So....for consideration....


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

151 to 200 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Steve Geddes wrote:
nighttree wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
nighttree wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I don't know what that is, but if it's an archetype it won't cross my mind.

To provide some context, when I create a character I roll six stats in order (usually 4d6 drop the lowest but sometimes the DM has lower or higher standards than that). I'll occasionally switch two of them, but generally I take them as is. Then I mull over what kind of character is suggested to me and I'll often flick through rulebooks looking at classes to help decide - when we play pathfinder, I nearly always just flick through the CRB and one of them jumps out at me - however, when there's been some controversy on the forums I do sometimes look further afield. We're playing starfinder at the moment, but if we were rolling up characters shifter would definitely be on the list of potentials, given the recent discussions.

That's the limit of my research in terms of classes - I don't hunt through looking for the best way to fulfill some pre-determined character concept. I start with the stats and let the character build from there. Generally I go stats-class-culture since I nearly always play human, although occasionally the culture choice will be some non-human race.

Skinwalker/Fighter just wouldn't crop up as a possibility.

Skinwalker is one of the playable races....you have 2 1D4 claw attacks, and can shapeshift into bestial aspects prior to even taking a class. Fighter gives you full BA....

Oh yeah, if it's a race I wouldn't use anything except for human, half-elf, half-orc or elf.

I don't have an objection in principle to the Skinwalker/Fighter - I just wouldn't think of it.

Well then that would DEFINITELY impact your view of the class. If your only aware of limited options, your expectation is going to be very different than mine. As I have said a couple of times...I have fallen into a habit of just buying everything Paizo does site unseen....except the Kobold book....I don't care for
...

Well then it's very understandable that you would have very different expectations than most customers ;)


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
I guarantee you no one at Paizo was sitting behind their desk cackling about how badly they were going to screw their fans over this time.
Well, not cackling, but the designer of the Oozemorph has said they made it bad on purpose to make you want to not be an Ooze, so...

That is unfair.

They said they made it challenging at low levels.

Or not to be "total benefit" at low levels.

And that's exactly what they achieved.

I do think things need to be addressed for it to be anything more than an NPC archetype (and I think NPC archetypes should be called out as such and restricted to specific book....maybe an Ultimate NPC book :P )

That said I think this option has potential, if they address the sketchy rules...and make it a bit more player friendly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
"Better" is a very subjective term. <snip>

OK...so as to the original point of the post....this drop's right back into dismissive to me.

I actually can't make it more than a quarter way through the posts....because they are completely focused on why people should not have the opinion they do.

I think the Arcanist is fine, I have no interest/opinion on the Vigilante whatsoever.

The Shifter is disappointing....in many ways.
The Archetypes are even more disappointing....in even bigger ways.

People need to stop trying to mitigate peoples disappointment.


nighttree wrote:


I actually can't make it more than a quarter way through the posts....because they are completely focused on why people should not have the opinion they do.

Peoples opinions don't have inherent value.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

the shifter brings nothing new to the table.
it's not simplified shifting since you need more sources and rules to get it to work right. If "shifting is easier" just means that you have limited shapes then having a list of animals for default shapeshifting for new people would have had the same success.

"the shifter gains wildshape as a druid. Some great forms for this is the Giant Owl (found pg112), The bear, the giant frog..." boom.

Maybe if you wanted it even easier list it out mechanically.
here are some examples:
Bear: +4 str large 2 claws and bite...
owl: ...

this would have used the same space or less for the class and achieved the result of bypassing "option paralysis" while not limiting it to people that like all the options.

Then have it be as you level you can add one animal ability to your current form, like putting a frog tongue on your bear or owl. These can be tied to the minor forms which still make sense, these are the animals you have greater affinity to. And again, just re-state the mechanics there in line like the tongue is 15ft and can make a touch attack. Heck, they could even tie the "unique" bonuses to the minor forms like the fly-by attack for owl.

