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

[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

[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.

[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.

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.

"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 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 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

• 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,...

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

Linky
"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]

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 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 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.