per day. I'm not sure what your point is here.

That said about the last nerf I'd want to see is giving them a choice of a handful of eidolon styles. Customising your eidolon is the biggest way of distinguishing one summoner from another.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Right. So is this a fair summary of people's issues?


Magus: intensified shocking grasp, and it basically gets TWF for free, *which lets him easily nova against single targets*
Gunslinger: it attacks touch AC instead of regular AC, *which is especially damaging against lone monsters that rely on touch-AC*
Witch: slumber hex. As far as I can see, all complaints about the witch boil down to the slumber hex, *because it can easily KO bosses* really
Barbarian: it deals 1d12+12 damage out of the box *against single targets*
Summoner: complaints range from raw damage output, to dozens of attacks, to unbeatable grapples, to bogging down combat with piles of minions, to rendering the skill monkeys obsolete with a skilldolon, to their list being prime fodder for spell stealage, to being nigh-unkillable (quoting Psyren on this one).



I should add from my personal experience that all gunslingers I've seen in gameplay in the past year have been underwhelming, as have all witches except for the one built on spamming the slumber hex. Let me edit that post to show the through-line between all those complaints.

Paladins' high saves also occasionally get brought up, and fighters and rogues are often considered passable because they can do so well against single targets.

This goes back to things like Pathfinder Society, and lackluster encounter design by adventure path writers and new GMs. Too many rely on single-monster encounters, with little to no environmental complications, and many GMs make the mistake of only running 1 encounter/day. It gives the limited resource classes few reasons to not use all their resources at once in encounters that are already catered to their abilities.


The summoner is the exception to that rule.

[Kurald Galain]

This goes back to things like Pathfinder Society, and lackluster encounter design by adventure path writers and new GMs. Too many rely on single-monster encounters, with little to no environmental complications, and many GMs make the mistake of only running 1 encounter/day. It gives the limited resource classes few reasons to not use all their resources at once in encounters that are already catered to their abilities.

Yes, that certainly matches my experience. I'm not sure who invented the notion that a standard encounter is five PCs against a single monster, but such encounters tend to be extremely easy for the PCs.

It does seem that if adventures were to use mostly group-on-group fights, then the most common issues with most classes would just go away (except for the summoner, of course). I'll keep that in mind for future GM'ing.

[GreyBlack]

Yes, that certainly matches my experience. I'm not sure who invented the notion that a standard encounter is five PCs against a single monster, but such encounters tend to be extremely easy for the PCs.

It does seem that if adventures were to use mostly group-on-group fights, then the most common issues with most classes would just go away (except for the summoner, of course).

Agreed. I tend to be a staunch believer that a CR3 means 2 level 3 PCs could take it assuming low optimization levels. Moderate to high bump it up higher. Single target dpr is not a good method of determining class power level, but likely the easiest to test and monitor.

[Vhaidara]

a standard encounter is five PCs against a single monster,

IIRC, it is the following
1 CR 5 monster/EL 5 Encounter should pose enough of a challenge to a group of 4 level 5 PCs (standard party comp: 1 S&B Fighter, 1 Skillmonkey Rogue, 1 Healbot Cleric, 1 Blaster Wizard) to consume 25% of their daily resources

[Kurald Galain]

IIRC, it is the following
1 CR 5 monster/EL 5 Encounter should pose enough of a challenge to a group of 4 level 5 PCs (standard party comp: 1 S&B Fighter, 1 Skillmonkey Rogue, 1 Healbot Cleric, 1 Blaster Wizard) to consume 25% of their daily resources

That's the theory. In practice, though, would you agree that a standard party of four level 5 PCs will thoroughly trounce a single CR 5 monster? There are probably a handful of monsters where this doesn't apply, such as dragons, beholders, and TDC; but in general, that's what'll happen in practice, yes?

[Vhaidara]

That's the theory. In practice, though, would you agree that a standard party of four level 5 PCs will thoroughly trounce a single CR 5 monster? There are probably a handful of monsters where this doesn't apply, such as dragons, beholders, and TDC; but in general, that's what'll happen in practice, yes?

Oh, absolutely. I was just correcting the idea that it was 5 players.

Actually, they might struggle. S&B fighters do very low damage, unoptimized blasters are terrible, healbots don't contribute, and skillmonkey rogues spend all their feats on Skill Focus, so they're worthless in a fight (this is the Haley style archer rogue)

[Psyren]

Synthesist Synthesist Synthesist Synthesist Synthesist...

That one just trades the action economy advantage for being a one-man army/nigh-unkillable. And if you do bring out something that can really threaten the Synthesist, that thing steamrolls everyone else. End result is that you're swapping one problem for another.



*shutters* I hope it turns out okay, then. On the other hand, I seem to have convince my

I think this got cut off?



Give the rogue full BAB and a scaling bonus to all trained skills and maybe I'd consider it time for a Summoner nerf.

Making skill checks was never the rogue's problem, and we have a full BAB skillmonkey in the Slayer. Though I certainly wouldn't say no to bonuses on opposed skills that helped the rogue avoid and escape fights, like Perception, Stealth, Acrobatics and Escape Artist.

I don't think the rogue itself needs full BAB; I think having a separate version of the class that's more dedicated to fighting is a good thing, just as I think there's thematic space for both the combat-dedicated Brawler and the spiritual Monk.



I rarely hold out hopes that a nerfing will go well, though, it seems to be one of those things that is generally quite hard to do.

Their druid nerfs were near-perfect; the class is still strong and fun to play, but stealing the spotlight takes much more work. I dunno, maybe I'm just more optimistic.


A summoner isn't especially vulnerable to sleep; they have a good will save at least, and an elf is a perfectly decent summoner if you're paranoid about that. Banishing/dismissing their eidolon or summoned monsters takes a decent level spell and a failed will save and leaves the summoner unharmed. Summoned monsters rather than a combat eidolon can fit in tight spaces just fine, and summoners should be fine with multiple encounters per day. I'm not sure what your point is here.

This.

[Snowbluff]

That one just trades the action economy advantage for being a one-man army/nigh-unkillable. And if you do bring out something that can really threaten the Synthesist, that thing steamrolls everyone else. End result is that you're swapping one problem for another.
In terms of fighting, it's not any stronger than a regular eidolon aside from more THP.



I think this got cut off?


Oh, yes. We're using Path of War in the next AP the DM is running.

[Mithril Leaf]

I don't think the rogue itself needs full BAB; I think having a separate version of the class that's more dedicated to fighting is a good thing, just as I think there's thematic space for both the combat-dedicated Brawler and the spiritual Monk.


While conceptually that's certainly true, and it's definitely possible to make the rogue a good class without giving it full BAB, those methods are much harder and I have little interest in spending time brewing something up that will never get used.

[Psyren]

In terms of fighting, it's not any stronger than a regular eidolon aside from more THP.

But the squishy guy on whose survival the eidolon depends isn't standing off to the side where he can be pounced on or pincushioned by archers either.


While conceptually that's certainly true, and it's definitely possible to make the rogue a good class without giving it full BAB, those methods are much harder and I have little interest in spending time brewing something up that will never get used.

What I'm saying is that there's no need - they're going to brew something for us. I was more writing about what I hoped to see in that. The rogue should be able to fight if he has to, but more proficient at avoiding it (or at least making the fight on his terms) while the Slayer is built for combat and especially built for getting that first devastating hit in.

[Barstro]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

My point is that Summoners are a bit of a glass canon. Reinforced glass, mind you, but still... While some of those "tricks" I mentioned are not exactly easy and have high saves, it is perfectly reasonable that a BBEG would have heard about how the Eidolon is messing with all of his plans and set up a party to specifically attack the Eidolon's weaknesses. An easy save gets more difficult when eight mooks cast the spell at the same time. But, DMs rarely seem to do this. As such, the powerful Eidolon stays powerful.

Edit: But Psy appears to agree with you, and I have no reason to think his experience with the class does anything other than completely overshadow mine.

[Barstro]

and lackluster encounter design by adventure path writers and new GMs. Too many rely on single-monster encounters, with little to no environmental complications, and many GMs make the mistake of only running 1 encounter/day. It gives the limited resource classes few reasons to not use all their resources at once in encounters that are already catered to their abilities.
Amen


The summoner is the exception to that rule.
Nah, I think it's just a lot more difficult. Perhaps so difficult that it isn't even worth trying.

[Snowbluff]

But the squishy guy on whose survival the eidolon depends isn't standing off to the side where he can be pounced on or pincushioned by archers either.
A summoner isn't any more squishy than a rogue. They're NAD, remember? Having a PC's worth of health and defenses between existence and not isn't much different from just playing a PC in the first place.



What I'm saying is that there's no need - they're going to brew something for us. I was more writing about what I hoped to see in that. The rogue should be able to fight if he has to, but more proficient at avoiding it (or at least making the fight on his terms) while the Slayer is built for combat and especially built for getting that first devastating hit in.

Well, the problem with a full BAB rogue is that the classes isn't designed to strike against full AC. Their mechanics focus on getting them a damage bonus after they've secured a bonus to hit.

[Psyren]

A summoner isn't any more squishy than a rogue.

Exactly - rogues are squishy. They survive by not being noticed and targeted, or by getting away (EA, acrobatics, or bluff+stealth) if they are. Also, summoners can't wear armor and have to share slots with the eidolon on top of that, so they can in fact be squishier unless they devote resources like buffs to mitigating that. Synthesists meanwhile do not have to, and can focus their spells on offensive buffs or control.


My point is that Summoners are a bit of a glass canon. Reinforced glass, mind you, but still... While some of those "tricks" I mentioned are not exactly easy and have high saves, it is perfectly reasonable that a BBEG would have heard about how the Eidolon is messing with all of his plans and set up a party to specifically attack the Eidolon's weaknesses. An easy save gets more difficult when eight mooks cast the spell at the same time. But, DMs rarely seem to do this. As such, the powerful Eidolon stays powerful.

Edit: But Psy appears to agree with you, and I have no reason to think his experience with the class does anything other than completely overshadow mine.

I'm not saying that your tricks wouldn't work in some cases, but they are band-aids at best - small patches that do not fix the underlying problem, and that are themselves counterable with minimal effort by the summoner (e.g. by playing an elf or half-elf.) Adding a bunch of casters to the encounter and then having them blow their actions focus-firing the eidolon can indeed work, but the fact that you'd have to resort to that kind of measure in the first place just proves that the eidolon itself needs fixing, so that you don't have to redesign all your encounters just because a summoner shows up at the table.



Well, the problem with a full BAB rogue is that the classes isn't designed to strike against full AC. Their mechanics focus on getting them a damage bonus after they've secured a bonus to hit.

That bonus to hit is hard to secure though. Putting aside monsters with special senses that can invalidate stealth entirely, a big part of high level AC is natural armor, which applies whether you can catch an enemy off-guard or not. And many rogueish maneuvers (like dirty trick or reposition) rely on BAB as well.

[Snowbluff]

Exactly - rogues are squishy. They survive by not being noticed and targeted, or by getting away (EA, acrobatics, or bluff+stealth) if they are. Also, summoners can't wear armor and have to share slots with the eidolon on top of that, so they can in fact be squishier unless they devote resources like buffs to mitigating that. Synthesists meanwhile do not have to, and can focus their spells on offensive buffs or control.
Uh, eidolons can't wear armor, and summoners have armored mage: light. Unlike a rogue, they can add spells to their defense, like shield and invisibility. I think the primary issue would be getting a con item for a summoner while not conflicting with the eidolon's str item.

Also, Grod's Law, and double jeopardy resource costs. It's strictly a crappier mechanic compared to just running a synthesist in the first place. You shouldn't run face first into that, but I give you points for being honest.

[Psyren]

Uh, eidolons can't wear armor, and summoners have armored mage: light. Unlike a rogue, they can add spells to their defense, like shield and invisibility. I think the primary issue would be getting a con item for a summoner while not conflicting with the eidolon's str item.

The eidolon cannot wear actual armor, but it can still get an armor bonus from wondrous items/spells (e.g. Bracers of Armor or Mage Armor) or natural armor bonus (e.g. Amulet of Natural Armor or Barkskin) and allocate its scaling bonus to whichever one it is not getting from items. Besides which, the point stands - a Synthesist can have perfectly respectable defenses without either of the buffs you mentioned, and thus those spell slots are freed up for other things.



Also, Grod's Law, and double jeopardy resource costs. It's strictly a crappier mechanic compared to just running a synthesist in the first place. You shouldn't run face first into that, but I give you points for being honest.

I don't see how Grod's Law applies here - "you share slots with your eidolon, and in the case of a conflict your slots trump" is not complexity for complexity's sake, it's a legitimate balancing mechanic. That is actually one of the good design decisions they made concerning a summoner and their eidolon.

[Snowbluff]

The eidolon cannot wear actual armor, but it can still get an armor bonus from wondrous items (e.g. Bracers of Armor) or natural armor bonus (e.g. Amulet of Natural Armor) and allocate its scaling bonus to whichever one it is not getting from items. Besides which, the point stands - a Synthesist can have perfectly respectable defenses without either of the buffs you mentioned, and thus those spell slots are freed up for other things.
The eidolon's armor bonuses stand well enough on their own. Those spells are ones you should be snatching anyway, for several reasons.


I don't see how Grod's Law applies here - "you share slots with your eidolon, and in the case of a conflict your slots trump" is not complexity for complexity's sake, it's a legitimate balancing mechanic. That is actually one of the good design decisions they made concerning a summoner and their eidolon.

It's a bad balancing mechanic that introduces a rule for no good reason. Tell me why this should be the case. Why shouldn't a summoner be allowed to pay money to fill in slots for basic items on either unit? Numbers game, that's why. Rather than providing a qualitative item system, d20 largely relies on static item bonuses to fill in for RNG, making it a pain in the ass for no legitimate reason. WBL is a legitimate balancing mechanic. Arbitrary rules on how you buy and use gear with it, is not.

It also restricts more creative builds, like mounted summoners, with both the eidolon and synthesist using str items.

[Psyren]

The eidolon's armor bonuses stand well enough on their own. Those spells are ones you should be snatching anyway, for several reasons.

Exactly, they do - yet you can boost them even higher if you wish. And so a GM who wants to actually hit an eidolon or synthesist will need an attack bonus so high that many other classes don't stand a chance of being missed.

