Best and worst designed Paizo classes

[Tthorn3]

So, best and worst in PF eh? Well, as much as I like the Occultist, I'm pretty sure it's still a mess.I'm gonna go with Brawler though, it does combat maneuvers better than almost every class minus the tetori monk and that weird barbarian...
Worst though? It has not been mentioned yet. Have you guys not seen the Vampire Hunter class? d8 Hit Die, full bab, 4 level casting... Seriously look it up on the PFSRD, it's a disaster!

[The Random NPC]

So, best and worst in PF eh? Well, as much as I like the Occultist, I'm pretty sure it's still a mess.I'm gonna go with Brawler though, it does combat maneuvers better than almost every class minus the tetori monk and that weird barbarian...
Worst though? It has not been mentioned yet. Have you guys not seen the Vampire Hunter class? d8 Hit Die, full bab, 4 level casting... Seriously look it up on the PFSRD, it's a disaster!

I'm actually playing one right now, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to do.

[Rynjin]

It's meant to hunt vampires and literally be Vampire Hunter D.

Because it was written specifically as a promotional piece for a Vampire Hunter D comic book.

[Kurald Galain]

While I agree that Kineticist is badly designed (the way it is presented in the book is pretty awful), I disagree that it is a bad class. Its damage is on the low end (only barely beating out Rogue)

Oh there is absolutely no way it's going to outdamage a rogue. Here's some math, kinny is tied with the fighter (which is lower than the rogue) AS LONG AS nobody in the party casts group buffs ever, AND the GM avoids monsters with DR/SR. If the party does buff, or the GM uses standard monsters, then the fighter's damage leaps ahead to about twice as much as the kinny.

Because the bad design is that kinny's damage is unaffected by most party buffs, and the class has no reliable way of dealing with DR/SR.

but it makes up for it with plenty of good utility abilities.

Yes, TK Haul is fun under a permissive GM. But other than that, everything else you get with heavy restrictions, and four or five levels later than any partial caster would.

Because the bad design here is that five out of seven, and arguably six out of seven, of the kinny's elements are traps.

[grarrrg]

It's meant to hunt vampires and literally be Vampire Hunter D.

Because it was written specifically as a promotional piece for a Vampire Hunter D comic book.

Honestly, it's just a 'fancy' Ranger-archetype. No real reason it needs to be it's own class.

[Amiel]

"DM oversight" is irrelevant as you folks constantly trumpet. It's about how the systems are designed absent DM intervention, is it not?

Thank you for clarifying your position, it's extremely telling. I mean whiteroom theorycrafting is well and good, and excellent indeed if you have fun with this, but as you know and disingenuously claim otherwise, it's just that, only theoretical and as you well know and disingenuously claim otherwise is based on intentionally exploiting the rules in ways it wasn't intended. And in an actual game, this whiteroom theorycrafting is the only thing that's irrelevant, otherwise you don't even have a game.
It's about how the systems are designed without factoring in deliberately twisting and exploiting the rules, is it not? Almost as if the systems are designed with DM oversight, is it not?

In addition, I think you'll find that definitions of "cheese" vary widely. Pun-Pun and Ice Assassin of a deity might be too far for some, while others are perfectly fine using stuff like Candle of Invocation loops, Vecna-Blooded, Dark Chaos Shuffle, bloodlines and Mindrape in actual play. None of these are possible in PF.

There's the vaunted backward-comparability. So someone is being disingenuous.
And now couple that onto the arcanist.

And there's a cognitive dissonance in pigeonholing the people who dislike some aspects of the system but don't otherwise hate it to just be haters.

[Amiel]

Before I cooperate with some things that are in-topic, I feel it's important to address a few things.

[SPOILER=Off-Topic Thoughts][snip]

These are excellent points, thank you for writing and sharing this.

[Psyren]

There's the vaunted backward-comparability. So someone is being disingenuous.

"Compatibility" means that something can potentially be allowed, with GM approval (and possibly a few tweaks). It's not assumed to be part of the system unless the GM denies it. Big difference there.

It's about how the systems are designed without factoring in deliberately twisting and exploiting the rules, is it not? Almost as if the systems are designed with DM oversight, is it not?