This seems to me to accomplish any goal of "new player friendly" since everything they'd need to play the class could be found all in the class description and they'd still be guided to basic forms they can use, improves on the chimeric aspect by letting them actually "combine" animal forms

currently the shifter needs the bestiary still for lots of the animal features of the base forms along with the book for beast shape to know what they normally get and then look at their shifter class to see how it's limited.

Then they need to remember that if they are wearing armor when they wildshape they still get the reduced bonus from their defensive ability.

Then find out that if they pick a "non-combat form" that they struggle to help in combat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Nice post, right? Explains that the individual has issues with the class and thinks it's weak, presented without impugning the dignity or intelligence of the writer. What that post doesn't do is provide anything actionable. That post does nothing for a designer other than let them know that someone didn't like their class. It doesn't touch on a single reason why the poster thinks the shifter isn't as good as a CRB fighter, monk, or rogue, doesn't explain a single issue they have with the class. And that post is actually amongst the more reasonable and thoughtful criticisms I've seen since the class came out. If a post that provides absolutely no insight into how the poster came to their opinion is one of the better posts on the subject, how are the designers even supposed to get the chance to see any relevant and actionable feedback?

That's the beauty of a playtest though, communication flows both ways - a designer who has sufficient time to both review and follow the playtest as it unfolds could reply to Mr. H and ask him to elaborate on his points. In my dream world a playtest would be a dialogue between designers and players, not reading through a printout of the comment thread a week after the playtest ended. In that regard I really enjoyed following the Dreamscarred path of war playtests, it was refreshing to be able to reach out directly to whoever designed something and ask them what they mean by X or Y. Moreover, if Paizo conducted a playtest and got the feedback they've been getting on the shifter over the past month they wouldn't have to be scrambling right now, they'd still have time to try and solve some of the problems. Moreover, they'd be in a better position to know roughly what the feedback would be when the final class went out the door.

I agree with you that a lot of the feedback has been variations of "where's the wildshape?" but I read that to mean that the current version of "shapeshifting" doesn't cut it - you can make it snazzier and feel better without making it full-blown wildshape. Shifting as a move/swift action to facilitate shifting mid-combat would be a huge boon, so would altering how often a shifter can change his form to make it feel like a more "natural" aspect of the class. If the druid gets quantity of shapes available, let the shifter have quality of shapes by letting him shift faster and more often. "The shifter might not have variety of a druid in forms he can pick but he's the undisputed master of the forms he can use" would make for a distinct niche. :)

Personally I would have preferred it if they had sorted the aspects into "combat" and "utility" shapes and treated them like different class features. Forcing players to pick between combat and utility for the few greater aspects they do get really underlines the difference in flexibility between the druid and the shifter, especially when you consider how many games end before they leave the single digit levels.

Ssalarn wrote:
I have nothing to base the following statement off of other than my experience with the people at Paizo, but I strongly suspect that if, when the shifter came out, there had been less hate-spamming and more focus on realistic positive tweaks to the existing class, we wouldn't have to try very hard to push for them to bump up the uses of wild shape.

I respect your opinion and I hope you're right, but it doesn't really line up with my experience in regards to what the forum has had to do to change the design team's minds in the past. Remember when they changed flurry for monks? FAQ'ed free action limitations? 'Errataed' Crane Wing or Slashing Grace?

When was the last time the design team said something like "You know, initially we were really happy with the errata on the scarred witch doctor but after reading Kudaku's post on the archetype, we've come to realize that we might have overreacted. We've decided to backtrack the errata for now and ponder it over some more. Expect an update soon". I feel (and I hate that I feel this way) that the best way to get the design team's attention is to go big or go home - if people don't raise enough of a fuss, they don't bother getting involved.

Ssalarn wrote:
I guarantee you no one at Paizo was sitting behind their desk cackling about how badly they were going to screw their fans over this time. They had to believe that they were putting out something that was going to appeal to the people they wanted it to appeal to, and which met their standards. That means that either they missed something, or the fans did, or maybe a combination of the two, and reaching a satisfying conclusion means bridging that gap.