I feel like you're agreeing with everything I cite, yet somehow arriving at the opposite conclusion anyway :smalltongue:



It's a bad balancing mechanic that introduces a rule for no good reason. Tell me why this should be the case. Why shouldn't a summoner be allowed to pay money to fill in slots for basic items on either unit? Numbers game, that's why. Rather than providing a qualitative item system, d20 largely relies on static item bonuses to fill in for RNG, making it a pain in the ass for no legitimate reason. WBL is a legitimate balancing mechanic. Arbitrary rules on how you buy and use gear with it, is not.

It's not arbitrary. Eidolon was designed to be much, much stronger than a standard animal companion, so without these restrictions it ends up being broken fast. As they unfortunately found out, because the inherent strengths of the eidolon still managed to outweigh the clamps they put on it.


It also restricts more creative builds, like mounted summoners, with both the eidolon and synthesist using str items.

Do you mean regular summoner here? A synthesist could not mount his eidolon until level 16.

[Snowbluff]

Exactly, they do - yet you can boost them even higher if you wish. And so a GM who wants to actually hit an eidolon or synthesist will need an attack bonus so high that many other classes don't stand a chance of being missed.

I feel like you're agreeing with everything I cite, yet somehow arriving at the opposite conclusion anyway :smalltongue: Well, the summoner has moderate AC but with a good option set for strong concealment. Considering how much damage some monsters can put out, I think having a strong defense is fine in the case of an Eidolon, since it directly impacts how much damage they can do (Less arms, attack, energy option, size and str buffs from EP. Less $$$ for +weapons and other enhancements if you consider cost of nat armor and armor bracers).



It's not arbitrary. Eidolon was designed to be much, much stronger than a standard animal companion, so without these restrictions it ends up being broken fast. As they unfortunately found out, because the inherent strengths of the eidolon still managed to outweigh the clamps they put on it. The problem with that is that the rule doesn't say "don't gear your eidolon," it says "don't gear your eidolon and your summoner at the same time." If you do the first, you're a bit suboptimal from having to cut corners on either equipment sets, but it's workable. If you have the second, each of the units is stuck with different types of equipment, which is lousy when you're trying to build a special build. If anything, this is the first rule that needs to be changed.

My point is that it's definitely more agitating overall compared to the synthesist, which is strong (and really tough, maybe lower the THP or just alter that bit), but not a pain in the ass in terms of mechanics. Ironically, it solves issues with the class despite being one of the most often complained about archetypes.


Do you mean regular summoner here? A synthesist could not mount his eidolon until level 16.
Yep. It's an interesting option to explore. I've been considering playing a halfing with a rapier and butterfly sting on top of a scythe eidolon. Should be pretty funny and work as alternative to the standard pouncing. It's such a flexible class.

[Psyren]

Well, the summoner has moderate AC but with a good option set for strong concealment. Considering how much damage some monsters can put out, I think having a strong defense is fine in the case of an Eidolon, since it directly impacts how much damage they can do (Less arms, attack, energy option, size and str buffs from EP. Less $$$ for +weapons and other enhancements if you consider cost of nat armor and armor bracers).

Correct, a Summoner has moderate AC. A Synthesist's meanwhile is very strong, and then both types have the concealment options you mentioned on top of that. So while a summoner still has to worry about being hit (and must position himself, his eidolon, and his battlefield control accordingly to minimize that), the second one can either freely ignore these options or layer them on top, forcing the GM into an arms race that traditional melee and even many gishes cannot hope to win.


The problem with that is that the rule doesn't say "don't gear your eidolon," it says "don't gear your eidolon and your summoner at the same time." If you do the first, you're a bit suboptimal from having to cut corners on either equipment sets, but it's workable. If you have the second, each of the units is stuck with different types of equipment, which is lousy when you're trying to build a special build. If anything, this is the first rule that needs to be changed.

Enabling "special builds" should not be a design goal. The people who want those special builds to happen will make them happen, and accept whatever drawbacks or quirks arise as a result. The base scenario - a synthesist who combines innate defenses, items, and buffs to become impregnable, because the game's combat mechanics tell him he should - that scenario needs to be addressed first and foremost.



My point is that it's definitely more agitating overall compared to the synthesist, which is strong (and really tough, maybe lower the THP or just alter that bit), but not a pain in the ass in terms of mechanics. Ironically, it solves issues with the class despite being one of the most often complained about archetypes.

It solves some problems (action economy, miring combat) by creating more (non-attribute-dependency, fortress-like defenses) and does nothing at all to address others (discounted spells, primary caster and primary melee in one character with no tradeoff).



Yep. It's an interesting option to explore. I've been considering playing a halfing with a rapier and butterfly sting on top of a scythe eidolon. Should be pretty funny and work as alternative to the standard pouncing. It's such a flexible class.

I think that flexibility - some of it anyway - can be maintained while dialing it back a bit.

[Snowbluff]

Correct, a Summoner has moderate AC. A Synthesist's meanwhile is very strong, and then both types have the concealment options you mentioned on top of that. So while a summoner still has to worry about being hit (and must position himself, his eidolon, and his battlefield control accordingly to minimize that), the second one can either freely ignore these options or layer them on top, forcing the GM into an arms race that traditional melee and even many gishes cannot hope to win.
Yeah, you've agree with my statement about awarding system mastery with proper spell use. Traditional melee being an argument falls flat here.


Enabling "special builds" should not be a design goal. The people who want those special builds to happen will make them happen, and accept whatever drawbacks or quirks arise as a result. The base scenario - a synthesist who combines innate defenses, items, and buffs to become impregnable, because the game's combat mechanics tell him he should - that scenario needs to be addressed first and foremost.
It's not a matter of enabling them, but of not screwing with them in the first place.

On the other hand, a defensively strong synthesist has to have invested resource into it. It actually ends up in this weird place in terms of being a class being defensively competent and other classes like the rogue skewing the average.

I will suggest an alteration to fused eidolon that 1) removes the THP deal 2) applies the base form (but not the stats) and evolutions to the summoners 3) allows the summoner to count as his eidolon (for spells and future-proofing). THis will 1) remove erroneous complaints of NAD so (I don't have to listen to them anymore) 2) Lower defenses from 3 to 2 (Concealment and AC, removing high HP) and 3) be used to more firmly establish the way it's supposed to work.


It solves some problems (action economy, miring combat) by creating more (non-attribute-dependency, fortress-like defenses) and does nothing at all to address others (discounted spells, primary caster and primary melee in one character with no tradeoff).

Well, the NAD (what stats do I need? lol) and huge defenses (it's an eidolon either way) are an issue already. The discounted spells don't really help that much, since it lowers their DCs, spells known, and spells slot gain either by levels or high stat mods.

As far as full casterness goes, they are missing a strong offensive or "rocket tag" options. Outside of Gate and Simulacrum, I'm not sure they'd even break T3 (hell, alchemists get almost the same options). "Primary melee" is not a role, it's the option to deal damage as a melee combatant, and is only a small portion of a build. Anyone can do damage.


I think that flexibility - some of it anyway - can be maintained while dialing it back a bit.
True, but if you do that, you have to be *very* careful. Non-"am huge hit things" builds can fall into the danger of falling off RNG, AFAICT.

[Psyren]

Yeah, you've agree with my statement about awarding system mastery with proper spell use. Traditional melee being an argument falls flat here.

Thing is, they even beat other gishes (like Magus and Druid) at combining magic with physical combat due to physical NADness and buckets of undispellable THP.



It's not a matter of enabling them, but of not screwing with them in the first place.

On the other hand, a defensively strong synthesist has to have invested resource into it. It actually ends up in this weird place in terms of being a class being defensively competent and other classes like the rogue skewing the average.

I will suggest an alteration to fused eidolon that 1) removes the THP deal 2) applies the base form (but not the stats) and evolutions to the summoners 3) allows the summoner to count as his eidolon (for spells and future-proofing). THis will 1) remove erroneous complaints of NAD so (I don't have to listen to them anymore) 2) Lower defenses from 3 to 2 (Concealment and AC, removing high HP) and 3) be used to more firmly establish the way it's supposed to work.

They're not erroneous simply because you don't like them :smalltongue: the complaints are due to real and observed in-game occurrences.

I actually agree with your tweaks.



Well, the NAD (what stats do I need? lol) and huge defenses (it's an eidolon either way) are an issue already. The discounted spells don't really help that much, since it lowers their DCs, spells known, and spells slot gain either by levels or high stat mods.

As far as full casterness goes, they are missing a strong offensive or "rocket tag" options. Outside of Gate and Simulacrum, I'm not sure they'd even break T3 (hell, alchemists get almost the same options). "Primary melee" is not a role, it's the option to deal damage as a melee combatant, and is only a small portion of a build. Anyone can do damage.

It absolutely is a role. People sit down at the table wanting to be a melee combatant.

They have plenty of "rocket tag options." At low levels their grease and glitterdust are just as potent as those of a sorcerer. At mid levels, their black tentacles and spiked pit are still competitive. And really, even for the spells that do have DCs, -1 DC due to being a spell level lower is not going to break the bank by any means - you're still getting it close to the same time the other primary casters are, and you can pump Charisma far more than a Bard or ES Magus could ever hope to while still being great at melee. The NAD does matter and they're the only 1st-party class that gets it.

[Coidzor]

Their druid nerfs were near-perfect; the class is still strong and fun to play, but stealing the spotlight takes much more work.

I'd have to disagree with you there, they went too far with nerfing and standardizing animal companions. Also, they seemed to prefer a balance point where animal companions become irrelevant at a lower level than in 3.5, which I disagree with. If an ability is going to scale up to level 20 and be a main class feature it shouldn't fall by the wayside before level 12.


I dunno, maybe I'm just more optimistic.

Probably.

[Psyren]

If your animal companion is "falling by the wayside," especially that early in the game, you need to optimize it better. The tools are there.

[atemu1234]

Have they come up with a way to make Fighters less bad?

Nope, but Path of War did.

[Coidzor]

Nope, but Path of War did.

Path of War actually had something in it to fix Fighters rather than just being a spiritual successor to Tome of Battle with Pathfinder sensibilities?

[atemu1234]

Path of War actually had something in it to fix Fighters rather than just being a spiritual successor to Tome of Battle with Pathfinder sensibilities?

The only option is the nuclear option. We must wipe all traces of fighterdom from the planet.

Edit: Note that I'm actually kidding.

[Vhaidara]

Path of War actually had something in it to fix Fighters rather than just being a spiritual successor to Tome of Battle with Pathfinder sensibilities?

Martial Training feat line is actually a really good set of feats for fighters.

[Snowbluff]

I second the removal of fighter. Let it die, people.


It absolutely is a role. People sit down at the table wanting to be a melee combatant.
People also sit down to play healbots and blasters.



They have plenty of "rocket tag options." At low levels their grease and glitterdust are just as potent as those of a sorcerer. At mid levels, their black tentacles and spiked pit are still competitive. And really, even for the spells that do have DCs, -1 DC due to being a spell level lower is not going to break the bank by any means - you're still getting it close to the same time the other primary casters are, and you can pump Charisma far more than a Bard or ES Magus could ever hope to while still being great at melee. The NAD does matter and they're the only 1st-party class that gets it.
The only benefit of pumping Cha is DCs, and from your examples, they don't have good uses for it. Over 20 levels you're at a -3 disadvantage (at maximum investiture, unrecoverable) for a spell list that hardly uses it. The same is true for Bard and Magus, who should be systematically culled of any who started at 20 Int/Cha. I've already discussed this at great length, and had shown that with diminishing returns to PB, that NAD is not only irrelevant, but it's a possible trait of all casters who wish to cast in a similiar manner. I call it NAD because the summoner has nothing to do but play catch up if they're aren't too busy doing something interesting.

I've seen summoners who kill more allies with pits than enemies. "Observation" isn't really a good measure when you're talking about a vocal group of complainers who evidently understand very little about the system they play.

Also, I can't put Vow of Poverty on my Fleshraker. PF 9/10 "It was okay." :smalltongue:

[Squirrel_Dude]

Nah, I think it's just a lot more difficult. Perhaps so difficult that it isn't even worth trying.I just think that the summoner's issues lie more with the facts that
A) It's a spellcaster with a relatively low optimization floor because conjuration is fantastic
B) It's animal companion equivalent has a relatively low optimization floor, or at least one higher than all of the other FullBAB martial characters in the game besides maybe the Paladin.
C) It's primary focus and namesake, summoning, is the single worst thing in the game for grinding a session to a halt.
D) People really don't like the Synthesist

All which separate it from the typical "That things OP because it one shot a poorly planned encounter"

I'm close to saying that the reason so many people want the class to be nerfed isn't because it's particularly overpowered, but because the system it's built on is broken. Conjuration is just too powerful, versatile, and consistent a school at the moment. Other full BAB classes are not good unless optimized (or at least I can't enjoy them in Pathfinder). Summoning grinds the game to a halt because spellcasting (cast as many buffs/lingering effects as you want without penalty) leaves it too easily abused with spamming, it forces players/GMs to stop the game down and look up and learn or confirm summoned monsters stats, and it grinds in-game actions to a halt as one player is commanding an ever-increasing number of creatures.


Also, just to give new GMs and Adventure path writers some slack, the game does a poor job of clearly explaining how to create a good encounter, and provides few tools other than the mostly useless CR system.

[Psyren]

I second the removal of fighter. Let it die, people.

I'm... not sure you understand why Fighter exists.


People also sit down to play healbots and blasters.

And those are roles too (healing and damage.)

Again I have to point out that you're simply playing a very different game than the one they're designing for, the one most of their fans are playing. Which is perfectly fine, but I doubt "Pathfinder: Snowbluff Edition" would sell as well :smalltongue:



The only benefit of pumping Cha is DCs, and from your examples, they don't have good uses for it. Over 20 levels you're at a -3 disadvantage (at maximum investiture, unrecoverable) for a spell list that hardly uses it. The same is true for Bard and Magus, who should be systematically culled of any who started at 20 Int/Cha. I've already discussed this at great length, and had shown that with diminishing returns to PB, that NAD is not only irrelevant, but it's a possible trait of all casters who wish to cast in a similiar manner. I call it NAD because the summoner has nothing to do but play catch up if they're aren't too busy doing something interesting.

I've seen summoners who kill more allies with pits than enemies. "Observation" isn't really a good measure when you're talking about a vocal group of complainers who evidently understand very little about the system they play.