But if "DM oversight" is your assumed line, then absolutely nothing can be broken, because the DM can simply exercise that oversight and say no. So you should have no balance issues with either system, correct?

[Amiel]

"Compatibility" means that something can potentially be allowed, with GM approval (and possibly a few tweaks). It's not assumed to be part of the system unless the GM denies it. Big difference there.

So you agree DM oversight or approval is not irrelevant. Your stance on this is extremely murky because you keep changing your position. But good to know.
Backward-compatibility was advertised as a big aspect of the game, and more often than not can be factored in to the large number of splatbooks allowed for creativity and the planning and growth of a character. But all of this is subject to DM oversight of course.
And most tellingly, cheesing the system and mechanics and deliberately forcing exploitation of the mechanics is not assumed to be part of the system unless the DM allows it.

But if "DM oversight" is your assumed line, then absolutely nothing can be broken, because the DM can simply exercise that oversight and say no. So you should have no balance issues with either system, correct?

That's your assumption and bizarre justification that absolutely nothing can be broken, but the mechanics can be and are sufficiently reined in, and this is indeed the case, in actual games where it doesn't cause issue. That's the difference.

[Psyren]

So you agree DM oversight or approval is not irrelevant. Your stance on this is extremely murky because you keep changing your position. But good to know.

I haven't changed anything actually:

1) Base system does not include 3.5.
2) Your table can do so (compatible), but you have to get everything that you want to port in individually approved by the GM.

This is different than 3.5, where if it is first-party, it is part of the game unless disapproved by the GM.

It's simple really.

[T.G. Oskar]

Backward-compatibility was advertised as a big aspect of the game, and more often than not can be factored in to the large number of splatbooks allowed for creativity and the planning and growth of a character. But all of this is subject to DM oversight of course.

I'll have to call objective sources on that argument.

It's easier to say that Pathfinder was designed with the SRD components in mind, which leads to potential backwards compatibility, but then changed enough of the game to make it distinct. Something that's well known is that Pathfinder modules (such as Rise of the Runelords), which were originally designed for 3.5, could be ported into PF itself, therefore making them "backwards compatible", but the system...not so much. It's easier to see if you notice what Dreamscarred Press has done with Psionics, Veilweaving and Maneuvers; all three are mechanics from 3.5 that had to be reworked pretty much from scratch (Psionics not so much because it's on the SRD, but Veilweaving had to change even its name to distance itself from Incarnum, and Maneuvers...well, they had to make up new disciplines entirely, though you can see the inspiration from some of them).

However, you can certainly use bits and pieces of 3.5. It's just the same situation as Mutants & Masterminds; you could certainly port a few things, but the way the system works, you need to understand what works and what doesn't. Same thing with OSR-related backports. Or, better yet - d20 Modern, considering it builds up on a previous edition. If there's no conflict, you could use it; however, once a conflict is made, you need to work up with the DM to see if it applies. Classes would be out of the question, because you'd need to adapt them; feats and spells are much easier.

Still: as PF grew, it distanced much from 3.5, to the point that it could be considered an entirely new system - just that it uses a previous system as a base. IMO, it'd be like changing your Windows or Mac OS; it's not necessarily an "upgrade", but it's a change that might make some options redundant or obsolete. (Do recall Windows ME and Windows Vista).

And most tellingly, cheesing the system and mechanics and deliberately forcing exploitation of the mechanics is not assumed to be part of the system unless the DM allows it.

This much is true, however. Things like Pun-Pun are part of Theoretical Optimization, which require an interpretation of the rules that can only make sense through strict RAW and favorable interpretation where RAW doesn't apply. Practical Optimization can still be game-breaking and completely legal, however. "Cheesing the system" and "deliberately forcing exploitation of the mechanics" lays in that gray area where TO and PO meet.

However, there's Rule 0. Rule 0 depends greatly on the Gentleman's Agreement; as long as everyone is having fun, it's fine. If everyone in the group, including the DM, is fine with something like Ice Assassins of gods, then there's no issue. Taking that as a technical issue (that is, something wrong with the system) is an entirely viable debate...not on this thread, though.

