|
Designers make the rules, not developers. And having more designers would actually make making a FAQ take longer since they all have to get together and make a consensus before posting it. It’s not just whatever one Deisgner thinks.
I specifically said Herolab Pathfinder costumers. So yes, those who buy Paizo’s rules in an easily manageable format are in effect Paizo customers. Which is what Herolab is in regards to this, Pathfinder’s rules in a easily manageable format. It’s make sense that they would be in immediate touch with a business partner that literally sells their rules to customers.
You literally described what I said. “Hey I think this works like this but they think it works like that, which of us is correct?” Is what 95% of all FAQs boil down to. I’ve yet to see a FAQ where absolutely everyone was in full agreement outside of the subject having typos needing addressed (as for your example I’m assuming there was a FAQ regarding the difference between an attack and an Attack Action? That doesn’t take a lawyer).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
yeah we-ji way to divide people even more!
Sorry.
Either way, it doesn't change the factor that Paizo wanted to publish what we have now
I don't think that you can conclude that Paizo wanted to publish what we have now. Lets take the Advanced Class Guide. Very clearly, they did NOT want to publish what actually got published. The size, extent and speed of the errata proved that.
I find it hard to believe that Paizo actually wanted to publish a shifter class that is being met with such nearly universal dislike.
Would you please do me a favor? Please note that this is the fallacy of over-generalization. I like the Shifter. My sons like the Shifter. I could name several others on these forums that like the Shifter.
Not a personal attack, just seeking to correct a fallacy based on personal perception and opinion.Thank you.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you please do me a favor? Please note that this is the fallacy of over-generalization. I like the Shifter. My sons like the Shifter. I could name several others on these forums that like the Shifter.
Not a personal attack, just seeking to correct a fallacy based on personal perception and opinion.
Thank you.
This is true. Even I like the Shifter, if only in the way I sometimes fantasize about secretly joining a group as an NPC class.
In general though, the conversation is about how the Shifter class falls short of its title of Shifter and is pretty seriously under-tuned. I don't think I've heard anyone say that it excels at shapeshifting, only that it's playable and some people like it for what it is.
Time will tell what the general consensus is, but it does appear to be converging on the Shifter being around the strength of a core fighter with less utility, and fewer options than similarly themed characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shifter is not a concept that should struggle to be "playable".
If they did it right, it would have easily been right up there with magi, Warpriest, paladins, rangers, and hunters even without spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People who like the Shifter generally like it in comparison to the people who strongly dislike it. It usually seems to be closer to "tolerate" or "enjoy" than "like."
The class is technically playable the way an Adept (the best NPC class) or a poorly-built Fighter is playable. Even just adding 3 or 4 bonus feats and/or at-will Wild Shape would do wonders for it.
By the way, Fourshadow, you seem to have misread part of the text you bolded. is says "NEARLY universal dislike." You are clearly in the portion not included in that statement, and we understand that. It is not an over-generalization, it's just a generalization.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Designers make the rules, not developers. And having more designers would actually make making a FAQ take longer since they all have to get together and make a consensus before posting it. It’s not just whatever one Deisgner thinks.
I'm not responsible for their process - if having more designers *slows* things down then they should only have 1 obviously. Or they could change the process, or they could do something none of us thought of - frankly all this is - is an excuse as to why they drag their feet on these things. Here is a revolutionary idea: If the rules are so complicated the designers can't agree on what they mean - then they need to be radically re-worked to be clear (no not the entire ruleset but whatever is in question). They seem to be unafraid to do this kind of work on their own rules - but I see them bend over backwards and use word pretzels and constructions to justify stuff in the core rule book. *that is a problem* - The obvious thing here is that the fear of causing a CRB design shift or altering the page count or whatever, is far and above more important than just giving us answers or rules that work. More on this in a bit.
I specifically said Herolab Pathfinder costumers. So yes, those who buy Paizo’s rules in an easily manageable format are in effect Paizo customers. Which is what Herolab is in regards to this, Pathfinder’s rules in a easily manageable format. It’s make sense that they would be in immediate touch with a business partner that literally sells their rules to customers.