Also, I can't put Vow of Poverty on my Fleshraker. PF 9/10 "It was okay." :smalltongue:

How did you get -3? Wait, are you taking "9 spell levels - 6 spell levels?" :smallconfused:

Because that is not how the math works at all. You have to compare, for each individual spell, where it is on the Summoner list vs. where it is on the Sorcerer list, and compare the levels they get them. (For example, Charm Monster: Sorc 4, Sum 3, that's a -1 save DC difference, not -3... and the Summoner gets it a level earlier besides.)

And yes, Bards and Magi are screwed if they start with 20 Int/Cha, because they are not NAD; they need physical stats. A Synthesist can do this easily. Whatever lengths you may have discussed it to previously, you may need to revisit your rationale.

[SiuiS]

I don't Paizo, like at all, so forgive me for being a numpty, but...

If the design goal was 'play as a monster', wouldn't that be just as broken as full-on wildshape or polymorph shenanigans?

[Anlashok]

It's sort of weird to see "slows down games" used as a legitimate complaint about the 'outdated' summoner when my Occultist with Sacred Geometry can take an hour per turn only using 'modern' content.

But I guess double standards aren't new.

Also.

Go figure that Paizo wants you to be able to "play as the monster" right after they release an archetype for a new class that does exactly that and utterly drop the ball on it.

[Snowbluff]

Sacred Geo doesn't take nearly as long to roll as we thought it did.

I'm... not sure you understand why Fighter exists.
Does it? IF people are getting away with thinking it's worthwhile, I think I can allow myself to be wrong about it existing.


How did you get -3? Wait, are you taking "9 spell levels - 6 spell levels?" :smallconfused:

Because that is not how the math works at all. You have to compare, for each individual spell, where it is on the Summoner list vs. where it is on the Sorcerer list, and compare the levels they get them. (For example, Charm Monster: Sorc 4, Sum 3, that's a -1 difference, not -3... and the Summoner gets it a level earlier besides.)

And yes, Bards and Magi are screwed if they start with 20 Int/Cha, because they are not NAD; they need physical stats. A Synthesist can do this easily. Whatever lengths you may have discussed it to previously, you may need to revisit your rationale.
I said over 20 levels. Using Charm monster at level 7 (when 4 level spells are in play) is on only -1. Using it at 11 is already -3.

20 Int/Cha is dumb not because they need other stats, but because they don't need that much in their casting stats. It accomplished less with exponentially diminishing returns per point of investment compared to a 9/9 caster (which is partially tuned with a 12 or 6 based saved progression in mind). Less spell slots and Lower DCs. They can't afford to use their limited spell pool on effects that have a limited effectiveness. Even a synthesist is better off putting those 7 PB into and Int and Wis to work on their perception and skills.

[Psyren]

I don't Paizo, like at all, so forgive me for being a numpty, but...

If the design goal was 'play as a monster', wouldn't that be just as broken as full-on wildshape or polymorph shenanigans?

Totemist and Alchemist proved that it can be done in a balanced way. Summoner... they definitely dropped the ball there.

[squiggit]

Totemist and Alchemist proved that it can be done in a balanced way. Summoner... they definitely dropped the ball there.

I'm not sure that's the right term. Conceptually Summoners are a great class, right up by the Alchemist with "Best designed new classes of Pathfinder".

It just has number problems, especially with particularly builds. Even that has as much to do with Paizo failing with martial classes as it does with Paizo overdoing it with the summoner.

[Snowbluff]

Did I ever tell you guys that alchemists are pretty much t2?

[Psyren]

I'm not sure that's the right term. Conceptually Summoners are a great class, right up by the Alchemist with "Best designed new classes of Pathfinder".

It just has number problems, especially with particularly builds. Even that has as much to do with Paizo failing with martial classes as it does with Paizo overdoing it with the summoner.

I agree - I think the concept was great. A conjuration specialist (with a smattering of supporting/thematic spells from other schools), with what should have been weaker magic overall, and a bizarre yet potent pet. By diverting energy from the pet (represented by unsummoning it), you temporarily get full summoning power, which you can channel into an SM of your level or even the almighty Gate. Add in some complementary class features (Bond Senses, Maker's Call and Transposition being great examples) and you're set. I also agree that its main problems are numerical. (No class pet, not even an eidolon, should be capable of rivalling a full character - not in melee and especially not in skills, unless that character is very poorly built or an NPC class.)

However, it does in fact have a few problems that go beyond just the eidolon's math, such as being able to swap between "combat eidolon" and "utility eidolon" far too easily - that's the kind of thing they should have made difficult to do, as it makes the eidolon easier to challenge and also forces the summoner to get more creative with his existing summon spells to cover for whatever deficiency the eidolon possessed. Instead, they threw in Evolution Surge and we got Schrodinger's Eidolon instead. Another problem was the discounting of spells, particularly spells that are not conjuration. There was just no reason at all for it to get haste earlier than a wizard does, or charm monster earlier than a sorcerer - neither is conjuration and making the summoner wait a bit on those would not have hurt the class at all.

[Pex]

It's sort of weird to see "slows down games" used as a legitimate complaint about the 'outdated' summoner when my Occultist with Sacred Geometry can take an hour per turn only using 'modern' content.

But I guess double standards aren't new.

Also.

Go figure that Paizo wants you to be able to "play as the monster" right after they release an archetype for a new class that does exactly that and utterly drop the ball on it.

A player in my group loathes summoning in general precisely because he finds it bogs the game down, in his opinion. Taking the time to do the summoned creature's attacks adds to the overall real world time of the combat. The more creatures summoned the more time it takes the more aggravated he becomes. When he was DM in a game and a new player, but not his first game playing with us, playing a druid started summoning animals he went on a loud rant against summoning because the player's turn was taking so long. The player never came back.

[squiggit]

I understand why it has spells like that. Buff spells aren't the right school, but they do fit a summoner pretty well.

I think a lot of weirdness comes from unwritten design rules that don't need to be there. You can't have a ninth level arcane spellcaster with 3/4ths BAB, so in order to let Gish summoners and synthesists (and gish summoners are really fun to play) do their thing they're 6th level casters that get accelerated spells in weird places.

And then, yeah, Eidolon stuff. I think the evolution point effects are actually the biggest offenders here though. The eidolon has issues being really strong, especially at dealing damage, but that's in part because its competition has so many issues. The fact that you can turn your warrior into a skillmonkey much more easily than anyone else is the big problem.

If the class were a proper ninth level specialist like the Beguiler/DN/Warmage and spells like Evolution Surge and Summon Eidolon were gone or significantly reworked I think that would be a big start toward fixing the chassis.

My biggest concern right now is that these fixes are going to leave a lot of the technical problems in tact and just strip the summoner of power and more importantly flexibility and leave something not fun.

[Snowbluff]

If the class were a proper ninth level specialist like the Beguiler/DN/Warmage and spells like Evolution Surge and Summon Eidolon were gone or significantly reworked I think that would be a big start toward fixing the chassis.
It'd certainly help my NAD argument. Evolution Surge needs to stay, though. It's a well designed spell.


My biggest concern right now is that these fixes are going to leave a lot of the technical problems in tact and just strip the summoner of power and more importantly flexibility and leave something not fun.
This. The only good, original class to come out of Paizo, and their playerbase is calling for rock bottom nerfs.

They should just hire me. Nothing would go wrong except the inexplicable loss of a chunk of the playerbase with a correlated increase in the percentage of helpful threads.

[Psyren]

I understand why it has spells like that. Buff spells aren't the right school, but they do fit a summoner pretty well.

You misunderstand - I wasn't saying it shouldn't have supplementary spells like that; but it should get them when the Bard does, not equal to or even earlier than a wizard does. I personally don't think they should have discounted anything that wasn't conjuration, and for even the ones that were they should have been very careful/selective.


I think a lot of weirdness comes from unwritten design rules that don't need to be there. You can't have a ninth level arcane spellcaster with 3/4ths BAB, so in order to let Gish summoners and synthesists (and gish summoners are really fun to play) do their thing they're 6th level casters that get accelerated spells in weird places.

That's another weird choice I didn't mention yet. The basic summoner should have been 1/2 BAB - i.e. the physically inept guy with a big scary pet. Only when they are piloting the eidolon (either temporarily via Merge Forms, or permanently as a Synthesist) should that have changed, by replacing your BAB with that of the eidolon. There could have been a "combat summoner" archetype perhaps that gets to fight alongside the eidolon, similar to battle sorcerer, but it should have sacrificed more of its magic to do so.



And then, yeah, Eidolon stuff. I think the evolution point effects are actually the biggest offenders here though. The eidolon has issues being really strong, especially at dealing damage, but that's in part because its competition has so many issues. The fact that you can turn your warrior into a skillmonkey much more easily than anyone else is the big problem.

If the class were a proper ninth level specialist like the Beguiler/DN/Warmage and spells like Evolution Surge and Summon Eidolon were gone or significantly reworked I think that would be a big start toward fixing the chassis.

Yeah I agree here. Though I don't think making it a 6th level caster was a bad thing per se, if only they hadn't invalidated that choice with so many discounts.


My biggest concern right now is that these fixes are going to leave a lot of the technical problems in tact and just strip the summoner of power and more importantly flexibility and leave something not fun.

That is a possibility, sure. Worst-case scenario, if that happens, we can mix and match aspects of both versions to get the best possible representation until errata is released. But I'm not too worried - everything in ACG was, at least for me, fun to play.

[squiggit]

That's another weird choice I didn't mention yet. The basic summoner should have been 1/2 BAB - i.e. the physically inept guy with a big scary pet. Only when they are piloting the eidolon (either temporarily via Merge Forms, or permanently as a Synthesist) should that have changed, by replacing your BAB with that of the eidolon. There could have been a "combat summoner" archetype perhaps that gets to fight alongside the eidolon, similar to battle sorcerer, but it should have sacrificed more of its magic to do so.
I actually disagree. Making your summoner a gish is honestly one of the weaker and least problematic iterations of the class, but it is a flavorful one, so I think it's worth keeping.


Yeah I agree here. Though I don't think making it a 6th level caster was a bad thing per se, if only they hadn't invalidated that choice with so many discounts.
The theory could be wrong, but I think it goes back to that bab thing I mentioned. So you have a 9th level caster pretending to be a 6th level caster that just gets all the same spells anyways.



That is a possibility, sure. Worst-case scenario, if that happens, we can mix and match aspects of both versions to get the best possible representation until errata is released. But I'm not too worried - everything in ACG was, at least for me, fun to play.

Yeah. On the one hand the ACG and from the playtest OA are both pretty solid, minus some personal quibbles over design (still don't think the arcanist, warpriest or hunter have any business existing even though they're all fun).

On the other hand, when you have devs calling the summoner a huge design mistake and such, it makes me a little nervous.

[Psyren]

I actually disagree. Making your summoner a gish is honestly one of the weaker and least problematic iterations of the class, but it is a flavorful one, so I think it's worth keeping.

Well, I don't really think a conclusion like "1/2 BAB = can't be a gish" is well-supported. You can gish a transmuter wizard for instance, plus there's the Blade Adept Arcanist, and there was a thread recently that demonstrated the White Haired Witch's math works out too. And I don't think 3/4 works thematically for a summoner either - at best they put as much work into their magic as a sorcerer did, which appears to preclude much martial training.


On the other hand, when you have devs calling the summoner a huge design mistake and such, it makes me a little nervous.

The fact that it ended up as broadly controversial as it did is indeed a design mistake. People quibble over the magus and witch, and even the rogue and fighter, but no class even comes close to the polarizing splash that Summoner made. That in itself is a design mistake, whether or not we can agree on a solution (or whether they are even capable of coming up with one that will please more people than it ticks off.)

[squiggit]

The fact that it ended up as broadly controversial as it did is indeed a design mistake. People quibble over the magus and witch, and even the rogue and fighter, but no class even comes close to the polarizing splash that Summoner made. That in itself is a design mistake, whether or not we can agree on a solution (or whether they are even capable of coming up with one that will please more people than it ticks off.)

I still say the gunslinger is about on the same level, between whether guns "fit", dual wield double barrel DPR, attacking touch, and "realism" I see them get a ton of flak.

[Psyren]

I still say the gunslinger is about on the same level, between whether guns "fit", dual wield double barrel DPR, attacking touch, and "realism" I see them get a ton of flak.

That's more for the guns themselves than the class. If it had been focused on hand crossbows instead (even repeating crossbows), I'd wager people wouldn't have batted an eye - even if you kept things like hitting touch AC intact.

[Milo v3]

That's more for the guns themselves than the class. If it had been focused on hand crossbows instead (even repeating crossbows), I'd wager people wouldn't have batted an eye - even if you kept things like hitting touch AC intact.

Isn't there specifically a crossbow archetype for gunslinger, and everyone says it's super weak?

[squiggit]

Isn't there specifically a crossbow archetype for gunslinger, and everyone says it's super weak?

It's not super weak, most of the stuff it trades is 1:1 on its own or a wash, save vigilant loading which is useless and distracting shot is kinda nifty.

Biggest issue is that you're trading targeting touch (without spending grit or being level 11) for extra range and a lot of encounters in Pathfinder happen to play out in smaller spaces. You also lose damage until crossbow mastery lets you pick up heavy.

It also loses the archetype support the traditional gunslinger builds take advantage of, the only thing it stacks with is Gun Tank.

And don't think of playing a hand crossbow bolt ace.

[Psyren]

Isn't there specifically a crossbow archetype for gunslinger, and everyone says it's super weak?

It's not weak, people are just upset (and rightfully so) because the designers forgot to replace the 1st-level "Gunsmith" ability with something relevant. That and the range thing Squiggit mentioned, most fights in PF happen at close to mid-ranges.

[Kudaku]

The Bolt Ace is actually a fairly good ranged option, primarily because it gains dex to damage at level 5, but like most other things in the ACG the archetype could really benefit from more polish.

The Bolt Ace gains firearm proficiency but can't use repeating or hand crossbows. It starts with a battered firearm and the gunsmith feat despite the class flavor describing it as "never soiling its hands with powder or feel the sting of gunsmoke". There's also some ambiguity as to whether or not it can use Deadly Aim with Sharp Shoot RAW.

All that said, it's one of the best options for making a viable crossbow user in years.

