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

[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?

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

[Vhaidara]

Um... Yes? I agree

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

If we were talking DSP, I would agree.

[PsyBomb]

Really? What has Paizo done to deserve this faith

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

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.

[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.

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

[Milo v3]

The latest blog post on Unchained, 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.

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.

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.

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.