First - wrong. If I buy a Ford with a Mazda engine - I'm not a Mazda customer and don't go to Mazda for my help or repairs.
That said - it's not the problem - you nicely ignored what I said to argue what I didn't say. Giving Hero Lab rules info is fine. Letting Hero Lab have the time to code, implement, and push those changes out to a computer program before letting your own customer base know the changes were made is unacceptable. The time lag between having an answer and another company having a chance to actually implement that change into a computer program is what the problem is. Once an answer is known it should be posted.
I'd be equally mad if they gave a rule change to any third party developer and it made it's way into a functioning product prior to that information being public for the actual rules.
You literally described what I said. “Hey I think this works like this but they think it works like that, which of us is correct?” Is what 95% of all FAQs boil down to. I’ve yet to see a FAQ where absolutely everyone was in full agreement outside of the subject having typos needing addressed (as for your example I’m assuming there was a FAQ regarding the difference between an attack and an Attack Action? That doesn’t take a lawyer).
First - no I didn't. Answering a FAQ with an esoteric reading of a clause or rule encourages the rest of the rules to be read with legalese and thus results in rules arguments. The attack action wording is holdover from 3.5 that spawned enormous arguments then - and after became a thing because of 'vital strike' in pathfinder - the only actual thing in the game that uses the 'attack action as a specific type of standard action'. That doesn't take a lawyer? Vital strike is the most asked about and misunderstood feat in the game. The 'attack action' wording is *so* bad that they have actually added language into their development rules (that they send to authors) to never use it at all. The fact that you take the worst example of rules in the game - that the designers themselves take pains to never repeat - and casually dismiss it as if it were meaningless - shows you are not arguing in good faith.
Finally - going back to the first point - and the previous - the reason why they go through these language and rules nit picking FAQ's (and why they are so hard for them to answer) has more to do with some internal thing they have to avoid changing the word count or design of the CRB. The way they answer the FAQ's has a ripple effect on the rest of the rules - 'wielding' meaning you have to have made an attack attempt with the weapon for example. They could answer a FAQ with a common sense answer - but they don't - because they seem to be stuck with twisting the existing words to mean what they want - or change as little as possible so they don't upset page count/numbers/etc. When the dev team does this they signal that thats how the rules should be interpreted. And you end up here - where changing the base creatures type to ooze without providing a speed (as written) means they should have a speed of 0. That's how the current FAQ answers that play word games leave us.
|
|
Having multiple people form a consensus about what is the best way to run something is not a bad thing, I (and probably plenty of others) prefer having a design team over having all the rules dictated by one person. It's not that their too complicated for the designers themselves, they just try to look at all the interactions the ruling will produce and/or cut off. Again, this is not a bad thing.
Yes they have no problem answering things about the specific things they've specifically worked on, but rules that they didn't work on rules and/or that were made by a group of people to begin with, such as the Core Rulebook, is again better served by the design team coming to a consensus rather than just Jason making an off the cuff ruling.
*car analogy*
That's a false equivalence, a better analogy would be buying a Ford from from a Ford licensed dealership. Herolab isn't a heavily modfiied game built on Pathfinder rules the way Pathfinder is built on 3.5, Herolab Pathfinder is Pathfinder rules. And I didn't ignore it, I misread it. Paizo doesn't post rules changes to Herolab that alter the game, it's Herolab asking them whether interpretation A or B is correct and Paizo telling them A is correct, the same as us asking for a FAQ. I don't think Paizo has ever had a preemptive situation of "Oh, you're all going to misunderstand this rule so here's how it actually works".
-
It's not esoteric from my viewpoint, there's interpretation A and B.
"The 'attack action' wording is *so* bad that they have actually added language into their development rules (that they send to authors) to never use it at all."
Interesting, do you a source for this?
"and casually dismiss it as if it were meaningless - shows you are not arguing in good faith."
I did no such thing, and you claiming I'm doing as such and not arguing in good faith is actually not arguing in good faith.
Since you're coming up with your own theories for why the designers do what they do and this is starting to veer more into insulting territory than a legitimate conversation I don't see a point in continuing this.