[Squirrel_Dude]

It's not weak, people are just upset (and rightfully so) because the designers forgot to replace the 1st-level "Gunsmith" ability with something relevant. That and the range thing Squiggit mentioned, most fights in PF happen at close to mid-ranges.It's certainly not flavorful at all, but Gunsmithing is pretty great. Getting to craft equipment at 10% of the cost, when kegs of gunpowder cost 1000 GP and 1 day of labor gives you a pretty sweet profit margin. :smallbiggrin:

[Raven777]

Did I ever tell you guys that alchemists are pretty much t2?

Please elaborate.

[squiggit]

It's certainly not flavorful at all, but Gunsmithing is pretty great. Getting to craft equipment at 10% of the cost, when kegs of gunpowder cost 1000 GP and 1 day of labor gives you a pretty sweet profit margin. :smallbiggrin:

It's pretty cool, sure, but the archetype fluff goes out of its way to say that bolt aces tend to dislike guns, so keeping all that stuff is still silly.

Albeit it's sort of a common thread in the ACG: The cleric archetype has a missing class feature, feral hunters still get bonus tricks for animal companions they don't have and so on.

[Raven777]

I think we can all agree that the ACG was one of the worst edited books coming out of Paizo...

[Snowbluff]

Please elaborate.

They get simulacrum as a class feature, which let's them duplicated a bunch of other options, similiar to the Summoner. They also get SNA equivalents of the Summoner's SM progression, but that's not as good when you consider the SNA lists. Compared to the summoner, they're biggest difference in high end abilities is the lack of gate.

With beastmorph, transmutations, and mutagens, they have be strong melee, particularly when you add vivisectionist. Infusions with you familiar make buffing quick and easy.

So the next time your DM freaks out about synthesists, play a vivisectionist instead. People love that class because it's so balanced, right guys? :smalltongue:

[Seerow]

Totemist and Alchemist proved that it can be done in a balanced way. Summoner... they definitely dropped the ball there.

Ironically the synthesist (the most complained about archetype) is probably the best solution for "playing as the monster" as it cuts the action economy in half. Run with that and drop it down to paladin/ranger level casting instead of Bard, and you'd probably have a pretty solid tier 3 class.

[upho]

I feel they should have taken a path (this is for "playing the monster") similar to my Mutant. Instead of summoning the monster and playing that, actually let people play the monster.This.

I say basically every feature the current summoner has that is based on other classes' features can be ditched as long as its one truly unique component stays. Meaning spells, summon SLA, and even the summoner himself - or rather the master/pet relationship (along with the double action economy) - should be thrown into a dark alley for serious nerf bat beatings, and those which still don't take the hint and refuses to be beat into shape should simply be killed on the spot.

Evolutions, on the other hand, should be considered the absolute core of the class and the very basis of its existence, since the evo "system" is highly unique and by far the most mechanically versatile, useful and fun non-spellcasting feature Paizo has published. It also happens to be exactly the thing that enables the main conceptual goal of the class - "playing the monster".

And while for example certain alchemist, sorcerer or bloodrager builds can have a few limited similar abilities, they're not the core focuses of the classes and even those specialized builds still need numerous other features to be viable. Most importantly, those abilities are way too static and their mechanical impacts are not even remotely close to sufficient.

However, I do believe the benefits/costs of several individual evos should be changed, conforming to PC standards rather than monster standards when possible. But I would really hate if Paizo decides to balance evos as the add-ons to a caster's pet they currently are, thus nerfing them into a dull and generic animal companion-ish oblivion.

I say unleash the evolutions and let the summoner focus on playing the monster! Without all the frankly silly balance issues from irrelevant features like spellcasting the current summoner drags along on for some weird reason.

Sadly, judging from Paizo's track record, I don't have much hope this will happen. :smallfrown:

[Psyren]

While Simulacrum can break the game if your GM is asleep at the wheel, in practice it won't.


Ironically the synthesist (the most complained about archetype) is probably the best solution for "playing as the monster" as it cuts the action economy in half. Run with that and drop it down to paladin/ranger level casting instead of Bard, and you'd probably have a pretty solid tier 3 class.

Actually, I think Bard casting would have been fine. What it ended up with was spontaneous wizard casting disguised as bard.

That and I think the offense/defense and skills could be toned back a bit - that's all you really need imo.


It's pretty cool, sure, but the archetype fluff goes out of its way to say that bolt aces tend to dislike guns, so keeping all that stuff is still silly.

Albeit it's sort of a common thread in the ACG: The cleric archetype has a missing class feature, feral hunters still get bonus tricks for animal companions they don't have and so on.

All that stuff is getting fixed, and the fixes for these in particular were actually previewed already.

[Bhaakon]

So the next time your DM freaks out about synthesists, play a vivisectionist instead. People love that class because it's so balanced, right guys?

Two different issues, I think. People hate synthesists because it attracts the type of doofus who thinks they can show up to a game with 3/3/3/18/18/18 stat array and not get called on it. Is it super-useful for a summoner to have an 18 Int, Wis, and Cha? Not really, but it still ticks a lot of people off in a way that merely building a strong character doesn't. People will articulate the problem as being one of power, but I think they really just mean that it's cheesy. It's the same reason that a lot of people hate chargers builds, even through they're actually significantly less powerful than a decently run caster. It's a negative aesthetic reaction to a very, very obvious attempt to game the rules system, even if the end result is only modestly impressive. Game balance is, at best, tangentially related.

[squiggit]

It'd certainly help my NAD argument. Evolution Surge needs to stay, though. It's a well designed spell.
Maybe. I like Evolution surge, but I can see how it contributes to problems. It's one of those things where using it to temporarily upgrade your eidolon can be cool and fun, but it also makes the eidolon potentially too flexible when used tangentially.

I actually think Summon Eidolon is one of the worst though. One of the supposed gameplay choices a summoner has to make is whether to keep their eidolon out or abandon their super beatstick so they can pump out minions. Summon Eidolon goes a long way to trivializing that by letting you pull the eidolon back out in one round.


This. The only good, original class to come out of Paizo, and their playerbase is calling for rock bottom nerfs.
I'd say the Alchemist is also pretty cool. I like the Magus too, but it's just pathfinder duskblade so can't really call that original.

[Mithril Leaf]

Maybe. I like Evolution surge, but I can see how it contributes to problems. It's one of those things where using it to temporarily upgrade your eidolon can be cool and fun, but it also makes the eidolon potentially too flexible when used tangentially.

I actually think Summon Eidolon is one of the worst though. One of the supposed gameplay choices a summoner has to make is whether to keep their eidolon out or abandon their super beatstick so they can pump out minions. Summon Eidolon goes a long way to trivializing that by letting you pull the eidolon back out in one round.


I'd say the Alchemist is also pretty cool. I like the Magus too, but it's just pathfinder duskblade so can't really call that original.

Bloodrager and Skald are both sort of nifty although they're really just Barbarian and Bard ACFs,

[Psyren]

Barbarian is a Bloodrager ACF (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/bloodrager/archetypes/paizo---bloodrager-archetypes/primalist) :smallbiggrin:

[thompur]

Am I the only one who thinks that they should do away with spells for the Summoner and Witch, and give them more interesting class features of the SLA and SNA quality? Also, tie the Eidolon's abilities more closely to the Summoner itself. Juat spitballi'n here, but maybe have its physical stats more directly linked to the Summoner's mental stats or health. Just a thought...

[Milo v3]

Not sure if everyones seen this already but I just found this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTgPSmTnrY0) today. In part of it they describe some of the things that'll happen with the classes (I love the skill thing), including a description on stuff for the summoner.

[Snowbluff]

Not sure if everyones seen this already but I just found this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTgPSmTnrY0) today. In part of it they describe some of the things that'll happen with the classes (I love the skill thing), including a description on stuff for the summoner.

*flips table internet*

I can't read this! It's in some form of sonic code. It's encrypted in such a way that I can't use control-f to mine information!

[Squirrel_Dude]

Not sure if everyones seen this already but I just found this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTgPSmTnrY0) today. In part of it they describe some of the things that'll happen with the classes (I love the skill thing), including a description on stuff for the summoner."The Pathfinder Strategy guide, coming out this december." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that book. It shouldn't need to exist.

My favorite comments about the Barbarian were the ones about how they're getting temporary hit points instead of all the constitution math, with the added benefit of not having Barbarians die when they hit 0 hitpoints and drop out of rage. You know, that thing they didn't do before Paizo screwed things up. :smallbiggrin: I do like the comments about decreasing the number of rage powers/+x bonuses, and replacing them with things like "gain a swim speed during rage."

On the Summoner comments: I like the idea of forcing the choice of a suite of abilities for eidolons at level 1 as a concept, but I don't trust the implementation to go well. At least not in a way where certain outsider choices are obviously better than others. In that case you would just be losing the current build-your-own monster for little balance benefit. It also sounds like it would make eidolons less interesting/unique as their own "type" of creature, and turn them into just a superior, generic, summoned monster. Also "If we do the summoner right, [Pathfinder Society] might force people to change. Hahahahaha." :smallannoyed:

Their discussion about magic items sounds like Weapon of Legacy, but extended to all magic items. Sounds like a decent idea.

[Bhaakon]

My favorite comments about the Barbarian were the ones about how they're getting temporary hit points instead of all the constitution math, with the added benefit of not having Barbarians die when they hit 0 hitpoints and drop out of rage. You know, that thing they didn't do before Paizo screwed things up.

Isn't that a purposeful throwback to 2nd edition? I'm not entirely sure, but I recall berserkers dying in that manner in Baldur's Gate if they weren't careful.

[the_david]

My favorite comments about the Barbarian were the ones about how they're getting temporary hit points instead of all the constitution math, with the added benefit of not having Barbarians die when they hit 0 hitpoints and drop out of rage. You know, that thing they didn't do before Paizo screwed things up. :smallbiggrin:

You mean like they did in D&D 3.5, right?


The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are.)

[georgie_leech]

You mean like they did in D&D 3.5, right?

When the Rage ends. 3.5 Barbarians rage for the full duration, while Pathfinder Barbarians drop out when they go unconscious, i.e. when they go below 0.

[NightbringerGGZ]

*flips table internet*

I can't read this! It's in some form of sonic code. It's encrypted in such a way that I can't use control-f to mine information!

Summary for those who can't interpret the code:

1. RogueEidelon needs a watch or somebody who can show him how to use a day planner app on his phone.

2. Advanced Class Guide - It's out. Buy it please.

3. Monster Codex - Focuses on 20 iconic monsters, provides lore & ecology data. New mechanics for each monster. 9 pages of stat blocks for each monster. Feats, spells and archetypes aren't restricted to particular monsters. New templates that add partial class features instead of full class levels.

4. Strategy Guide - Intended for new players. Nothing for us here.

5. Pathfinder Unchained - Out in April!

Playing with the Action Economy.
Rogue gets new conditions that it can apply to targets it sneak attacks. Hamper: Halves the targets speed for a round, target can't take 5-Foot Steps.
Rogue has a way to weaken opponents defences, gaining +4 to hit (allies get +2)
Rogue & Barbarian Talents being reviewed and updated.
Barbarian won't require a bunch of math when you rage. Temporary HP bonuses.
Rage Powers will be less complicated, won't have usage limits. Instead you'll get a suite of powers which last the entire Rage.
Monk is bumped to full BAB. You get a suite of class features you can pick from. Some existing class features can be picked up at earlier levels.
Summoner will retain the concept. When you pick your Eidolon you pick an Outsider type which is the chasis for your critter. This choice will restrict the Evolutions you can add on.
Tactics & Fatigue System. Intended for martial classes. You gain a Fatigue Pool which refreshes inbetween combats.
You gain special abilities in combat which burn Fatigue. Combat Feats will determine what you can do. For instance, burn Fatigue to deal extra damage on a Power Attack.
Based on BAB Bonus & Con modifier.
Takes some time to recover Fatigue, which is intended to balance against spell durations. Do you wait and recover Fatigue & lose time on a buff spell?
New system for spell components. Each school of magic will have a material component. Casting spells without this item causes spells to be less powerful. Special components will make spells more powerful.
System for magic items to make them leveling/scaling.
New system for making monsters from scratch. Pick a monster theme, you'll have final numbers pregenerated and then can add a few options on top of it. Intended to help you create custom monsters much quicker.
Class adjustments are not full rebuilds, rather the book modifies existing class features.
256 Pages, No Playtest. Plenty of complaints on Paizo forums.


6. Occult Adventures - Coming Summer 2015. Psychic Magic classes. Go look at the play test.

Q&A
1. How will Unchained affect PFS?
A. We won't know until after launch.

2. Since Unchained will fix clases, will Unchained be the new default?
A. No. They don't want to force people to use Unchained or create a divide in the community. Trap Sense replaced by Danager Sense, much more awesome ability.

3. Will Unchained Classes negate Archetypes?
A. Hopefully not. New abilities are treated as the old ones for feats/rules which play off them. Might make some archetypes less powerful.

4. Anything to expand skills?
A. A lot was done with skills. Every class gets their normal Class Skills as Adventuring Skills, but also get 2 points to spend on RP skills (Craft, Proff, Lore).

5. There will be new Crafting rules for mundane items. Also a new system to make magic crafting mechanics more fun.

[Snowbluff]

Thank you!

Having archetypes remain playable with the new classes would be ideal. Another good thing would be if these options were freely available in PFS.

Summoner changes sounds like the crummy prebuilt eidolons. It's as we feared. The only responsible action is arson. :smalltongue:

Fatigue rules sound interesting, but everyone knows that buffs are better. Additionally, not a lot of people like 4e. PF continues it's trend of following 4e by adding a new short rest system.

PF adds the special spell components from 3.5, and enforces the god-awful spell component rules by making them worse. Grod's Law blah blah blah.

Scaling magic items are something I'm excited for, but I'd prefer it if they just scrapped most of the standard ones and rolled them into stats.

Monster builder isn't as exciting when you remember the race builder.

Lack of playtest? Fine with me. I think the number of complaints is small compared to the potential problems releasing this material before it's ready would cause.

[Milo v3]

Summoner changes sounds like the crummy prebuilt eidolons. It's as we feared. The only responsible action is arson. :smalltongue:

To me, it doesn't sound like prebuilt eidolons, more themed eidolons. If you pick demon, you don't get smite good or whatever, if you pick Qllipoth (or however it's spelt) you might be able to get a madness ability at high levels, etc.

