What to Expect from PATHFINDER UNCHAINED!

Check the official thread. You have designers popping up and giving a bit more info. http://paizo.com/products/btpy97vo/...ying-Game-Pathfinder-Unchained-Hardcover#tabs

 

[sidonunspa]

I don't see it as remotely comparably to 3.5. The comparision is to Unearthed Arcana - a book of optional alternate rules.

And I don't hate WotC.

Now, if Paizo uses this book as the core rules for every future product thereafter, then I'll grant you that it's a new edition. If they don't, then it's just an extra book with some alternate rules in it.

depends how they use it..

IF it becomes standard for the Pathfinder Society Campaign.. its not "optional" it's down right core.

If they don't make the rules their in PFS enabled, it will hurt sales (the vast majority of PF players down in south florida only play PFS or play the Adventure Paths with PFS rules)

brings up another intresting tidbit... are they going to use these rules in future Adventure Paths.. again, if they do.. its practicly core book

 

[Morrus]

depends how they use it..

IF it becomes standard for the Pathfinder Society Campaign.. its not "optional" it's down right core.

If they don't make the rules their in PFS enabled, it will hurt sales (the vast majority of PF players down in south florida only play PFS or play the Adventure Paths with PFS rules)

brings up another intresting tidbit... are they going to use these rules in future Adventure Paths.. again, if they do.. its practicly core book

I think you just repeated what I said.

 

[Wrathamon]

"Are you playing Classic Pathfinder or Unchained?" How is this not 3.5 with another name? It's the same verbiage as Essentials but that was backwards compatible. Is Unchained?

 

[Perram]

"Are you playing Classic Pathfinder or Unchained?" How is this not 3.5 with another name? It's the same verbiage as Essentials but that was backwards compatible. Is Unchained?

Because it isn't a stand alone rules set that can be played without the main rule-book? You're blowing what this book is way out of proportion. Its a set of experimental /optional/ rules. Even if it was PFS legal to use some of the options in it, it would be no different than the APG, UM, UC, etc... It isn't backwards compatible because it isn't a rules system. The conversation isn't 'Are you playing Classic Pathfinder or Unchained?' its: "Can I use the Unchained Barbarian this game?" which is no different than "Can I play a Gunslinger in this campaign?" or "Are we using the Words of Power System?"

I understand that there are a set of people that, for a lot of different reasons, WANT there to be a PF.5 or a PF 2, but this is just grasping at straws.

 

[LegendaryGames]

It sounds a lot more like a PF Unearthed Arcana, with its alternate takes on classes, vitality vs. hit points, etc., than any kind of wholesale revision.

 

[Gundark]

Umm, how is messing with the action economy (core part of the combat system), a new system where martial maneuvers granting fatigue, and redesigning entire classes NOT a new edition?

I guess this is pathfinders 3.5?

I’m impressed, WOTC got hell for their 3.5, but pathfinder people seem to love the idea of this 3.P.5

guess it was mostly WoTC hate

It totally had a "if you like this, then it'll be the new PF" vibe. PF/Paizo has to do something if they are to going to grow their brand in the long term. This is an experiment where they are going to try new things and see what sticks and then announce the new PF with the stuff the fans love. Then rather than complaints it'll be heralded as innovative and needed. It's all in how you spin it.

 

[Jester David]

"Are you playing Classic Pathfinder or Unchained?" How is this not 3.5 with another name? It's the same verbiage as Essentials but that was backwards compatible. Is Unchained?

It's more like Book of Nine Swords, which offered an alternate version of martial classes. Or Unearthed Arcana, which had class variants as well.
It's not a replacement, but an optional add-on that you can choose to take if you like the new version better.

 

[Jester David]

Umm, how is messing with the action economy (core part of the combat system), a new system where martial maneuvers granting fatigue, and redesigning entire classes NOT a new edition?

I guess this is pathfinders 3.5?

I’m impressed, WOTC got hell for their 3.5, but pathfinder people seem to love the idea of this 3.P.5

guess it was mostly WoTC hate

My favourite book from WotC was and is Unearthed Arcana for 3e which was a similar product: a big book of optional rules designed around hacking the game. Paizo is no stranger to this either, with alternate rules in both Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat.

 

[Arilon]

Umm, how is messing with the action economy (core part of the combat system), a new system where martial maneuvers granting fatigue, and redesigning entire classes NOT a new edition?

I guess this is pathfinders 3.5?

I’m impressed, WOTC got hell for their 3.5, but pathfinder people seem to love the idea of this 3.P.5

guess it was mostly WoTC hate

Actually, I really liked 3.5 and was glad that WotC did it. So, no hate from me.

 

[casterblaster]

It totally had a "if you like this, then it'll be the new PF" vibe. PF/Paizo has to do something if they are to going to grow their brand in the long term. This is an experiment where they are going to try new things and see what sticks and then announce the new PF with the stuff the fans love. Then rather than complaints it'll be heralded as innovative and needed. It's all in how you spin it.

This 100%! This is the Pazio toe in the water. Its funny to me that some of the changes have a 4e vibe but I could be wrong. I wouldn't think PF would go rules light either since 5e is out.