I'm reminded that "everyone" hated on the Warpriest and Hunter even though both are solidly tier 3 and are actually good classes.
That's why I can't write off the shifter yet when only enthusiast have actually read it.
I suspect that once I do read it, I'll see get a solid tier 4 class since the doom and gloom makes the class sound a little better than core-rogue and little worse than core-only-fighter aka trash tier 5.
If the doom and gloom is right, shame on Paizo.
|
|
[
just seeking to correct a fallacy based on personal perception and opinion.
Thank you.
I overstated things for which I apologize.
I should have said something like "being met, at least on these forums, with far more negative responses than positive".
Obviously there is, as always, the danger of interpreting people who bother to post to these forums as representative of Pathfinder as a whole. But
1) there are quite a few people on these forums who are very loyal to Paizo and very enthusiastic about just about everything it produces so its not actually clear to me which direction any bias goes
2) Its what we have :-). Its at least a LITTLE less anecdotal than my just asking personal friends.
But its definitely NOT just perception that the response to this class is far more negative than positive.
Incidentally, I have no personal bias on the shifter. I don't own the book and aren't planning to. I like druids and would have been very surprised if they'd come up with a class that would have tempted me from the druid for a shifter like character. I was pretty much never in the target market for this class and I'm fine with that.
There's another thread discussing what Prestige Classes would help make a Shifter build better, and Stalwart Defender looked like a good one for not building into Pounce and instead keeping enemies away from your allies. That might work well with your Wolf Aspect build.
I admit, I'm not totally 100% on how natural attacks work for player characters (where we can't just read their stat-line from the bestiary), since I haven't had to GM for one yet. How many claw attacks can a level, say, 16 shifter make with a full attack action? It's just two right?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I admit, I'm not totally 100% on how natural attacks work for player characters (where we can't just read their stat-line from the bestiary), since I haven't had to GM for one yet. How many claw attacks can a level, say, 16 shifter make with a full attack action? It's just two right?
Yup, just the two for a full attack.
You get one attack with each natural weapon, yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So the Shifter, unless they pick up a weapon (hey there Elemental Shifter), doesn't actually benefit that much from full-BAB except for qualifying for feats (of which they don't have many to spare.)
An Animal Companion that has only one natural attack with the Multiattack feat gained at 9th level can make two attacks instead of one.
Unfortunately, Shifters aren't technically Animal Companions. It should've been a feature Shifters get with their claws, though.
So the Shifter, unless they pick up a weapon (hey there Elemental Shifter), doesn't actually benefit that much from full-BAB except for qualifying for feats (of which they don't have many to spare.)
Unless you get improved unarmed strike and get multiattack and combo unarmed strikes and natural attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting, do you a source for this?
I'm struggling to recall where but there was another author who stated something similar - I believe it had to do with the chain of feats that were intended to work directly with vital strike (written with that intent) but were printed so they didn't - but offhand I'm having trouble finding it.
A search of the entire rules text from every book (last time checked - a year ago so this may be out of date) found no other reference to the 'attack action' that vital strike uses - other than vital strike.
Meta: The fact that an author chimes in with intent is helpful but doesn't actually clarify anything. Even paizo designers have had text changed on them to where it no longer worked as they envisioned it - see Mark's work on Starfinder and how it didn't match is submission - and he didn't find out until after it was published. Simple fact is we have text - not intent - to determine what the rules are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It won’t make people happy to have their questions unanswered for a while, but there are other consequences in addressing the current crop of concerns beyond the level of engagement (at least if it’s done properly, in a considered and collegial way that Paizo like to address faq/errata).
I’d love it if you got a monstrous Q and A thread with the developers/designers/editors all chipping in answers. Or if mark is willing to put in some time addressing specifics. I’m just not convinced that’s the best for the game in the long run.
Steve,
I disagree entirely with the premise of this argument.
Understood. I don’t expect it to be compelling to many who think the shifter needs updating. Probably poorly worded, but it was intended as perspective more than argument - I’m not trying to change minds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the Shifter, unless they pick up a weapon (hey there Elemental Shifter), doesn't actually benefit that much from full-BAB except for qualifying for feats (of which they don't have many to spare.)