Also, missed in the list is that the video mentions people having to pick a number of offensive and defensive evolutions, to stop people from making giant eidolons with a billion attacks.


PF adds the special spell components from 3.5, and enforces the god-awful spell component rules by making them worse. Grod's Law blah blah blah.
This is mitigated in my view by the fact they clarify that each School will have a component, rather than having a component for each spell.

[Snowbluff]

To me, it doesn't sound like prebuilt eidolons, more themed eidolons. If you pick demon, you don't get smite good or whatever, if you pick Qllipoth (or however it's spelt) you might be able to get a madness ability at high levels, etc. We don't get smite good, anyway. So this might be good, except these are tied to base forms limiting customization. It should be based on your alignment instead or something. For example, only good summoners can put smite evil on their eidolon. Chaotic ones get madness. Etc. You know what that means? It's crappy because the alignment system makes more sense here.



Also, missed in the list is that the video mentions people having to pick a number of offensive and defensive evolutions, to stop people from making giant eidolons with a billion attacks. Oh, you mean like the max attacks stat on the current eidolon?



This is mitigated in my view by the fact they clarify that each School will have a component, rather than having a component for each spell.
1 component pouch -> 9(?) components.

[Psyren]

The new rogue sounds like it'll have a much easier time landing attacks and using maneuvers, so I'm excited about that. +4 is a big deal especially once you add in flanking, unseen and the other bonuses they can get. By itself that almost gets them to full BAB; the bonus for allies is icing on the cake.

Loving the "fatigue pool resource" idea.

It'll be hard to have an opinion on Summoner until we know specifics. Worst case scenario, if they don't fix it enough or the new version does truly become useless (unlikely but possible), it will just remain banned or houseruled at the same tables it is now.

Barb 2.0 sounds like it will simultaneously be stronger and easier to use.

[Snowbluff]

The new rogue sounds like it'll have a much easier time landing attacks and using maneuvers, so I'm excited about that. +4 is a big deal especially once you add in flanking, unseen and the other bonuses they can get. By itself that almost gets them to full BAB; the bonus for allies is icing on the cake.


+4 on sneak attacks? Yeah, that sounds pretty helpful.

Wait, whose rogues can't hit anything? Dex is a god stat, you only attack when you are getting an advantage to hit, and you don't precision damage rather than power attack. o.0

[squiggit]

Everything actually sounds kind of neat.

Except for the Summoner changes. My prediction was that the changes will make the summoner more boring to a greater degree than more balanced and making eidolon options more restrictive does just that.

Eh. We'll see how it turns out.

[Bhaakon]

Except for the Summoner changes. My prediction was that the changes will make the summoner more boring to a greater degree than more balanced and making eidolon options more restrictive does just that.

I don't see how they could fix the bookkeeping nightmare and stepping on toes complaints without severely restricting eidolon evolutions. Half the summoner complaints boil down to "the eidolon is way too versatile," which is what makes it both interesting and problematic.

[squiggit]

I don't see how they could fix the bookkeeping nightmare and stepping on toes complaints without severely restricting eidolon evolutions. Half the summoner complaints boil down to "the eidolon is way too versatile," which is what makes it both interesting and problematic.

You reduce on the fly versatility by messing with evolution surge and expand sample eidolons for players who want an easier package. You don't strip versatility out completely into neatly prepackaged boxes when that's the best part of the class' design. This helps DMs and Players who don't want to deal with bookkeeping issues without punishing people who like flexible classes because they're flexible.

Would you feel the same way if Unchained made Sorcerer bloodlines pick every spell for them?

[PsyBomb]

You reduce on the fly versatility by messing with evolution surge and expand sample eidolons for players who want an easier package. You don't strip versatility out completely into neatly prepackaged boxes when that's the best part of the class' design. This helps DMs and Players who don't want to deal with bookkeeping issues without punishing people who like flexible classes because they're flexible.

Would you feel the same way if Unchained made Sorcerer bloodlines pick every spell for them?

Being flexible is awesome. Being better than the Fighter at melee, while ALSO being better than the rogue at skills at the same time, while being one class ability (out of three good ones) of the actual character? Not so much.

I'm all for nerfing the Summoner, although I think I'd go about it slightly differently than most. Their main deal is the Eidolon, after all, and being able to make awesome Eidolons is part and parcel of making it a good class. The trick is to dial back the Summon Monster SLA and Spellcasting to the point where Eidolon teamwork is the main deal. The limit to Offensive Evolutions plus some retuning of certain ones (Skilled is a big offender) will do that.

Well, either that, or make the default into a Synthesist that drops full-replacement of the physical stats for a modifier equal to the Eidolon's stat minus 10. That would be fair, fun, and to the point of the original idea (which was to "play the monster"). Also need to iron out that spell list, though...

[squiggit]

Being flexible is awesome. Being better than the Fighter at melee, while ALSO being better than the rogue at skills at the same time, while being one class ability (out of three good ones) of the actual character? Not so much.
On its own restricting what your eidolon can do doesn't stop it from being a better beatstick than the fighter. Unless the "fighter" eidolon is ****ty... but again, that has nothing to do in and of itself with putting them into categories and more to do with the numbers being worse.

That's my issue. You're right. Summoners are problematic, but this change is tangential at best to fixing their issues.

What makes the summoner as is cool? You have the best companion pet in the game, it's both strong and flexible and can be realized a dozen different ways and the core class itself has a kit themed around supporting said beastie (and summoning other beasties).

What makes the summoner problematic? The companion pet is as strong as some of the weaker PC classes and deals a ton of damage. The core summoner itself on top of that is not a pushover, with a great spell list and good class features and medium BAB, making it a decent character even without the eidolon.

Take all that together and I don't see how "Pick a prepackaged eidolon at chargen" fits anywhere into it as a good solution.

[Bhaakon]

You reduce on the fly versatility by messing with evolution surge and expand sample eidolons for players who want an easier package. You don't strip versatility out completely into neatly prepackaged boxes when that's the best part of the class' design.

Or the worst, depending on your group. One of the reasons that so many people play class-based games over more free-form systems is ease of use. That's important to a lot of people who don't want to sit around calculating point-buy abilities for hours at character creation. One player's dream is another's nightmare. The versatility of the summoner is both the best and worst aspect of the class.


This helps DMs and Players who don't want to deal with bookkeeping issues without punishing people who like flexible classes because they're flexible.

Isn't that what they're doing?

The previous version of summoner isn't going anywhere. If your GM is OK with bookkeeping, it's still there. If it gives your GM headaches, there's the new version with selections limited by a thematic choice at character generation.

[PsyBomb]

On its own restricting what your eidolon can do doesn't stop it from being a better beatstick than the fighter. Unless the "fighter" eidolon is ****ty... but again, that has nothing to do in and of itself with putting them into categories and more to do with the numbers being worse.

That's my issue. You're right. Summoners are problematic, but this change is tangential at best to fixing their issues.

What makes the summoner as is cool? You have the best companion pet in the game, it's both strong and flexible and can be realized a dozen different ways and the core class itself has a kit themed around supporting said beastie (and summoning other beasties).

What makes the summoner problematic? The companion pet is as strong as some of the weaker PC classes and deals a ton of damage. The core summoner itself on top of that is not a pushover, with a great spell list and good class features and medium BAB, making it a decent character even without the eidolon.

Take all that together and I don't see how "Pick a prepackaged eidolon at chargen" fits anywhere into it as a good solution.

I agree with all points, which is why my proposed solution doesn't include prepackaging Eidolons. SO, for better resolution on what I'd like to see...

1) If this guy is going to be a 9th-level caster, make him 9th. If he's going to be 6th, then do away with the pseudo-9th casting. Either way, remove the Summon Eidolon spell, it just exists to let them cheese their own supposed limits
2) Rebalance or remove certain problematic Evolutions. Skilled and certain attacks need new point values, for example. Pounce can probably be unrestricted to be allowed on all forms if the offensive evolution limit thing is enforced.
3) The Summon Monster SLA badly needs to be nerfed into the ground. My recommendation: make it summon ONE monster at a time with all other current restrictions.
4) Unlike most, I think that Evolution Surge needs to stay. It is too integral to the playstyle of the class, and is their "ohcrap" button.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Something I wish was asked of the rules team on that panel, and something that they didn't mention is whether or not they were going to use Unchained as an opportunity to not just rework classes, and apparently also magic itmes, but also some of the more basic building blocks of characters, like feats and spells.

[PsyBomb]

Something I wish was asked of the rules team on that panel, and something that they didn't mention is whether or not they were going to use Unchained as an opportunity to not just rework classes, and apparently also magic itmes, but also some of the more basic building blocks of characters, like feats and spells.

Tangentially, the Fatigue system seems to be built off of stronger use of combat feats and the like from what they said. I'm imagining a system where burning Fatigue turns them into Mythic versions of themselves sans the MP activations for X amount of time (probably either a round or round/level). Just need to figure out how many points you might have, and what the consequences are for burning them.

[Blackhawk748]

Tangentially, the Fatigue system seems to be built off of stronger use of combat feats and the like from what they said. I'm imagining a system where burning Fatigue turns them into Mythic versions of themselves sans the MP activations for X amount of time (probably either a round or round/level). Just need to figure out how many points you might have, and what the consequences are for burning them.

I see it this way: Its either gonna suck really really hard, or someone on the Paizo forum is gonna scream OP and they are gonna release an Errata nerf. Now with that said i hope they dont muck it up as it would be nice to have Martial characters at least near Casters, without going into PoW

[Milo v3]

Something I wish was asked of the rules team on that panel, and something that they didn't mention is whether or not they were going to use Unchained as an opportunity to not just rework classes, and apparently also magic itmes, but also some of the more basic building blocks of characters, like feats and spells.
Well, they did say they were doing stuff with skills like the new Lore skill and the separation of backgroundy skills and adventurer skills.

[Snowbluff]

More skills sounds like a craptacular idea. Lore sounds even worse, when we have too many knowledge skills already. If there were only 5 like there should be, it wouldn't be an issue.

On its own restricting what your eidolon can do doesn't stop it from being a better beatstick than the fighter. Unless the "fighter" eidolon is ****ty... but again, that has nothing to do in and of itself with putting them into categories and more to do with the numbers being worse.
...

Take all that together and I don't see how "Pick a prepackaged eidolon at chargen" fits anywhere into it as a good solution.
I agree with this.

Honestly, if Eidolons are outskilling rogues, maybe rogues are the problem? The rogues that are getting fixed, right? I think a good metric for all of the other classes would be if they make them worth it compared to an eidolon. :smalltongue:

[Milo v3]

More skills sounds like a craptacular idea. Lore sounds even worse, when we have too many knowledge skills already. If there were only 5 like there should be, it wouldn't be an issue.

I like Lore, means you can be an expert in X without knowing Everything that might be tangentially related to X.

[Snowbluff]

I like Lore, means you can be an expert in X without knowing Everything that might be tangentially related to X.

Isn't this why we roll?

^Not being facetious, just really meta.

[Seerow]

What is the difference between Lore and Knowledge?

[Milo v3]

What is the difference between Lore and Knowledge?

Lore is super specific (which is why it's a background skill rather than adventuring skill).

Knowledge (Arcana) might have all the information on Constructs, Dragons Magic Technology, Magical Beasts, etc.

Lore (Owlbear) will have all the information on just Owlbear related things.

[Raven777]

Including (Owlbear) husbandry? Especially (Owlbear) husbandry.

[Starbuck_II]

Am I the only one who thinks that they should do away with spells for the Summoner and Witch, and give them more interesting class features of the SLA and SNA quality? Also, tie the Eidolon's abilities more closely to the Summoner itself. Juat spitballi'n here, but maybe have its physical stats more directly linked to the Summoner's mental stats or health. Just a thought...

Whoa, now, the Witch has awesome spells that exclusive like Vomit Swarm: Summon Swarm that you control.

[stack]

Alchemist gets vomit swarm as well.

[Ilorin Lorati]

Well, Witch is really just Warlock-lite in terms of flavor, so I'd certainly be all for just putting a better warlock there. :smallbiggrin:

I can't complain about their spell list, though. It's not terribly strong, but I still like it.

[Psyren]

Ba-Dum-Bump because the first preview is out today on the Paizo Blog - "Time To Break Your Chains!" (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lhbo?Time-to-Break-Your-Chains)

Summary of the class changes discussed:

Barbarian: As we already knew, they are going to the temp HP approach that will keep you alive when rage drops, instead of the bonus Con approach that made you very dead. They're also powering up some of the weaker rage powers, like Raging Climber (which will give you a climb speed now instead of a bonus to Climb.)

Monk: Seems like the entire class will be borrowing from Qinggong now - the Unchained Monk can mix and match a variety of abilities over its career, letting you be a kung-fu master or a mystic who uses divinations and other out of combat toys. It will also get full BAB and an "all-new flurry," as well as "strikes" that let it do special things in combat. The one they previewed was "Flying Kick," which lets you leap and kick a certain distance away (up to your bonus speed) once per flurry. (Hmm... If you can declare flurry -> flying kick to target as first attack -> continue flurry on target, this will basically become pounce for every monk - and a pounce that might clear some terrain or obstacles no less.)

Rogue: Dex to damage! (Somehow. No details yet.) They're also getting a debuff mechanic ("debilitation") which should make them, or perhaps their party, more formidable in combat. It looks like they are getting special rogue-only skill uses that function like skill tricks did in 3.5. These include the ability to Bluff your way around truth-telling magic, limited mind-reading with Sense Motive, and use Disable Device to protect themselves from a trap that's already gone off. Also, like the barbarian, some of their weaker rogue talents are getting buffed - for example, minor magic will let them use the cantrip at-will instead of x/day. So if you ever wanted that rogue who has stuff just fall into her lap, stick mage hand on her. Finally, they're getting Weapon Finesse for free at long last.

And finally, the class that started this thread:

Summoner: It looks like the "themed eidolons" prediction might be coming true - they are now going to be closer to existing outsider types. They mentioned protean, for a more euclidean pet, and angelic so far. But with the limitations of the packages will come some abilities that the eidolon doesn't have now, like a magic circle against evil aura for the angelic eidolon. They also mentioned that the spell list is being adjusted to what was "originally intended" - whatever that ends up meaning.

Some tidbits from Skills and Feats will be previewed next week. No word on the Fighter yet.