Personally, I see PF as a "side-grade"; it has very nice stuff (Inquisitor, feats like Dazing Assault, a good upgrade to the Paladin, nice spells, skill grouping, more feat slots) and bad stuff (whether semantical such as calling the Paladin's Rage-like effect a "Smite", the nerf to PA, Improved Trip and whatnot, the fact that the Step Up feat chain is really limited and reflects most of what Paizo developers do with feats, and following that, the feeling that you need to specialize too deeply to make a working character), but in the end, it's just as successful as 3.5 was on its time, it has a raving fanbase (just like 3.5), and people have fun with it. Discussing issues with each game from a technical/mechanical standpoint will be just as much a neverending discussion as whether 4e was a good game (IMO, it would have been a bit better if it didn't have the D&D baggage), or whether 3e and the SRD were good compared to AD&D (ever heard of grognards?), or whether 5e is a good game on its own (IMO, it is, though I wouldn't miss a chance to play 3.5 or d20 Modern). It's a discussion that flares passions, and ends up with stuff like logical fallacies being pointed out to undermine discussions and other bad stuff. (A shame, because the more you read, are enticed to work with, and eventually gain a bit more system mastery, you learn to appreciate some of the aspects of the game, even though you can still end up displeased by the gestalt of it.)

On that topic: while the Barbarian, Rogue and the Monk weren't designed per se by Paizo (they were backported and modified), what would be your stance on UnBarb, UnMonk and UnRogue? Still "not designed by Paizo", or in that rare gray area where they technically do?

[Kurald Galain]

On that topic: while the Barbarian, Rogue and the Monk weren't designed per se by Paizo (they were backported and modified), what would be your stance on UnBarb, UnMonk and UnRogue? Still "not designed by Paizo", or in that rare gray area where they technically do?

Yes, those are designed by Paizo. No, they're not the best or worst, so they still don't really belong in this thread. Although I'm sure somebody will call the UnRogue the worst for having more options, more build paths, and more reliable sneak attack than the 3E rogue

[noob]

Yes, those are designed by Paizo. No, they're not the best or worst, so they still don't really belong in this thread. Although I'm sure somebody will call the UnRogue the worst for having more options, more build paths, and more reliable sneak attack than the 3E rogue

and suffering more from feat taxes before doing stuff(pathfinder reduced the ivory tower phenomenon by making the best feats be less good and increasing feat taxes for making them doubly less good).

[Kurald Galain]

and suffering more from feat taxes before doing stuff(pathfinder reduced the ivory tower phenomenon by making the best feats be less good and increasing feat taxes for making them doubly less good).

I'm sure that was true ten years ago, but you have missed everything printed in the meantime.

[noob]

I'm sure that was true ten years ago, but you have missed everything printed in the meantime.

I know they made really good metamagic feats(although not as abusive as 3.5 persist and the metamagics that allows to persist without using higher spell slots)

[Particle_Man]

Because the bad design is that kinny's damage is unaffected by most party buffs, and the class has no reliable way of dealing with DR/SR.

I thought Geokineticist had a way to bypass materials-DR, at least (silver, cold iron, adamantine, etc.). And presumably DR/magic. But alignment-DR is still problematic.

[Rynjin]

I thought Geokineticist had a way to bypass materials-DR, at least (silver, cold iron, adamantine, etc.). And presumably DR/magic. But alignment-DR is still problematic.

Yes, one element can do that. Just like one element can deal with SR and elemental resistances.

That's the issue with kineticist in a nutshell: the "one true element" dilemma. Picking anything but Geomancer (for physical blasts), Aeromancer (for support/utility), or Pyromancer (for elemental damage/actually having usable AoE) and Psychokinetic for your second element if you're not mono-elementing is a mistake, generally speaking.

[Amiel]

I haven't changed anything actually:

1) Base system does not include 3.5.
2) Your table can do so (compatible), but you have to get everything that you want to port in individually approved by the GM.

This is different than 3.5, where if it is first-party, it is part of the game unless disapproved by the GM.

It's simple really.

So you're arguing that in one instance DM oversight is irrelevant and everything goes - the rules be damned if they're exploited and twisted, while in the same breath, DM oversight must be sought to include mechanics that are essentially similar to a degree to be included in the same game, that's a complete double-standard and completely nonsensical.

And Paizo themselves write 3.5, OGL compatible on the back of their Pathfinder products.