The Weretouched Shifter can use weapons as well. Though, in my opinion, if you're using weapons as a shifter you probably should just switch classes. Natural attacks are one of those class features that are overvalued, and thus come at the cost of other potential class features.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to start by noting that I'm not actually a huge fan of Shifter. I think it's kinda boring and could use some more utility stuff.
That said, I'm also pretty convinced already that it does fine in combat, and easily as well as things like Fighter and Barbarian outside combat.
Let's examine this, shall we?
Say we have an 10th level Fighter
Say a +2 weapon, Gloves of Dueling, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization, Power Attack and Improved Critical, and a Falchion attacks for something like +21/+21/+16 assuming Haste, and does 2d4+26 per hit. Vs. AC 24 (the standard for CR 10 foes) that's a DPR of around 98.735...or 38.285 on a charge (which will happen pretty often).
Assuming Dex 16 and a set of +2 Full Plate, along with an AoNA +1, a Ring of Protection +1, and an Ioun Stone for +1 AC, and Defensive Training for +3, and has +1 from Haste, so that's an AC of 31.
Assuming he's got a +3 Cloak of Resistance, Armed Bravery, and Lightning Reflexes and Iron Will, and has Haste as mentioned, so his Saves wind up Fortitude +13, Reflex +10, Will +12.
For non-combat stuff we'll assume the Fighter has used his third Advanced Weapon Training option for more skills, meaning the two will have equal skills.
Now, let's look at an 10th level Shifter.
Say she has a +2 AoMF, and has assumed Tiger Form for +4 Str, -2 Dex, +4 NA, and has Power Attack. Her attack routine is +18/+18/+18/+18 for 2d4+16 on the two claws and 2d6+16 on the two bites, assuming Haste again, and has a DPR of 69.3...or 71.335 on a charge.
Assuming a need to move half the time, that's more DPR, and the Fighter's is pretty much maxed out, while you can invest some Feats and jack the Shifter's up a bit. Plus the Shifter can do Grapples for free after any successful attack...
Now for AC, the Shifter is probably using Tiger's Minor Form for +4 Dex, and has a +1 Wild Breastplate made of a non-metal material, so that's +3 Dex and +7 Armor. She also gets +4 from Defensive Instincts (remember, only the Wis bonus is halved by armor), +4 from the Natural Armor of the Tiger form, has a +1 Ring of Protection, and a +1 Ioun Stone, and has Haste. That's a total of AC 31 and the same as the Fighter. So that's nice.
In terms of Saves, the Shifter also has a +3 Cloak, Iron Will, and Haste, which gives her a +12 Fort, +14 Ref, +12 Will.
Now, as that stands, the Shifter has 10 less HP, but they also have an active and undefined Minor Form, which will grant +2 Fort and +20 HP if used on Bear. You could use it on something else, but only if you think something else is better.
Neither of these builds have all their Feats used, but the Fighter's used 8/11 if Human and the Shifter's used 2/6 if Human, so that's actually a slight advantage to the Shifter.
Now, at 11th the Fighter gets another attack, which ups their DPR a bit comparatively on full attacks, but even then the Shifter's stays on par if you assume the need to move around half the time, and the rest of the math stays consistent.
And...that's lower DPR not counting Pounce, but around on par or better counting it, the same AC, better Saves, and even better HP. That's not a class that has trouble performing on par with other martials. It's just not. This is also Haste DPR which helps the Fighter significantly more than the Shifter.
I also didn't toss on an Animal Mask which is a huge DPR enhancer for a Shifter if used to add, say, a Gore attack to a Tiger, and is pretty cheap.
Shifter may not be the Class people wanted, and it may be kinda boring, but it's sure as heck not brokenly bad or anything as compared to other martials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your tiger's Attack and AC seems off, seems like you forgot the size penalty for being large. Which puts DPR to 64.68 for a normal full attack.
Plus the fighter should drop cha to 7 and bump int to 12 since the shifter's cha is 7.