This worries me, because near as I can tell the majority (or at least a significant and very vocal minority) of the pathfinder board seems to be unhappy with the Shifter. Either we're missing something fundamental about the Shifter, or the design team are badly out of touch with the forum fan base. I hope it's the former, but I haven't seen it yet.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Shifter buff suggestions:

1. Aspects are unlimited use. You have all of them. Only one can be active at a time until later level abilities.

2. Changed defensive instinct such that instead of Wis to AC being 1/2 in armor, it instead becomes a natural enhancement bonus. At level 8, let her treat all armor as having the wild enhancement.

3. Shifters just gain normal wild shape.

4. At level 5 a shifter may decrease the duration of her wild shape by 1 hour to become a different form valid for wild shape.

At level 10 they select/use any major form aspect as an alternate wild shape form using the current shifter rules, except that owl is small and gains that owls fly speed. Furthermore, she may use beast shape 3 size adjustments instead of beast shape 2, and may increase any major form to huge size.

At level 15 a shifter can use the major form abilities with any spell that Wildshape mimics instead of just beast shape. For elemental body, she must pick what the element her major form is using and she gains the abilities appropriate for an elemental of her size. She does not have the chosen elementals movespeeds or natural attacks.
Furthermore she adds Giantshape 1 to her Wildshape options.

At level 20 a shifter acts as though she is under the shapechange spell. This is a supernatural effect that is always on unless the shifter suppresses it as a standard action. She may start this ability again as a standard action.

That would address my problems with the utility and damage mitigation of the class.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
nighttree wrote:


I actually can't make it more than a quarter way through the posts....because they are completely focused on why people should not have the opinion they do.

Peoples opinions don't have inherent value.

Which I suppose you can take as an absolute....or absolute rubbish ;)

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:

That is unfair.

They said they made it challenging at low levels.

Or not to be "total benefit" at low levels.

And that's exactly what they achieved.

Unplayable and not fun are the nicer descriptions I've seen. The best build so far? Somehow make it a level or two into Oozemorph, use your one to two hours of interaction time a day to teach someone Druidic and lose the class feature that punished you for picking the archetype.

I say somehow because you have no senses or movement options at the moment, so you'd literally have to be carried around in a bucket and hope you experience for the things you couldn't interact with unless someone threw said bucket.

They effectively made it 'person brand new to gaming gets Dark Souls as their start' challenging.

This is an archetype that could have been about becoming an ooze like the Shifter is class about turning into animals. Instead we got an archetype where the design was "do everything you can not to be an ooze" and that is just sad.

Having said this, I will end my involvement in this little threadjack and apologize for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
nighttree wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
nighttree wrote:


I actually can't make it more than a quarter way through the posts....because they are completely focused on why people should not have the opinion they do.

Peoples opinions don't have inherent value.
Which I suppose you can take as an absolute....or absolute rubbish ;)

Since joining these boards i've come to find out that there are people who earnestly believe Paladins are unplayable and ban them from their table, and that standard adventurer stuff would cause an autofall for any paladin anyway.

Whats the inherent value in an opinion that literally removes a core book class from play, not on balance or theme considerations, but because you believe its non functional out of the book?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:
nighttree wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
nighttree wrote:


I actually can't make it more than a quarter way through the posts....because they are completely focused on why people should not have the opinion they do.

Peoples opinions don't have inherent value.
Which I suppose you can take as an absolute....or absolute rubbish ;)

Since joining these boards i've come to find out that there are people who earnestly believe Paladins are unplayable and ban them from their table, and that standard adventurer stuff would cause an autofall for any paladin anyway.

Whats the inherent value in an opinion that literally removes a core book class from play, not on balance or theme considerations, but because you believe its non functional out of the book?

I don't think Paladins are unplayable....it's actually a very powerful class mechanically....it just comes with restrictions I'm not interested in ;)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
nighttree wrote:

That is unfair.