Again, the twisting of rules and exploiting of rules is not part of the game. Approval and disapproval by the DM falls under the umbrella of DM oversight, unless you are operating under and have a completely nonsensical understanding of what that means. So you are still agreeing that DM oversight is not irrelevant and have indeed changed your stance.

[Amiel]

I'll have to call objective sources on that argument.

It's easier to say that Pathfinder was designed with the SRD components in mind, which leads to potential backwards compatibility, but then changed enough of the game to make it distinct. Something that's well known is that Pathfinder modules (such as Rise of the Runelords), which were originally designed for 3.5, could be ported into PF itself, therefore making them "backwards compatible", but the system...not so much. It's easier to see if you notice what Dreamscarred Press has done with Psionics, Veilweaving and Maneuvers; all three are mechanics from 3.5 that had to be reworked pretty much from scratch (Psionics not so much because it's on the SRD, but Veilweaving had to change even its name to distance itself from Incarnum, and Maneuvers...well, they had to make up new disciplines entirely, though you can see the inspiration from some of them).

However, you can certainly use bits and pieces of 3.5. It's just the same situation as Mutants & Masterminds; you could certainly port a few things, but the way the system works, you need to understand what works and what doesn't. Same thing with OSR-related backports. Or, better yet - d20 Modern, considering it builds up on a previous edition. If there's no conflict, you could use it; however, once a conflict is made, you need to work up with the DM to see if it applies. Classes would be out of the question, because you'd need to adapt them; feats and spells are much easier.

Still: as PF grew, it distanced much from 3.5, to the point that it could be considered an entirely new system - just that it uses a previous system as a base. IMO, it'd be like changing your Windows or Mac OS; it's not necessarily an "upgrade", but it's a change that might make some options redundant or obsolete. (Do recall Windows ME and Windows Vista).

No worries, on the back cover of their supplements, Paizo have noted the product is "3.5, OGL compatible".
Yes, essentially Pathfinder - due to a lot of little changes within the core engine - became rather it's own beast in a way, see one prominent example being the Concentration skill. But I'd argue while the systems aren't essentially identical, because the compatibility needs little modifications, the systems are compatible.
But this is where my point of DM oversight comes in, all of what essentially comes into play is dependent on DM oversight, so in the case of actually being backwards compatible with its older sibling, DM oversight happens and that includes working with the DM to make the transition of rules a seamless fit.

[Amiel]

Yes, those are designed by Paizo. No, they're not the best or worst, so they still don't really belong in this thread. Although I'm sure somebody will call the UnRogue the worst for having more options, more build paths, and more reliable sneak attack than the 3E rogue

At least they gave the unchained rogue more combat options, which is more of what they gave their version of the base rogue. But far be it for you to put words in people's mouths, right?

I'm sure that was true ten years ago, but you have missed everything printed in the meantime.

They just broke down the feat paths further by needing more of them to do essentially a similar thing previously.

[T.G. Oskar]

Yes, those are designed by Paizo. No, they're not the best or worst, so they still don't really belong in this thread. Although I'm sure somebody will call the UnRogue the worst for having more options, more build paths, and more reliable sneak attack than the 3E rogue

And that person would be enshrined to its opinion. But that's a good point - they count, though personally you don't believe they do.

That said: changes to UnBarb are pretty odd. I don't like that Bards have their Bardic Performance uses limited by rounds; they could have had more uses at first, but afterwards, you had more than enough uses. Barbarians, on the other hand, work somewhat decently on that regard - you trigger your Rage when you need it, you drop it out as you need it. Rage itself, as it was, is probably one of the better-designed options: it boosts many things at once, such as melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, Fortitude saves, HP and whatnot. UnBarb changes it to a direct change to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls and temp HP; while CMB means it also affects things like Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple and Trip (the other combat benefit of boosting Strength) and temporary hit points means you don't die because of going unconscious, it also means you don't get a Fortitude boost, nor you get a boost to breaking bonds, breaking barriers and increasing weight limit (other benefits of Strength, and partly the reason why Strength was considered OP in early 3e). It's also clunky, rather than the elegance of just boosting ability scores. And...that's basically it. It's somewhat nerfing Rage to solve a situation that's actually a valid issue. (Well, it also works a few Rage Powers, IIRC.) Errata would have done it better.