And it's only filling it's job compared to the fighter by being locked into 1 animal form (and as people have been saying, it having pounce makes it okay ad doing damage)
So the Shifter, unless they pick up a weapon (hey there Elemental Shifter), doesn't actually benefit that much from full-BAB except for qualifying for feats (of which they don't have many to spare.)Unless you get improved unarmed strike and get multiattack and combo unarmed strikes and natural attacks.
Except that unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons while being used in conjunction with natural attacks, so your claws are degraded to secondary natural attacks instead. And that would still violate the "handedness" rule, which would mean that your net gain for playing a Shifter is a single natural attack made at BAB-5 dealing 1/2 your Strength while punching at the same level as an unspecced Fighter.
Unspecced being "didn't even put weapon training points into close weapons", since even a normal Fighter focusing weapon training into unarmed strikes are decent at them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Fighter also doesn't need to use up durations or uses/day to function, which is a big deal for the shifter at earlier levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to start by noting that I'm not actually a huge fan of Shifter. I think it's kinda boring and could use some more utility stuff.
That said, I'm also pretty convinced already that it does fine in combat, and easily as well as things like Fighter and Barbarian outside combat.
Let's examine this, shall we?
Say we have an 10th level Fighter
** spoiler omitted **
Now, let's look at an 10th level Shifter.
** spoiler omitted **...
Pretty much what I would have expected. 100% banking on early access to pounce, and approximately on par with a fighter for minutes per day (don't forget the aspect use is limited). Since their whole schtick is being decent in combat with pounce they require the player to be stingy with their limited wild shape uses. This one is a tiger so forget about five foot hallways. Outside of wildshape they can't even use a composite longbow like the fighter with using up a feat.
So the Shifter, unless they pick up a weapon (hey there Elemental Shifter), doesn't actually benefit that much from full-BAB except for qualifying for feats (of which they don't have many to spare.)Unless you get improved unarmed strike and get multiattack and combo unarmed strikes and natural attacks.Except that unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons while being used in conjunction with natural attacks, so your claws are degraded to secondary natural attacks instead. And that would still violate the "handedness" rule, which would mean that your net gain for playing a Shifter is a single natural attack made at BAB-5 dealing 1/2 your Strength while punching at the same level as an unspecced Fighter.
Unspecced being "didn't even put weapon training points into close weapons", since even a normal Fighter focusing weapon training into unarmed strikes are decent at them.
You're misinterpreting the handedness rule. You can make all of your natural attacks in addition to TWFing your unarmed strikes, and shoring up the lost damage from strength due to secondary natural attacks with shifter's edge. With multiattack they're all made at BAB-2
You're misinterpreting the handedness rule. You can make all of your natural attacks in addition to TWFing your unarmed strikes, and shoring up the lost damage from strength due to secondary natural attacks with shifter's edge. With multiattack they're all made at BAB-2
and half stat to damage.
and half stat to damage.
You're misinterpreting the handedness rule. You can make all of your natural attacks in addition to TWFing your unarmed strikes, and shoring up the lost damage from strength due to secondary natural attacks with shifter's edge. With multiattack they're all made at BAB-2
I mentioned that.
Look at it this way: you could get three natural attacks for 3xstr damage, or you could get 3 unarmed strikes for 2.5xstr AND three natural attacks for 1.5xstr damage
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So the tiger goes from +17/+17/+17/+17 for 2d4/6+16
to
+15/+15/+15/+10/+10/ for 1d4+16 and +15/+15/+15 for 2d4/6+8
with TWF, improved TWF and multiattack
this bumps the full attack DPR from 64.68 to 73.75
So I did the maths and against CR 13's 28 AC the fighter did 75.76 and the two shifter builds did like 46. So the shifters are consistently doing 30 less DPR.
So this kinda shows that pounce is REQUIRED and must come up for it to at all competitively fill the roll of damage guy.