Also, here's JB with the book (or at least just the cover), the bastard:

http://i.imgur.com/obd3LaC.png

[Vhaidara]

It looks like they are getting special rogue-only skill uses that function like skill tricks did in 3.5.

I like the sound of all of it (except the summoner thing, but that's a given, since removing customization = bad). However, this sounds like a bad thing to me. I dislike that the rogue will now simply be better at some skills than any other class can be. Unless they include an amateur feat (like for gunslinger, swash, and invest), I just feel it is going to force people to dip rogue when running, say, skill monkey Inquisitor or Bard.

[squiggit]

Monk and Rogue changes sound cool

Barbarian changes look more like polishing/balancing than a re-imagining.

Still not a fan of Summoner changes.

[Psyren]

I like the sound of all of it (except the summoner thing, but that's a given, since removing customization = bad). However, this sounds like a bad thing to me. I dislike that the rogue will now simply be better at some skills than any other class can be. Unless they include an amateur feat (like for gunslinger, swash, and invest), I just feel it is going to force people to dip rogue when running, say, skill monkey Inquisitor or Bard.

I'm honestly not too worried about them either way. They sound like nice-to-haves rather than must-haves.

Take the trap thing. A rogue can use DD to reduce the damage from a trap. An Inquisitor can't, but they can use Resist Energy instead, or magic vestment, or just heal the extra damage. A rogue can detect thoughts with Sense Motive, while a Bard or Inquisitor can use the spell. It's all relative. Sure they can't exactly start chanting mid-conversation, but that just means you cast it outside before walking in or something. A small advantage to the rogue in certain situations, but not actually barred functionality the way things are now, and the rogue should have somet small advantages.

Of course, I wouldn't be upset at an "amateur X"-ish feat too, so long as the rogue does not also have to take it to gain these abilities.

[Snowbluff]

Magic Circle sounds a bit of a **** replacement for a cool class.

Rogues already had debuffs and skill use bonuses. Why are they saying this is a new feat- oh. (http://www.amazon.com/Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Unchained/dp/1601257155)

[PsyBomb]

I am cautiously optimistic about these. Barb simplification and buffing the worthless rage bowers is good.

Monk will depend on the nature of the rest of the new moves.

LOVE the rogue stuff, being so skillful they edge into supernatural use. Makes them unique again.

Edit: depending on how much customizability remains to the eidolon, I like what they're doing there as well... though cautiously, pending the new spell list

[deuxhero]

As they are changing class features, I wonder if this will apply to class that share those features (such as if a bloodrager can avoid dieing from their con bonus running out too)


Lore is super specific (which is why it's a background skill rather than adventuring skill).

Knowledge (Arcana) might have all the information on Constructs, Dragons Magic Technology, Magical Beasts, etc.

Lore (Owlbear) will have all the information on just Owlbear related things.

Would be nice to have a religious character that didn't know about every obscure undead (and yet fail to recognize his deity's servants and domain because those are under Planes) because he knows about his religion.

[Psyren]

Would be nice to have a religious character that didn't know about every obscure undead (and yet fail to recognize his deity's servants and domain because those are under Planes) because he knows about his religion.

If there are obscure undead in your campaign, raise the DC. The given formula is explicitly supposed to be general.

[Snowbluff]

If there are obscure undead in your campaign, raise the DC. The given formula is explicitly supposed to be general.
Really, they should have consolidated skills. Religion and planes really should just be one skill.

[georgie_leech]

Really, they should have consolidated skills. Religion and planes really should just be one skill.

Then you just end up with the oddity of Wizards that spend all their time studying the Elemental Planes knowing a great deal about what a Pelorian marriage ceremony looks like.

[Snowbluff]

Then you just end up with the oddity of Wizards that spend all their time studying the Elemental Planes knowing a great deal about what a Pelorian marriage ceremony looks like.

Yes. Pelor. The outsider that people worship. The one that doesn't live on the material plane.

You guys can all play background skill designer all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you should probably know what a Pelorite wedding looks like in the first place.

[atemu1234]

Yes. Pelor. The outsider that people worship. The one that doesn't live on the material plane.

You guys can all play background skill designer all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you should probably know what a Pelorite wedding looks like in the first place.

Maybe. But just because I can identify it on sight doesn't make me know about its origin, symbolism and significance just because I took a bachelor's course in Study of the Transient Planes in Wizard schools.

[Snowbluff]

Maybe. But just because I can identify it on sight doesn't make me know about its origin, symbolism and significance just because I took a bachelor's course in Study of the Transient Planes in Wizard schools.

Um, the Pelor-based symbolism? The stuff all based on the outsider?

No, it must be owlbears. Owlbears are why we carry our swords to our weddings. Owlbears invented swords, you know.

[TheIronGolem]

Planes seems to me to be the cosmic equivalent of geography, whereas Religion would be cultural/anthropological studies. There'd be some overlap, but they should be distinct fields. Planes can tell you where Pelor hangs out, but it shouldn't tell you what he does there.

[Snowbluff]

Planes seems to me to be the cosmic equivalent of geography, whereas Religion would be cultural/anthropological studies. There'd be some overlap, but they should be distinct fields. Planes can tell you where Pelor hangs out, but it shouldn't tell you what he does there.

Um, no. As an outsider, he's already covered by the Planes skill. If you roll a Know: Planes on Pelor, it will tell you about his lore. Most of the religion in the game, is based on creatures you could know about by rolling the Planes skill. Ergo, having 2 skills for that in a game that consolidated multiple skills into skills like Stealth and Perception, it patently ridiculous. It's a waste of text, it's a waste of space on a character sheet, and it's a waste of skill points.

As for a "wizards wouldn't know that" argument, it says Knowledge (All) (Int) in there description. It's a part of your job to know facts about the world. If you don't like that your character knowing things in order to interface better with the world, tell your DM that "Flunky McFailedatwizardschool" wouldn't know that. Keep your own fluff consistent if it's such a big deal for you.

[Thealtruistorc]

Maybe it'll be an X/day resource. Then I can have a single consistent reason for disliking Paizo classes (I hate resource management, every time I use it it bites me in the ass one way or the other)

Why I left 4th edition behind in a nutshell. Personally, if you want to limit things that aren't world-altering like spells, something strikes me as off about your design philosophy.

I'm secretly hoping that Paizo has been taking notes from Dreamscarred Press following the successes of Path of War (I know that I tend to harp on certain aspects, but as a whole I absolutely love the addition), and may implement many of their ideas into Unchained.

As for the Summoner, I agree that the spell list more than anything needs some hardcore nerfing. Our group has an outright ban on summoner-made wands. However, I do think that an eidolon fairly its present form may be salvaged if Paizo plays their cards right.

[Snowbluff]

I hope they have more interesting summoner based spells if the list is being otherwise nerfed.

[Milo v3]

I'm happy with them attaching the eidolon with the outsider types, letting them get specific powers for different types. Hopefully Elemental will be one of them.

Rogues finally getting something that makes them good at skills will be rather cool.

[squiggit]

I'm happy with them attaching the eidolon with the outsider types, letting them get specific powers for different types.

Funny. I have to say that's the worst part of the whole change to me. Reduces customization without addressing underlying problems.

[Psyren]

I can see the argument for combining Planes and Religion and I'm pretty ambivalent about it. If they did it I wouldn't complain, nor if they didn't.

My main issue with combining Knowledge-skills is that the knowledge-monkey classes quickly have to end up branching into other areas. I don't think it makes sense that being a bookworm makes you acrobatic, athletic or persuasive, but when they run out of other places to spend the points because there are only 3-4 knowledge skills, that's what we'd end up with.


Funny. I have to say that's the worst part of the whole change to me. Reduces customization without addressing underlying problems.

It could address them actually. Depending on the packages, it could be a lot harder to get Schrodinger's Eidolon, that can be the skillmonkey or the thousand-cuts-beatstick or the party taxi or the sumo wrestler with just a few EP difference between them. For example, the one they previewed (Protean) will probably be really good at fighting in melee but less adept at using skills or fighting from range.

The problem is less with an eidolon that can potentially do anything, and more with an eidolon that can do everything, in the same campaign, with minimal resource investment required to switch. One of the more minor issues with the class, but it's still there.

[Milo v3]

Funny. I have to say that's the worst part of the whole change to me. Reduces customization without addressing underlying problems.

My players found it difficult to see the eidolon as anything other than a bundle of stats, and found it difficult to make them an oni or genie, so this would be increasing the customization in my group's case.

[squiggit]

My main issue with combining Knowledge-skills is that the knowledge-monkey classes quickly have to end up branching into other areas. I don't think it makes sense that being a bookworm makes you acrobatic, athletic or persuasive, but when they run out of other places to spend the points because there are only 3-4 knowledge skills, that's what we'd end up with.
I'd say it actually makes more sense the other way. Yeah, being a bookworm doesn't make you acrobatic or athletic or persuasive, but that's not what the skills mean (a wizard with acrobatics is a wizard who read books and trains his body as well, after all, not a wizard who reads books and is suddenly good at balancing).

Feels weird to me that because a character knows a couple subjects they suddenly can't do anything else because some things are so piecemeal. Especially relevant for low skill point classes like fighter or paladin. Though part of that is int based skillpoints being weird in certain cases ( a slightly below average intelligence fighter's knowledge of dungeoncrawling makes him a poor swimmer? wut)

I mean I can see the issue, but that's more a problem of the skill point system not always making sense than it is an argument against consolidation, IMO.

I'd probably go even farther and take a note from 4e (Spellcraft and Know(Arcane) into one, Survival and Nature into one, Planes and Religion into one, climb and swim into one).


It could address them actually. Depending on the packages, it could be a lot harder to get Schrodinger's Eidolon, that can be the skillmonkey or the thousand-cuts-beatstick or the party taxi or the sumo wrestler with just a few EP difference between them. For example, the one they previewed (Protean) will probably be really good at fighting in melee but less adept at using skills or fighting from range.

The problem is less with an eidolon that can potentially do anything, and more with an eidolon that can do everything, in the same campaign, with minimal resource investment required to switch. One of the more minor issues with the class, but it's still there.

I agree. I just think there's better ways to do it than compartmentalize. This change might solve problems, but a lot of the improvements seem like they'd be incidental rather than an effect of the core change (after all, you can have a schroedinger's eidolon with the system if one category gets enough options or not have them without the system if you force eidolons to specialize more).


My players found it difficult to see the eidolon as anything other than a bundle of stats, and found it difficult to make them an oni or genie, so this would be increasing the customization in my group's case.
Eh. I guess I can see that, but that's a player issue. You might not be able to make a genie at all if they don't give you a genie type now, after all and you certainly won't be able to make a three headed flying elephant eidolon. Or an armored mass of living disembodied shadow arms with a giant sword. Or a million other nonstandard ideas.

[Milo v3]

Eh. I guess I can see that, but that's a player issue. You might not be able to make a genie at all if they don't give you a genie type now, after all and you certainly won't be able to make a three headed flying elephant eidolon. Or an armored mass of living disembodied shadow arms with a giant sword. Or a million other nonstandard ideas.
Why wouldn't you be able to make those? :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

I'd say it actually makes more sense the other way. Yeah, being a bookworm doesn't make you acrobatic or athletic or persuasive, but that's not what the skills mean (a wizard with acrobatics is a wizard who read books and trains his body as well, after all, not a wizard who reads books and is suddenly good at balancing).

Feels weird to me that because a character knows a couple subjects they suddenly can't do anything else because some things are so piecemeal. Especially relevant for low skill point classes like fighter or paladin. Though part of that is int based skillpoints being weird in certain cases ( a slightly below average intelligence fighter's knowledge of dungeoncrawling makes him a poor swimmer? wut)

I mean I can see the issue, but that's more a problem of the skill point system not always making sense than it is an argument against consolidation, IMO.

I'd probably go even farther and take a note from 4e (Spellcraft and Know(Arcane) into one, Survival and Nature into one, Planes and Religion into one, climb and swim into one).

Make Fighters 4+Int and that one is basically solved, without impacting the skill paradigm at the high end. You can have your dumb bruiser if you want, or your tactical soldier, or your knight-errant.



Eh. I guess I can see that, but that's a player issue. You might not be able to make a genie at all if they don't give you a genie type now, after all and you certainly won't be able to make a three headed flying elephant eidolon. Or an armored mass of living disembodied shadow arms with a giant sword. Or a million other nonstandard ideas.

I think the GMs who can handle options like that (which honestly sound mythic to me) can either stick wth the old summoner or, if that doesn't get them far enough, add houserules on top to make them happen. What I don't think is that options like these need to be available baseline.

[stack]

I would have high hopes for this book, but to me the ACG pretty well showed that Paizo isn't going to be moving in a direction I care for in the class design department. Some classes were fine, but the overall philosophy of the book, especially with the martial classes, was not promising. And let's not start on the editting.

I mean, we can't start on the editing. There wasn't any.

[Vhaidara]

Why wouldn't you be able to make those? :smallconfused:

Why wouldn't you? I've had players come up with strange ideas that made me kind of go "Wat?", but that doesn't mean they should be denied the ability to make them.

[Milo v3]

Why wouldn't you? I've had players come up with strange ideas that made me kind of go "Wat?", but that doesn't mean they should be denied the ability to make them.

Um... Yes? I agree :smallconfused:

[Vhaidara]

Um... Yes? I agree :smallconfused:

Sorry, read that as "why would you want to make those"

The idea is that it's going to be more prebuilts, along the lines of Animal Companion. You don't get to design those, you pick one.

[PsyBomb]

Sorry, read that as "why would you want to make those"

The idea is that it's going to be more prebuilts, along the lines of Animal Companion. You don't get to design those, you pick one.

Thing is, he's still talking about evolution lists plus some unique stuff per-form. If I can think of three ways to make that work well in the past 18 hours, I'm willing to bet they can.

[Vhaidara]

Thing is, he's still talking about evolution lists plus some unique stuff per-form. If I can think of three ways to make that work well in the past 18 hours, I'm willing to bet they can.

Really? What has Paizo done to deserve this faith :smalltongue:

If we were talking DSP, I would agree.

[PsyBomb]

Really? What has Paizo done to deserve this faith :smalltongue:

If we were talking DSP, I would agree.

They are running this book seemingly as a shot at redemption. This at least implies that they realize there is stuff to fix, and I like what I've heard so far.

I'm a bit of an optimist as well as an optimizer.