One poster actually used the limited rounds/day argument to claim Barbarian was one of the worst designed classes, and since the UnBarb follows suit, it's a valid argument, contrasting the Bard if the metrics of "has to be designed by Paizo" count. (Of course, it undermines how Rage Powers actually give class features to the Barbarian, which is an equally valid, and perhaps a much more solid argument.) It also depends on whether Rage + Rage Powers can be better than what Bards get, or what Magi get (6th level spells + Arcana pool + class features that blend spellcasting and swordplay) and use it as comparison. IMO, Barbs are already pretty solid, and their Rage Powers give them are solid enough to make them more interesting to use, so I wouldn't place it on "worst designed class" (even the UnBarb) even as a joke. Not necessarily enough to make me play it, but still enough to admit they're good at plain sight.

[Kurald Galain]

That's the issue with kineticist in a nutshell: the "one true element" dilemma. Picking anything but Geomancer (for physical blasts), Aeromancer (for support/utility), or Pyromancer (for elemental damage/actually having usable AoE) and Psychokinetic for your second element if you're not mono-elementing is a mistake, generally speaking.

Yes. Also, once you account for resistance and immunity (which are much more common for fire than for other elements), it turns out that pyromancer actually deals less average damage than other elements, not more. So that's one of the "trap" elements.

UnBarb changes it to a direct change to melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls and temp HP

Bonuses to melee attack rolls also apply to CMB.
That said, it strikes me that of the four U-classes, the UnBarb was the least necessary. Apparently its designer felt that attack/damage bonuses would be less clunky than modifying ability scores, I don't think many players agree with that.

One poster actually used the limited rounds/day argument to claim Barbarian was one of the worst designed classes, and since the UnBarb follows suit, it's a valid argument,

As I recall, that argument was that one poster's favorite 3E trick doesn't work in PF, and he hadn't bothered to check for PF tricks that don't work in 3E, and therefore PF is bad. While that's a valid opinion, it is not actually an argument about design.

[RifleAvenger]

Rounds/day rather than a limited number of uses/day also enables tactics that revolve around Rage-Cycling to be used more consistently. Which often are a core component of optimized Barbarian tactics. UnBarb is the one unchained version of a class I don't really pay attention to, as I never considered "die when rage ends" an issue and a lot of the rest of the class gets worse with the rage changes (ex. in addition to the extra Str and Con benefits mentioned, directly boosting Attack and Damage gives fewer avenues of stacking buffs. What else in the game gives a morale bonus to Str and Con?).
-----------------------
I don't have much new to add to the thread. Design-wise, I really like Alchemist (though I wish that sharing infusions was a core feature instead of an ability tax), Investigator (I wish they got some of their abilities JUST a bit sooner though), and I can see why people like Magus even if it's not my thing.

I enjoyed how Druid got toned down from the utter insanity it was in 3.5, while still being a powerful class (even if it had to crutch evermore on full spellcasting, which as others have pointed out 3.X isn't really equipped to handle).

Not particularly well designed, but the Arcanist is my favorite class in Pathfinder (even moreso at my home table, where we don't delay casting progression for any of the fullcasters).

[Rynjin]

Yes. Also, once you account for resistance and immunity (which are much more common for fire than for other elements), it turns out that pyromancer actually deals less average damage than other elements, not more. So that's one of the "trap" elements.

Yeah, but at least you get Fireball 8 levels too late.

[grarrrg]

Rounds/day rather than a limited number of uses/day also enables tactics that revolve around Rage-Cycling to be used more consistently. Which often are a core component of optimized Barbarian tactics...

I was under the impression that a big reason behind U-Barb was that the designers thought Rage-Cycling was "badwrongdumb" and needed to be done away with, as that's not how the class "should" be played. And while you technically still can Rage-Cycle as U-Barb, they removed everything that would make it useful.
(the "+CON > take damage > oops now your dead" was the other reason for U-Barb, although they could have at least tacked on a +FORT)

[RifleAvenger]

I was under the impression that a big reason behind U-Barb was that the designers thought Rage-Cycling was "badwrongdumb" and needed to be done away with, as that's not how the class "should" be played (the "+CON > take damage > oops now your dead" was the other reason).