So the tiger goes from +17/+17/+17/+17 for 2d4/6+16
to
+15/+15/+15/+10/+10/ for 1d4+16 and +15/+15/+15 for 2d4/6+8
with TWF, improved TWF and multiattack
this bumps the full attack DPR from 64.68 to 73.75
Dip into monk for 1d6 medium unarmed damage and 1d8 large
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this is officially getting outside the realm of both "Is the Shifter any good" and "Does the Shifter fit the stated goal of being a 'beginner' shapeshifting class." If you need to grab feats that are generally called out as "Monster Only" and multiclass to get up to the level of a basically-Core Fighter....Dip into monk for 1d6 medium unarmed damage and 1d8 largeSo the tiger goes from +17/+17/+17/+17 for 2d4/6+16
to
+15/+15/+15/+10/+10/ for 1d4+16 and +15/+15/+15 for 2d4/6+8
with TWF, improved TWF and multiattack
this bumps the full attack DPR from 64.68 to 73.75
Don't let me fool you, I can't defend the shifter at all.
Wait let me try. Voila! Shifter: Pounce turned into a class!
|
|
Your tiger's Attack and AC seems off, seems like you forgot the size penalty for being large. Which puts DPR to 64.68 for a normal full attack.
Ah! You're totally right. I completely spaced the size penalties. Tossing on the Animal Mask I mentioned previously (which there's about enough money left for) ups it to 78.2775 or so, though, and goes higher than that on a charge.
Plus the fighter should drop cha to 7 and bump int to 12 since the shifter's cha is 7.
Fair enough. The Shifter's animal shifting (she can have a flying form like Owl or Bat on top of those listed) makes for equal utility.
And it's only filling it's job compared to the fighter by being locked into 1 animal form (and as people have been saying, it having pounce makes it okay ad doing damage)
Well, by 10th, it's only locked in when, y'know, fighting. So that's no great hardship.
The Fighter also doesn't need to use up durations or uses/day to function, which is a big deal for the shifter at earlier levels.
Eh. At 10th, that's 13 minutes a day and a swift action to activate. That's enough for all the fights a PC fights in a day. And more. Even as early as 2nd or 3rd it's 5 or 6 minutes and probably enough.
And they have claws at that level, which isn't bad even absent other stuff. Natural attacks are a pretty solid attack methodology, especially at low levels.
Pretty much what I would have expected. 100% banking on early access to pounce, and approximately on par with a fighter for minutes per day (don't forget the aspect use is limited). Since their whole schtick is being decent in combat with pounce they require the player to be stingy with their limited wild shape uses. This one is a tiger so forget about five foot hallways. Outside of wildshape they can't even use a composite longbow like the fighter with using up a feat.
You can do the same, or maybe better, with the Medium Deinonychus. And by 6th, they never really need to fight outside Wild Shape since that's 12 hours a day.
Heck, even fighting outside of Wild Shape you can do fine in melee. Your ranged combat is gonna be lacking, it's true, but you have in-class flight available to soften that particular blow.
.
.
.
As for the unarmed strike thing, yeah, that's totally valid and a solid DPR boost for the Feats (and Wildling Strike is an excellent alternative to dipping Monk or Brawler). If doing the unarmed combat thing, Deinonychus is definitely the way to go. Two more secondary natural attacks is great when using that particular strategy.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this is officially getting outside the realm of both "Is the Shifter any good" and "Does the Shifter fit the stated goal of being a 'beginner' shapeshifting class." If you need to grab feats that are generally called out as "Monster Only" and multiclass to get up to the level of a basically-Core Fighter....
The Fighter I listed made notable use of non-core options (Gloves of Dueling and Advanced Weapon Training) and the Shifter I listed, which is on par in damage counting pounce, did not. Adding in the Animal Mask, as mentioned, does help out a lot, as does the unarmed combat trick, but neither is strictly necessary per se.
So saying the Shifter requires non-core options to be the equal of a core Fighter is pretty clearly not correct.
Problem: What if you're going to swap in and out of Wild Shape throughout the day? You know, if you're interacting with people (i.e. roleplaying)? Even with a Ring of Eloquence or a feat for speaking, you're not going to have a great time interacting with people and people-related objects if you're a tiger or a dinosaur. This is why I expected at-will Wild Shape as the most obvious thing for the Shifter (especially once we knew you would be limited to a few different forms as opposed to Druid's "turn into anything, but limited number of times").