[Milo v3]

Sorry, read that as "why would you want to make those"

The idea is that it's going to be more prebuilts, along the lines of Animal Companion. You don't get to design those, you pick one.
Well considering you still have evolutions, it's not just Pick One. It sounds more like "Pick One Base, it gets some abilities based on your selected outsider type (like Angels getting the magic circle/invulnerability orb aura), and then you can chuck evolutions on it (just not Every Single Evolution Under The Sun).


Really? What has Paizo done to deserve this faith :smalltongue:

IMO the hiring Mark Seifer, one of the only dev's who seems to have any grasp of balance... pretty sure he was one of the few people on paizo's boards who actually had any system mastery.

[squiggit]

Make Fighters 4+Int and that one is basically solved, without impacting the skill paradigm at the high end. You can have your dumb bruiser if you want, or your tactical soldier, or your knight-errant.
It does. But as far as I know that's not on the table for Unchained (though the lore stuff is a good start).


I think the GMs who can handle options like that (which honestly sound mythic to me) can either stick wth the old summoner or, if that doesn't get them far enough, add houserules on top to make them happen. What I don't think is that options like these need to be available baseline.
Yeah. I can stick with the old summoner, but I'm actually interested in seeing the class tweaked as well and I think it's going to be harder to get "half old summoner, half new summoner" to fly than it would be to get either one on their own.

[Psyren]

I would have high hopes for this book, but to me the ACG pretty well showed that Paizo isn't going to be moving in a direction I care for in the class design department. Some classes were fine, but the overall philosophy of the book, especially with the martial classes, was not promising. And let's not start on the editting.

I mean, we can't start on the editing. There wasn't any.

That one was being rushed for GenCon though. I think we had a longer dev cycle for this title.

I can't speak for your class design aspirations/preferences, but I think several of the classes in that book were hits, most notably the Bloodrager, Brawler, Skald, Slayer, and Warpriest, and the rest of the crew got really fun toys and archetypes to play with. And I would love it if the Arcanist's form of preparation became the new norm.


It does. But as far as I know that's not on the table for Unchained (though the lore stuff is a good start).

I haven't heard a thing about the Fighter in any of the previews myself, is this confirmed?



Yeah. I can stick with the old summoner, but I'm actually interested in seeing the class tweaked as well and I think it's going to be harder to get "half old summoner, half new summoner" to fly than it would be to get either one on their own.

There's actually a quick and dirty way to do that. Old summoner chassis with new summoner spell list would likely tone down the original while letting you keep the 10-butts eidolon you want.

But yeah, I'm interested in the full extent of the tweaks they make too.

[Squirrel_Dude]

That one was being rushed for GenCon though. I think we had a longer dev cycle for this title.I apologize that I can't find the quote at the moment (I'm on break at work, no time for google fu), but the idea that it was being rushed for Gencon was dispelled by Paizo. It was just an instance of shoddy worksmanship.

If someone can find the quote (or one disproving me, whatever) it would be appreciated.


The rogue changes presented in the first preview blog post sound interesting. It sounds a bit swashbuckerly (grit with a new name, dex to melee damage), but it'd be hard to make the class worse at this point.

[Necroticplague]

That one was being rushed for GenCon though. I think we had a longer dev cycle for this title.

I can't speak for your class design aspirations/preferences, but I think several of the classes in that book were hits, most notably the Bloodrager, Brawler, Skald, Slayer, and Warpriest, and the rest of the crew got really fun toys and archetypes to play with. And I would love it if the Arcanist's form of preparation became the new norm.

I've heard that's what 5e did with all prepared casters.

[Gemini476]

I've heard that's what 5e did with all prepared casters.

Pretty much, yeah, although since it's WotC I'd perhaps point more towards the Spirit Shaman. And, of course, they only have a couple spells of each level above 5th.

[Snowbluff]

I've heard that's what 5e did with all prepared casters.


Pretty much, yeah, although since it's WotC I'd perhaps point more towards the Spirit Shaman. And, of course, they only have a couple spells of each level above 5th.

Yeah, I do like that method. Of course, I would like pure spontaneous, fixed list casters, and wizard style vancian to be the around for some variety.

[Milo v3]

I haven't heard a thing about the Fighter in any of the previews myself, is this confirmed?

It was mentioned in a convention panel, though it's not a fighter thing, but a Every PC thing. Every character gets +2 skills per level to select for background skills. The thing to help fighters is the Stamina/Fatigue system that gives extra options each combat feat you possess and scales with your BAB.

[Psyren]

Ah, that's right, I did hear about the Stamina system.

Not sure how I feel about the background skills thing, I need to hear a bit more about that.

[Necroticplague]

I've seen something similar to background skills as a pretty common houserule. 'Everyone gets 2 more skill points per level, which can only be spent in craft, profession, or perform'.

[Psyren]

Eh... other than Craft, that won't help fighters much at all. If that's what they're going for, I would hope that either that list is broader or that Fighters get that plus a boost to 4+Int.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by stack
And let's not start on the editting.

Speaking of which, I'm surprised no one's noted this.

:smalltongue:

[squiggit]

Eh... other than Craft, that won't help fighters much at all. If that's what they're going for, I would hope that either that list is broader or that Fighters get that plus a boost to 4+Int.

The latter. I think. Because from what I understand, the subsystem is there for flavor, because sometimes it'd be nice to say your character can make origami mind flayers or has a day job as a seamstress but in order to mechanically recognize that you actually have to make your character worse which is just lame. Just keep it as is and then make sure every class that isn't int based has at least 4+ skill points.

[stack]

Speaking of which, I'm surprised no one's noted this.

:smalltongue:

Haha...though it would explain a lot if they wrote the book on a phone.

[Milo v3]

The latest blog post on Unchained (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lhc8?Unchained-Skills-and-Feats), listing information on the skills and feats chapter.

[squiggit]

The variant multiclassing sounds interesting.

[Kurald Galain]

The variant multiclassing sounds interesting.

Indeed.

Also, this: "retroactively apply an effect (like declare a Stunning Fist after you already know your attack connected)". Quite a number of abilities in PF are pretty bad because they are sharply limited in usage and missing on an attack wastes them.

[PsyBomb]

So, point by point:

Background skills: cool, seen it done before, but at least that makes it an official source.

Skill Consolidation: not a fan, but some parties may need it. I'd apply it to a group if the lack was obvious.

Skill Groups: sounds great for noobs and system introduction.

Variant Multiclass: depending on how this runs, I'll be taking advantage of it on many characters, any that build feat-light. Could be fun.

Stamina System: I like what I see so far, but will require a lot of reading. Sounds like they tried to give bad feats much better Stamina powers to compensate, which could work.

[Snowbluff]

The variant multiclassing sounds interesting.

Hey, do you know about 4e? You see, 4e is Pathfinder. No joke, they make a lot of the same design decisions.

For example, multiclassing feats. In 4th edition, when you want to pick up other class features, you take a feat that gives you a class ability from another class. You also count as a member of that class for power source (so if a Wizard, arcane power source, took a fighter multiclass feat, he would also count as martial for prereqs). I think you also gain weapons proficiencies, or implement proficiencies.

It's pretty cool in some cases, like with one of the Avenger feats that gives Oath of Enmity (pick a target, you roll twice for attack rolls against it), which could recover the ability when you kill the target. :smalltongue:

Now you can spend your feats in Pathfinder in order to take other class features.

[Necroticplague]

Hey, do you know about 4e? You see, 4e is Pathfinder. No joke, they make a lot of the same design decisions.

For example, multiclassing feats. In 4th edition, when you want to pick up other class features, you take a feat that gives you a class ability from another class. You also count as a member of that class for power source (so if a Wizard, arcane power source, took a fighter multiclass feat, he would also count as martial for prereqs). I think you also gain weapons proficiencies, or implement proficiencies.

It's pretty cool in some cases, like with one of the Avenger feats that gives Oath of Enmity (pick a target, you roll twice for attack rolls against it), which could recover the ability when you kill the target. :smalltongue:

Now you can spend your feats in Pathfinder in order to take other class features.

Stamina system: sounds like they cribbed some notes from 4e about encounter powers. Except then, they smashed it together with psionics.

[RolkFlameraven]

To be fair that was one of the few things I liked about 4e, this also seems much more... substantial then the feats from 4th.

I really want to see what you get for the feat loss from each class as this seems more like a 'soft' gestalt and could be really fun while making you curse out loud every time you want a feat for your new 'almost' class and can't because you gave it up that level!

[Snowbluff]

I'm not ragging on 4e or PF when I say that. It looks like a fun option and 4e was a fine system by the time it was done. It's just REALLY ironic when you look at the parallel design decisions, and how people gravitated to PF despite them doing the same thing in a lot of ways.

Of course, I feel that PF's popularity is primarily rooted in deceit, so it's not a surprise to me.:smalltongue:

Stamina system: sounds like they cribbed some notes from 4e about encounter powers. Except then, they smashed it together with psionics.
Huh. Didn't notice.

[squiggit]

Stamina system: sounds like they cribbed some notes from 4e about encounter powers. Except then, they smashed it together with psionics.

That's what psionics in 4e was: At-will abilities that can be augmented with a per-ecounter resource.

Was actually pretty cool.

[RolkFlameraven]

Almost made me play 4e again once they did psi. It sounded like a much more fun way of doing things, one of my normal players had a 4E group and he was having a blast with his Psi Shardmind until that group fell apart.

[Necroticplague]

That's what psionics in 4e was: At-will abilities that can be augmented with a per-ecounter resource.

Was actually pretty cool.

Huh, apparently my memory is fuzzy, I thought PP were a daily resource.

[Snowbluff]

Stamina system: sounds like they cribbed some notes from 4e about encounter powers. Except then, they smashed it together with psionics.

I liked the 4e Psionics better than 3e psionics, mostly because I felt the augmentation was better handled.

[Psyren]

Good stuff!


The variant multiclassing sounds interesting.

It reminds me a lot of the archetype packages from Super Genius Games. As that is an awesome subsystem, I'm very pleased with this.

What's really cool about it is how much it benefits classes (like Fighter, Gunslinger and Monk) that get plenty of feats but weak class features. Now you can trade a bunch of your feats for some class features. And unlike PrCs you get the benefits early (3+) and they scale with your character for more than 5-10 levels. Plus your character's other class features were scaling the whole time too.


I'm not ragging on 4e or PF when I say that. It looks like a fun option and 4e was a fine system by the time it was done. It's just REALLY ironic when you look at the parallel design decisions, and how people gravitated to PF despite them doing the same thing in a lot of ways.

The key here is to examine what they did differently. This will serve you well in life as a general rule, in fact :smalltongue:

[squiggit]

What's really cool about it is how much it benefits classes (like Fighter, Gunslinger and Monk) that get plenty of feats but weak class features. Now you can trade a bunch of your feats for some class features. And unlike PrCs you get the benefits early (3+) and they scale with your character for more than 5-10 levels. Plus your character's other class features were scaling the whole time too.

Yeah. That was my other thought. A fighter's not going to cringe as much when they take this because of their eight thousand bonus feats. So it could be a cool way to customize some of those classes.

Ultimately it all comes down to how much the option gives, but I'm intrigued on a conceptual level.


The key here is to examine what they did differently
Well so far the biggest difference is that it's a package here and in 4e it was a feat chain. Also it doesn't look like this version is going to let you pick up class feats from the off class from first glance. And it's not the only way.

[Psyren]

Well so far the biggest difference is that it's a package here and in 4e it was a feat chain. Also it doesn't look like this version is going to let you pick up class feats from the off class from first glance. And it's not the only way.

Most feats aimed at a specific class say things like "bardic performance class feature" or "rage class feature" or "studied target class feature" - these would (potentially, anyway) become accessible to a "package multiclasser" like this, assuming they don't include blanket blocking language like "the class feature you gain this way does not count as that class feature for any prerequisites" which would be a shame. But without language like that, you would in fact have access to class feats aimed at the secondary class.

Pretty much the only feats I can think of that actually do care about you being a specific class, rather than having specific class features, are the ones that want you to have X levels in fighter or whatever. like Weapon Specialization. (There are also a handful that say "x levels in monk" - but those typically have alternate qualifications like BAB anyway.

[squiggit]

The ones that came to mind when I thought of that were things like the Killing Flourish chain, which have a non-negotiable slayer level requirement attached to each component.

Which always sort of irked me. Never got why those were slayer only feats.

[Snowbluff]

I just realized that they are just making Eldritch Heritage a thing for everything. It's what I always wanted. Of course, it's less impressive in those terms, and it's years too late, but it's a thing. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

The ones that came to mind when I thought of that were things like the Killing Flourish chain, which have a non-negotiable slayer level requirement attached to each component.

Which always sort of irked me. Never got why those were slayer only feats.

There are a few like that, yeah. But with any luck the class feature ones will open up.

And even if they don't, it's still a great change.


I just realized that they are just making Eldritch Heritage a thing for everything. It's what I always wanted. Of course, it's less impressive in those terms, and it's years too late, but it's a thing. :smalltongue:

Without a Cha requirement no less!

[georgie_leech]

Huh, apparently my memory is fuzzy, I thought PP were a daily resource.

Per Encounter. Augmenting everything to the fullest, they get basically the same number of "Encounter" Powers as other classes, with the option of spamming one if it's a better choice or drawing it out a little bit if the fight looks like it might take a while.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm not ragging on 4e or PF when I say that. It looks like a fun option and 4e was a fine system by the time it was done. It's just REALLY ironic when you look at the parallel design decisions, and how people gravitated to PF despite them doing the same thing in a lot of ways.
There are superficial similarities and fundamental differences, because PF is founded on very different design decisions than 4E (or more accurately, PF is built on 3E, whereas 4E is intentionally built on different principles). There's nothing ironic there, and it's perfectly obvious why people would gravitate to one instead of the other.


Most feats aimed at a specific class say things like "bardic performance class feature" or "rage class feature" or "studied target class feature" - these would (potentially, anyway) become accessible to a "package multiclasser" like this, assuming they don't include blanket blocking language
Yes. They also have in the FAQ that class features that sound similar are intended to work as prereqs, so I'm not expecting any blanket blocking language here.

[Psyren]

Of course, I feel that PF's popularity is primarily rooted in deceit, so it's not a surprise to me.:smalltongue:


"Deceit" implies either that Paizo were intentionally malicious or that the folks who chose to gravitate to Pathfinder were duped or foolish, possibly both. Such sour grapes are unbecoming.