They said they made it challenging at low levels.

Or not to be "total benefit" at low levels.

And that's exactly what they achieved.

Unplayable and not fun are the nicer descriptions I've seen. The best build so far? Somehow make it a level or two into Oozemorph, use your one to two hours of interaction time a day to teach someone Druidic and lose the class feature that punished you for picking the archetype.

I say somehow because you have no senses or movement options at the moment, so you'd literally have to be carried around in a bucket and hope you experience for the things you couldn't interact with unless someone threw said bucket.

They effectively made it 'person brand new to gaming gets Dark Souls as their start' challenging.

This is an archetype that could have been about becoming an ooze like the Shifter is class about turning into animals. Instead we got an archetype where the design was "do everything you can not to be an ooze" and that is just sad.

Having said this, I will end my involvement in this little threadjack and apologize for it.

As this is the archetype I have played around with...this is my take on it.

I used Kitsune as the base race, and took Realistic likeness as my first level feat.

I can't actually imagine doing anything else with the class....and yes I recognize that as a problem.

I multiclassed out of the class as early as third level....as I can see know reason to pursue the class further than that.....and yes I recognize that as a problem as well.

And yes, I realize the class requires a heavy dose of RAI....I recognize that as a problem as well ;)

Paizo Employee Design Manager

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:


That's the beauty of a playtest though, communication flows both ways - a designer who has sufficient time to both review and follow the playtest as it unfolds could reply to Mr. H and ask him to elaborate on his points. In my dream world a playtest would be a dialogue between designers and players, not reading through a printout of the comment thread a week after the playtest ended. In that regard I really enjoyed following the Dreamscarred path of war playtests, it was refreshing to be able to reach out directly to whoever designed something and ask them what they mean by X or Y. Moreover, if Paizo conducted a playtest and got the feedback they've been getting on the shifter over the past month they wouldn't have to be scrambling right now, they'd still have time to try and solve some of the problems. Moreover, they'd be in a better position to know roughly what the feedback would be when the final class went out the door.

Or, alternatively, the playtest could have immediately devolved into the same thing we got when the class released, with people trying to redesign the class instead of giving useful feedback on the class Paizo was actually trying to write. There would have been some mitigation of the "WTF!?" factor for people who expected something different than what Paizo was making, but that doesn't require a playtest and could have been just as easily accomplished by having more designer input on what they were making.

There's also the fact that Paizo is a much bigger company than most (all) 3pps. Dreamscarred Press is run by two guys with day jobs and doesn't have many business expenses outside of actually producing the book, and their designers don't get paid until the book is published. So they can sit on a product for however long it takes until they need to push it out before they start cutting checks. Paizo has a full design team, editors, marketing people, etc. and needs to pay their bills every month, so every half hour someone spends on the forums answering questions is a half hour that person isn't doing the other work they're being paid for. In addition to that, there's a fundamental truth about gaming and playtests that gets missed by most people on the forums: whenever a forum conversation is held about a class or option, it always discusses that option in the most ideal circumstances to make whatever point the poster is trying to make. If someone thinks XYZ damage is too low, it inevitably gets compared to some optimized damage build at the upper end of the spectrum. I will tell you, the vast majority of players do not play at that end of the spectrum. If a class's base damage in the book it's printed in does compare too favorably to the optimized damage of an archer fighter with access to Weapon Master's Handbook and Armor Master's Handbook, the designer has screwed up. It means that someone is going to crack those numbers wide open when they find out how to apply optimization, and players who don't have high optimization games are going to think the class is insanely broken since even its optimization floor is closer to their play ceilings than anything else.
This was something I saw a lot with the kineticist while during con season. While the class was chewed up and down on the forums for being too weak, every PFS event I attended across the country had tables full of players and GMs going "Holy crap, this class is insane? I can do this stuff at will?!?" and just generally going on about what a powerful class it was. On the forums, the most optimal version of any class is always a click away, but from a design perspective those hyper-optimized options are actually abnormalities, distorting the intended framework of the game. Essentially, most forum feedback is based on a version of the game that does not necessarily represent the bulk of people actually buying books, nor even necessarily the bulk of the feedback they're getting.