Then again, I'm a fan of how the Kineticist was made and I guess I should have expected a lack of at-will toys when I heard Mark wasn't working on the Shifter (though at least SOME toys would be nice, and no, Trackless Step, Wild Empathy, and Woodland Stride don't count). I've said before that you could save this class in my eyes with something as incredibly simple as at-will Wild Shape and maybe 3 or 4 bonus feats (like a Gunslinger or Cavalier gets).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem: What if you're going to swap in and out of Wild Shape throughout the day? You know, if you're interacting with people (i.e. roleplaying)? Even with a Ring of Eloquence or a feat for speaking, you're not going to have a great time interacting with people and people-related objects if you're a tiger or a dinosaur. .
This is a total non issue.
Yes communicating with your party can be important, but the non face not participating in the talky talk stuff is about as relevant as the barbarian not participating in the lock picking. If anything the party face would PREFER a tiger that says nothing to a barbarian who says inappropriate things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Problem: What if you're going to swap in and out of Wild Shape throughout the day? You know, if you're interacting with people (i.e. roleplaying)? Even with a Ring of Eloquence or a feat for speaking, you're not going to have a great time interacting with people and people-related objects if you're a tiger or a dinosaur. This is why I expected at-will Wild Shape as the most obvious thing for the Shifter (especially once we knew you would be limited to a few different forms as opposed to Druid's "turn into anything, but limited number of times").
This is true enough, but how many times a day do you really need to do this? Once? Twice? Three times? It's definitely an issue at 4th, and maybe at 6th, but by 8th or 10th not so much, and that's a narrow range of levels where this is an issue.
Then again, I'm a fan of how the Kineticist was made and I guess I should have expected a lack of at-will toys when I heard Mark wasn't working on the Shifter (though at least SOME toys would be nice, and no, Trackless Step, Wild Empathy, and Woodland Stride don't count). I've said before that you could save this class in my eyes with something as incredibly simple as at-will Wild Shape and maybe 3 or 4 bonus feats (like a Gunslinger or Cavalier gets).
I'm absolutely on board with the Shifter being given additional stuff (I have an extensive fix in my House Rules). I'm just noting that it doesn't need such things to be functional on the level of other martials.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Problem: What if you're going to swap in and out of Wild Shape throughout the day? You know, if you're interacting with people (i.e. roleplaying)? Even with a Ring of Eloquence or a feat for speaking, you're not going to have a great time interacting with people and people-related objects if you're a tiger or a dinosaur. .This is a total non issue.
Yes communicating with your party can be important, but the non face not participating in the talky talk stuff is about as relevant as the barbarian not participating in the lock picking. If anything the party face would PREFER a tiger that says nothing to a barbarian who says inappropriate things.
Not talking could also help the talky peoples.
*turns into big kitty*
*presents tummy*
You're misinterpreting the handedness rule. You can make all of your natural attacks in addition to TWFing your unarmed strikes, and shoring up the lost damage from strength due to secondary natural attacks with shifter's edge. With multiattack they're all made at BAB-2So the Shifter, unless they pick up a weapon (hey there Elemental Shifter), doesn't actually benefit that much from full-BAB except for qualifying for feats (of which they don't have many to spare.)Unless you get improved unarmed strike and get multiattack and combo unarmed strikes and natural attacks.Except that unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons while being used in conjunction with natural attacks, so your claws are degraded to secondary natural attacks instead. And that would still violate the "handedness" rule, which would mean that your net gain for playing a Shifter is a single natural attack made at BAB-5 dealing 1/2 your Strength while punching at the same level as an unspecced Fighter.
Unspecced being "didn't even put weapon training points into close weapons", since even a normal Fighter focusing weapon training into unarmed strikes are decent at them.
I thought the handedness rule would prevent you from making multiple types of attacks that use the same metaphorical hand.
That's separate from the rule that prevents you from making a natural attack and manufactured attack with the same limb.