Maybe? Pathfinders designers could get really petty about certain player actions/tactics. Anyways, for those who don't give a fig about organized play, them making U-Barb a separate class rather than an errata means that regular Barbarian is still legal at home tables. Suits me just fine, better than some of the errata they applied to using magic items to make rogues even worse than they started out.

[Arkain]

To be fair, +AB/+damage of the UnBarbarian can have its own merits. It applies equally to two-handed, one-handed and dual wielding, instead of favoring two-handed weapons and being somewhat equal for dual wielding. Barbarians focussing on dexterity and either traditional TWF or employing shields (TWF or not) may also become more common, without as much punishment, which may diversify builds. Add some of the various stance rage powers to the mix and Barbarian, while still predominantly melee focused, seems much less like Strength: The Class. The bonuses are also untyped for whatever that's worth.
Of course they could've thrown in another bone by having danger sense also apply to initiative or something, but then a martial might have gotten nice things instead of no-brainer instant trade material for every other archetype. And that would be bad. Somehow.

All that said, it also struck me as somewhat unnecessary.

[upho]

Gonna have to be boring and agree with most other posters: Paizo's 6th level caster classes are at least the most interesting to play and typically work very well with the rest of the game. I'd also add the bloodrager, if for nothing else than allowing for more versatility, combat styles and power levels than any other 1PP martial. And because I love the "weird stuff from magic heritage awakened in rage" flavor. Not that the design of these classes is anywhere near flawless, but they do feel unique and they're great fun to play IMO.

And yeah, kinny and shifter are both examples of awfully poor design.

I know they made really good metamagic feats(although not as abusive as 3.5 persist and the metamagics that allows to persist without using higher spell slots)

I think you need to check out the martial options released during the last five years or so (and how they work with older options). Non-CRB stuff like Combat Stamina, Dirty Fighting, Dirty Trick Master, Kitsune Vengeance, savage dirty trick, Ascetic Style, Soulless Gaze, Cornugon Smash/Enforcer, Horn of the Criosphinx, Pummeling Charge, spell sunder, come and get me, bloodrager, unchained rogue and monk, advanced armor/weapon training, tons of related items etc arguably makes up most of the reason why PF martials are now generally in a much better place than their 3.5 colleagues. Many of these options also enable several different types of martial character concepts and related effective combat styles/roles which just aren't viable or even possible in 3.5 (although a few of the related options/combos can unfortunately also make martial builds outright broken in most games).

Also, I think people often miss some very crucial details when it comes to the PF metamagic feats that are most commonly mentioned as "really good". For example, Dazing Spell has no effect unless the target(s) fails a save (even if the spell doesn't allow a save) and costs a whopping +3 level increase, a much greater limitation in PF than in 3.5. Likewise, Toppling Spell is limited to a relatively small number of [force] spells, and most importantly requires the caster succeeds on "a trip check against the target, using your caster level plus your casting ability score bonus". For a large majority of casters, that last bit makes it pretty much useless against anything other than the least dangerous mooks at best, and it soon becomes pretty weak even for a caster who invests heavily into boosting their trip CMB. (As early as 10th level, a PF full caster will struggle to get their Toppling Spell trip CMB even half as high as say the trip CMB of an equally trip optimized PF fighter or barbarian of the same level.)

Perhaps even more importantly, the arguably strongest PF metamagic feats mostly benefit dedicated blasters, and those remain weaker than their colleagues despite having potentially stronger metamagic feats and a greater number of other good boost options. So yeah, the metamagic shenanigans possible in PF are pretty darn weak in comparison to those possible in 3.5.

[Psyren]

So you're arguing that in one instance DM oversight is irrelevant and everything goes - the rules be damned if they're exploited and twisted, while in the same breath, DM oversight must be sought to include mechanics that are essentially similar to a degree to be included in the same game, that's a complete double-standard and completely nonsensical.

One is first party to its own game, the other is part of a different, yet compatible game. If you still don't see the difference between the two, not sure what else to say to you besides thanks for the conversation.