[PsyBomb]

Reading the comments section, Mark Sefter made a very interesting statement that revealed a couple of extra system details. Can't copy-paste on my phone, but it is about resting for two minutes (while searching a room) to make sure he has five stamina, in order to use his favorite combat trick.

This implies three things:

1) Stamina recovery is fairly quick, implied to be at least 1-2 per minute
2) Recovery doesn't require complete rest, just a pause
3) Some tricks use more stamina than others.

The third point is the biggest one there.

[Milo v3]

This know direction podcast (http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/04/know-direction-105-unchained-radney-macfarland-video/)discusses unchained for the first half, even describing a way they are altering the action economy. Note: This is super super super long.

[PsyBomb]

This know direction podcast (http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2015/04/know-direction-105-unchained-radney-macfarland-video/)discusses unchained for the first half, even describing a way they are altering the action economy. Note: This is super super super long.

Mind typing out some of the points? I can't listen to it today due to appointments

[Milo v3]

I guess that was a bad time for me to go to sleep then :smalltongue:


Eidolon will be more constrained, at least in a combat sense.
Apparently they have attempted to make the summoner have more options than just eidolon creation so your less likely to be idle, but not so much that you can't just make a eidolon who wrecks the battlefield.
Rogue Talents and Rage Powers will be buffed.
Danger Sense rather than trap sense.
Debilitating Injury mechanics allow for Roguish control, so you can use sneak attack for more than just damage.
Full BAB Monk.
Cleaned up Flurry of Blows language.
Can do things like headbutt mid-flurry of blows?
Monk will have headbutts, "push-arounds", & "hammerblows"
More ki use
Stephen Radney-Macfarland is never doing a book on bard songs
The monk can shoot fireballs/kamehameha via elemental burst
Not the kung fu of the 1970's and 80's, it's "apparently" modernized.
Monk wont be neck and neck with the fighter in terms of damage, but will be "up there"
Simplify rage and rage powers.
Less to change on your character sheet when you rage.
A lot of old archetypes will work with the unchained classes (YMMV)
Occult adventures will not have unchained archetypes.
The simple monster creation system will let you quickly create monsters on the same power as normal monsters of their CR.
Simplified stat blocks for these simple monsters that skips things like how many ranks of Craft (Underwater Basketweaving) the creature has. With the aim of fitting all the creatures crucial stats on an index card or on your phone.
Has a Nighthag Soul Collector with a soul pet, dragons, and pit fiend re-created with these rules.
Uses arrays for generating stats.
The creature creation doesn't have feats as certain aspects are abstracted, such as assuming certain monster roles will be power attacking to begin with.
The monster system is heavily influenced by 4e.
Alternate alignment systems, one where you start as neutral (or as close to neutral as possible) and then through moral dilemma's you choose your alignment and then at higher levels you become part of cosmic struggles and gain benefits based on your actions.
Unchained Classes will "probably" be in Adventure Paths.
Reworked action economy which is more streamlined and makes combat more mobile.
"Takes away iterative attacks by giving everyone iterative attacks."
You get a number of actions. Each action does one thing, if you want to attack you attack. If you want to spend an action to move a little you can.
You can attack one person, move, attack, attack, etc.
You start with three acts in a round. So a first level fighter can attack three times in a round.
Dex to damage for rogues is going to be at a level so you can't just dip into it.
The background skill system that we already know about.
An alignment system that removes alignment.
The stamina/combat tricks system.
Simplified spellcasting system.
Esoteric magic components system.
System of magic items that makes them more than just +1's (which we'll probably hear more about next week on the magic item blog).
The magic items will grow with you, without having to balance it through giant costs that legacy items used in 3.5e.
There will not be a subsystem to ignore the Big Six.

[CGNefarious]

This all sounds pretty interesting. Obviously it all depends on how they implement it, but so far a lot of these changes sound pretty good.

The only problem I have is, if they make the Monk and the Fighter not suck, who will I make fun of?

[Vhaidara]

This all sounds pretty interesting. Obviously it all depends on how they implement it, but so far a lot of these changes sound pretty good.

The only problem I have is, if they make the Monk and the Fighter not suck, who will I make fun of?

Paladins. Always make fun of Paladins.

[Milo v3]

Paladins. Always make fun of Paladins.

Paladins in a game with no alignment "I smite Nothing!"

[grarrrg]

Can do things like headbutt mid-flurry of blows?
Monk will have headbutts,...


:smallconfused:
I'm assuming "headbutt" actually means something different than "unarmed attack" in Unchained.

Linky (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/combat#TOC-Attack)
"Unarmed Attacks

Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts"


Paladins in a game with no alignment "I smite Nothing!"
Presumably the "removed alignment" notes only refer to the Player characters (especially seeing as how ALL UNDEAD EVAR!!1!! are pure unfiltered EEEVVVIIILLL!!!1). So "Smite Evil" still does something.

No, a better question is "Then what alignment is my Paladin?"

[Milo v3]

:smallconfused:
I'm assuming "headbutt" actually means something different than "unarmed attack" in Unchained.
I'd definitely assume so.


Presumably the "removed alignment" notes only refer to the Player characters (especially seeing as how ALL UNDEAD EVAR!!1!! are pure unfiltered EEEVVVIIILLL!!!1). So "Smite Evil" still does something.

I'm not sure how removing alignment would even function at all if it only applied to player characters, that's not no alignment, that's keeping the players alignment neutral regardless of their actions. I'd assume in a no-alignment game, that paladins and anti-paladins are banned classes in the same way Protection from Evil would likely be removed. Otherwise, it's not removing alignment at all.

[Thatwarforged]

Paladins in a game with no alignment "I smite Nothing!"

Wouldn't they just get something like "Smite Heathen" or "Smite Enemy", in which it functions like smite evil but towards anything against or that doesn't worship your deity?

[Milo v3]

Wouldn't they just get something like "Smite Heathen" or "Smite Enemy", in which it functions like smite evil but towards anything against or that doesn't worship your deity?

That would require changing paladins to be religious, but I suppose it's an option.

[georgie_leech]

Hm. The apparent heavy influence of 4e on Pathfinder Unchained has me wondering: Are they doing the same thing as they did originally? Looking to attract the D&D players whose preferred edition is no longer under production?

[Psyren]

What "heavy influence?" An encounter-based resource? Because 3.5 pioneered that (ToB, ToM) not 4e.

[Pluto!]

If characters start with multiple attacks in a round, I hope there are further changes to mitigate the already-prevalent low-level rocket tag.

[Kurald Galain]

Hm. The apparent heavy influence of 4e on Pathfinder Unchained has me wondering: Are they doing the same thing as they did originally? Looking to attract the D&D players whose preferred edition is no longer under production?

What heavy influence? All they're saying is that they're doing simplified monsters since most monsters don't need a full stat block with skill ranks and so forth.

[grarrrg]

According to the new FAQ, Unchained Rogues can ignore Concealment (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9t73) with regards to Sneak Attack.


Yes, in general concealment does negate all kinds of precision damage, unless you have a special ability that particularly says otherwise like the Shadow Strike feat or the Unchained rogue’s sneak attack.

[Psyren]

According to the new FAQ, Unchained Rogues can ignore Concealment (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9t73) with regards to Sneak Attack.

I wonder if this will be rogue-only or if ninjas will get it too? And I wonder if it will be baseline or require a talent?

Off topic, but clicking through to that, I just noticed the Weird Words errata. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9t4f)

[Squirrel_Dude]

I wonder if this will be rogue-only or if ninjas will get it too? And I wonder if it will be baseline or require a talent?

Off topic, but clicking through to that, I just noticed the Weird Words errata. (http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fz#v5748eaic9t4f)I would expect it to be a baseline thing, hopefully with the added suggestion that you could change the ninja in the same way.

[Psyren]

My guess is it will be a broad clause. Something like "this only applies to the Unchained Rogue, but at the GM's option, can apply to other classes/archetypes/feats that employ precision damage."

Personally, I would want it to be available baseline to the Rogue, Ninja and Slayer - the folks I'd expect to be prowling dark alleyways or employing smoke.

Then the precision attackers that are not quite as underhanded fluffwise would need a feat tax, as the concealment is more likely to trip them up. These attackers target weak spots more due to methodical training and theory, than instinct or practice. So folks like Vivisectionist, Strangler/Snakebite Striker, Sandman, Investigator, or anyone using Precise Strike (the feat or the Swasbuckler ability) would need Shadow Strike or a similar ability to target through concealment properly.

[Snowbluff]

The new weird words is decent. Now you can use Aasimar for like 28d6 damage. Woo.

Why don't they make it so that all concealment no longer affects precision? Concealment could use a bit of a nerf.


"Deceit" implies either that Paizo were intentionally malicious or that the folks who chose to gravitate to Pathfinder were duped or foolish, possibly both. Such sour grapes are unbecoming.
Having basic hoenstly in mind is sour grapes, huh? They're a publisher. Benefit of the doubt is the last thing they deserve.

Hm. The apparent heavy influence of 4e on Pathfinder Unchained has me wondering: Are they doing the same thing as they did originally? Looking to attract the D&D players whose preferred edition is no longer under production?

PF has always been 4e. I don't know what they could accomplish at this point.

[Psyren]

Why don't they make it so that all concealment no longer affects precision? Concealment could use a bit of a nerf.

Nah - in addition to being unintuitive, it would make already situational low-level defenses like blur and obscuring mist even weaker.


Having basic hoenstly in mind is sour grapes, huh? They're a publisher. Benefit of the doubt is the last thing they deserve.

They can't be held responsible for folks who read too much into their statements and see things that aren't there.

[Snowbluff]

Nah - in addition to being unintuitive, it would make already situational low-level defenses like blur and obscuring mist even weaker.
Well, firstly blur isn't situational. :smallfrown:

Secondly, they're already worse. The primary users of precision damage ignore it. If anything, at least other sneak attack users should benefit as well.

Unintuitive? See above.



They can't be held responsible for folks who read too much into their statements and see things that aren't there.

As publishers they are money seekers first and artists second.

[Psyren]

Well, firstly blur isn't situational. :smallfrown:

Secondly, they're already worse. The primary users of precision damage ignore it. If anything, at least other sneak attack users should benefit as well.

Unintuitive? See above.

So far we only know that the Unchained Rogue will be able to ignore it; everyone else has to pay a tax to do so. Heck, the rogue might too (though likely not a feat.)


As publishers they are money seekers first and artists second.

Even assuming this were true, it's neither a bad thing (without money, the quantity and quality of the "art" suffers immensely), nor is it related to the wishful thinking some portion of the base had over what they thought the content would be.

[Milo v3]

As publishers they are money seekers first and artists second.

As designers, it is in their financial best interests to be good artists.

[Snowbluff]

So far we only know that the Unchained Rogue will be able to ignore it; everyone else has to pay a tax to do so. Heck, the rogue might too (though likely not a feat.)
A feat sounds about right. There are feats like Improved Precise Shot that can get around some strong cover, and others that get around certain kinds of concealment entirely.


As designers, it is in their financial best interests to be good artists.
Even an actually good example of a strong publisher producer combo like Blizzard Activision is objectively more lousy after the money grubbing this combo has caused. It's a fact of life, I don't know why people engage in corporate shilling instead of acknowledging it.

I mean, this title says a lot about the current state of the system and its fanbase. "The more 'balanced' Pathfinder introduced a class that broke all of their fake rules and now they'll clean it up years later." Ironically, the biggest failure of their objective also ended up being the best part of the system, and now they'll probably sidegrade it while making it less customizable, which will probably end up pleasing enough people to scrape by. Of course, this is all an absurdly complex topic that has a lot elements, so I'm WAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic.

How about that stamina, huh?

[Psyren]

Even an actually good example of a strong publisher producer combo like Blizzard Activision is objectively more lousy after the money grubbing this combo has caused. It's a fact of life, I don't know why people engage in corporate shilling instead of acknowledging it.

Because the bold part is merely your opinion, not fact (for all that you state it as such) and not everyone agrees with it.



I mean, this title says a lot about the current state of the system and its fanbase. "The more 'balanced' Pathfinder introduced a class that broke all of their fake rules and now they'll clean it up years later." Ironically, the biggest failure of their objective also ended up being the best part of the system, and now they'll probably sidegrade it while making it less customizable, which will probably end up pleasing enough people to scrape by. Of course, this is all an absurdly complex topic that has a lot elements, so I'm WAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic.

Both the fans and the designers evolve over time. Starting right off the bat with the stuff that's in Unchained now could very well have sunk the entire ship. Certainly the conservative DM contingent out there - the myriad who consider "Dex to damage" to be overpowered to this very day - would not have come over, and none of us knows what the result of that would have been for the system or the company.

[Snowbluff]

Because the bold part is merely your opinion, not fact (for all that you state it as such) and not everyone agrees with it.
Measure the content of Patch 6.1 in WoW to other content patches in the pattern (Oh man no content because they cut corners but we got selfies). Observe the Hearthstone business model ($200 per set, $30 per adventure, and good luck getting anywhere if you're starting without those). Take note of the exorbitant fees in Heroes of the Storm ($40 for the beta of a FtP game). As much as I love Blizzard, it's obvious they have been leaning towards squeezing more money out of fans. Of course adding excessive grinding is working as intended as far as you are concerned, so I do realize that my statements will fall on deaf ears.

Not that it matters. Everywhere you look, you can see where people have decided to perform a poorly contrived grab at cash, like what Nintendo is doing with Youtube.



Both the fans and the designers evolve over time. Starting right off the bat with the stuff that's in Unchained now could very well have sunk the entire ship. Certainly the conservative DM contingent out there - the myriad who consider "Dex to damage" to be overpowered to this very day - would not have come over, and none of us knows what the result of that would have been for the system or the company.
Oh, I'm enjoying this. Are you telling me that they intentionally made little effort to lure players, and then made them later after they have their investment?

I think the system would have been fine if they genuinely gave it their all instead of pussyfooting around. They didn't really have any competition, and I'm will to bet for each conservative DM, who'll run the game in the same ol' way, there's a person who really just wanted something new or innovative. Early PF wasn't much more than 3.5's core. Of course, the Paizo team has had some changes, but the summoner came out relatively early on. They probably had some really good ideas that never saw the light of day because of how close they stuck to the original material.