There's two handedness things.
metaphorical handsP Your humanoid weapon slots (which is manufactured and includes unarmed strikes) and natural weapons. You can dual wield your humanoid weapon stuff. If you use manufactured weapons or unarmed strikes, your natural weapons drop down to be secondary attacks.
(literal hands) The other thing is that you can't use the same limb twice, so you can't sword in right hand drop sword and claw someone with your right hand.
There's two handedness things.
metaphorical handsP Your humanoid weapon slots (which is manufactured and includes unarmed strikes) and natural weapons. You can dual wield your humanoid weapon stuff. If you use manufactured weapons or unarmed strikes, your natural weapons drop down to be secondary attacks.
Huh, so did that get changed around? Used to be something like "you can't use claws and knife boots at the same time because it's the same metaphorical hand."
Huh, so did that get changed around? Used to be something like "you can't use claws and knife boots at the same time because it's the same metaphorical hand."There's two handedness things.
metaphorical handsP Your humanoid weapon slots (which is manufactured and includes unarmed strikes) and natural weapons. You can dual wield your humanoid weapon stuff. If you use manufactured weapons or unarmed strikes, your natural weapons drop down to be secondary attacks.
It's a wonky thing that most players never have to run into but GM's learn - creatures with natural attacks that can still use weapons automatically have the primary attacks drop to 'secondary'. This comes into play if you have multiple limbs *and* natural attacks for those limbs.
I can see this pairing really well with hyde type alchemists that grow a couple of extra limbs. Especially if the gm allows the multiattack feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh, so did that get changed around? Used to be something like "you can't use claws and knife boots at the same time because it's the same metaphorical hand."There's two handedness things.
metaphorical handsP Your humanoid weapon slots (which is manufactured and includes unarmed strikes) and natural weapons. You can dual wield your humanoid weapon stuff. If you use manufactured weapons or unarmed strikes, your natural weapons drop down to be secondary attacks.
The term "metaphorical hand" was adopted with the ruling regarding TWF with Armor Spikes and a Greatsword as a reason for denying their combination from working.
Also called the "hands of effort," it's basically a TWF-exclusive thing, and aren't applicable to Natural Attacks, which can all be taken regardless of if TWF is utilized or not.
The rule, as it stands, is that you cannot use a natural attack whose limb is also being used to wield a manufactured weapon in the same round/turn. Metaphorical Hands is for TWF, and you don't TWF with any sort of natural attack, ever.
So a level 16 shifter with Multiattack and IUS can kick somebody 4 times for +16/+11/+6/+1 and then claw twice for +14/+14? Do I have that right? Otherwise, how would one build a shifter that would make use of their claws (a significant class feature) and their BAB (another significant class feature)?
So a level 16 shifter with Multiattack and IUS can kick somebody 4 times for +16/+11/+6/+1 and then claw twice for +14/+14? Do I have that right? Otherwise, how would one build a shifter that would make use of their claws (a significant class feature) and their BAB (another significant class feature)?
Dwarven boulder helmet, armor spikes, sea knives and blade boots.
|
|
So a level 16 shifter with Multiattack and IUS can kick somebody 4 times for +16/+11/+6/+1 and then claw twice for +14/+14? Do I have that right? Otherwise, how would one build a shifter that would make use of their claws (a significant class feature) and their BAB (another significant class feature)?
Extra Arms are one possibility. But really, aside from Unarmed Attacks, you're probably not gonna get iterative attacks on top of your natural attacks.
However, iterative attacks aren't the only thing BAB does for you. The extra bonus to attack is obvious, but there's also the Feat prerequisite thing, and, most often overlooked, the effect on scaling Feats like Power Attack, which is a pretty big deal.
So a level 16 shifter with Multiattack and IUS can kick somebody 4 times for +16/+11/+6/+1 and then claw twice for +14/+14? Do I have that right? Otherwise, how would one build a shifter that would make use of their claws (a significant class feature) and their BAB (another significant class feature)?
You can also TWF with unarmed strikes, getting another couple attacks there. Also don't forget you can do it in tiger form and get larger unarmed dice and more natural attacks.