I was under the impression that a big reason behind U-Barb was that the designers thought Rage-Cycling was "badwrongdumb" and needed to be done away with, as that's not how the class "should" be played. And while you technically still can Rage-Cycle as U-Barb, they removed everything that would make it useful.
(the "+CON > take damage > oops now your dead" was the other reason for U-Barb, although they could have at least tacked on a +FORT)

Nah, they have no problem with rage-cycling (hell, they created one of the best enablers for that move, Cord of Stubborn Resolve, which still works with the uBarb.) They just felt that 1/rage abilities encouraged you to do it constantly to get anything meaningful done, so they changed a lot of those to be "while raging." You might still have reason to drop in and out of rage more than once during a single fight, and so the rage-cycling techniques would be relevant there.

[upho]

That said, it strikes me that of the four U-classes, the UnBarb was the least necessary. Apparently its designer felt that attack/damage bonuses would be less clunky than modifying ability scores, I don't think many players agree with that.

Yeah, and I seem to recall one designer praising the UnBarb as stronger than the barb for some weird reason. The truth is that it maybe has a slightly higher optimization floor, but a considerably lower ceiling. It also suffers from not having nearly as many and as varied options as the barb.

As I recall, that argument was that one poster's favorite 3E trick doesn't work in PF, and he hadn't bothered to check for PF tricks that don't work in 3E, and therefore PF is bad. While that's a valid opinion, it is not actually an argument about design.

This. It strikes me that similarly oddly biased views - or views based on info which was made invalid years ago - seem to be common among 3.5 players who post on GitP. For example, there have been quite a few such posters - including in this thread - claiming PF's greater number of feat taxes make combat maneuver less useful in PF than in 3.5. And while I houserule away many of those feat taxes myself and believe there's certainly a legitimate complaint that these feat taxes are poor design in both games, it doesn't make the claim any more true since the fact remains that PF's combat maneuvers can easily be vastly more effective for PF martials than 3.5 combat maneuvers can be for 3.5 martials during a majority of levels.

It appears these posters are unaware of this fact, seemingly because they don't know about the related options published after 2014 or so, much less about what these options actually allow PF martials to do.

Rounds/day rather than a limited number of uses/day also enables tactics that revolve around Rage-Cycling to be used more consistently. Which often are a core component of optimized Barbarian tactics. UnBarb is the one unchained version of a class I don't really pay attention to, as I never considered "die when rage ends" an issue and a lot of the rest of the class gets worse with the rage changes

This exactly. I think the only three advantages the unbarb has over the barb are a) not being tied to Str as an attack stat per default, b) granting THP instead of increasing max hp, and c) its rage granting untyped bonuses stacking with everything.

Unfortunately, those minor advantages aren't even remotely close to as great as all those the barb has over the unbarb, most notably a) far superior action economy (no move actions to change rage stances), b) far more numerous and more effective mechanical combat combos (no limit on rage power stacking), c) some of the most tactically interesting and strongest martial abilities in the game (many of them cycled "once per rage" powers such as savage dirty trick and spell sunder), and d) a much greater number of great compatible options (in the form of class features as well as feats, items, race options etc).

(ex. in addition to the extra Str and Con benefits mentioned, directly boosting Attack and Damage gives fewer avenues of stacking buffs. What else in the game gives a morale bonus to Str and Con?).

As Arkain mentioned, the unbarb's rage bonuses are thankfully untyped, not morale bonuses.

I was under the impression that a big reason behind U-Barb was that the designers thought Rage-Cycling was "badwrongdumb" and needed to be done away with, as that's not how the class "should" be played. And while you technically still can Rage-Cycle as U-Barb, they removed everything that would make it useful.

IIRC, the primary reason wasn't actually the devs not liking rage-cycling as the possibility had been intentional from the very beginning (hence also the tireless rage feature), but rather some vocal PFS players and GMs not liking it. (This does seem to have been a recurring theme behind many of Paizo's less stellar decisions, including for example the Crane Wing/Riposte nerfs...)

(the "+CON > take damage > oops now your dead" was the other reason for U-Barb, although they could have at least tacked on a +FORT)

Definitely. The unbarb actually has some solid replacement ideas, but some of the crap were implemented along with them ruins what could've been a superior version of the class, instead making it pretty darn lackluster in comparison to its predecessor. Not to mention its cousin the bloodrager...

All that said, it also struck me as somewhat unnecessary.

It appears the PDT came to agree with this, considering that the barb has been getting a lot more new options than the unbarb also in releases after Unchained.