Quote:


I agree with you that a lot of the feedback has been variations of "where's the wildshape?" but I read that to mean that the current version of "shapeshifting" doesn't cut it - you can make it snazzier and feel better without making it full-blown wildshape. Shifting as a move/swift action to facilitate shifting mid-combat would be a huge boon, so would altering how often a shifter can change his form to make it feel like a more "natural" aspect of the class. If the druid gets quantity of shapes available, let the shifter have quality of shapes by letting him shift faster and more often. "The shifter might not have variety of a druid in forms he can pick but he's the undisputed master of the forms he can use" would make for a distinct niche. :)

The shifter does actually have that to a certain extent though. A shifter's 4th level wildshape gives forms and abilities equivalent to the druid's 6th level wildshape, and as the druid gets more types the shifter gets expanded abilities, bonus feats, etc. that continue to build on the base form. The druid's biggest advantage is having vastly more versatility in their wild shape options and the advantage of having their power grow with each Bestiary that gets printed.

It's hard not to look at the discussion as a neutral party and feel like 90% of the actionable issues get solved with more wild shape uses.

Kudaku wrote:
Personally I would have preferred it if they had sorted the aspects into "combat" and "utility" shapes and treated them like different class features. Forcing players to pick between combat and utility for the few greater aspects they do get really underlines the difference in flexibility between the druid and the shifter, especially when you consider how many games end before they leave the single digit levels.

I don't disagree here. I think the vigilante is one of the best designed classes Paizo has released, in no small part specifically because they chopped up the social options and the combat options so you don't have to choose one or the other. However, my impression is that most people didn't really get on board with the vigilante; social talents only matter if you're able to leverage them, which tends not to be the case in dungeon crawls and the like. And most people, if they see class features that don't do anything in the type of game they like to play, write off the class. Mark Seifter talks about this a bit here.

Adding utility forms on a separate track might be the thing that sells it to you and me, while simultaneously being the thing that actually loses them a significant market share that they otherwise would have been able to capture or retain. Paizo sells hundreds of thousands of books each printing. All of the posts and reviews in the product thread account for less than a fraction of a percent of their fans, and even a fraction of the people who play PFS. The biggest benefit for a company that has marketing professionals and some of the most experienced designers in the industry isn't that the posters are going to give them the best product possible, it's that they're generating free word of mouth marketing. If you're a business planning to continue a design pivot towards a different kind of trend than the forums favor, or looking to reduce employee medical costs and optimize your work hours, then a playtest might not just have limited value, it might actually be an unnecessary expense.

Kudaku wrote:
I respect your opinion and I hope you're right, but it doesn't really line up with my experience in regards to what the forum has had to do to change the design team's minds in the past. Remember when they changed flurry for monks? FAQ'ed free action limitations? 'Errataed' Crane Wing or Slashing Grace?

I do, actually. It's worth noting that they never intended a change with the monk's flurry; as SKR described in the post, he literally spun in his chair, said "Hey Jason, what did you mean when you wrote this?" and then spun back and typed the answer online, at which point the forums exploded. Ultimately, they errata'd the flurry to the most commonly accepted definition on the forums. So Paizo issued a clarification, heard the community, and updated their ruling accordingly.

Crane Wing was a change made in response to a significant (I have no idea what that means as a number) of complaints related to the fact that the feat was invalidating a significant number of encounters, and this was being exacerbated by the fact that an archetype was granting early access to the chain. I didn't particularly the ruling either, but I can understand why they made it. It's easier to change one problematic feat than to have to tear down and reconstruct adventure design parameters for an entire game. While single big monsters are often at a disadvantage in Pathfinder, that tends to go hand in hand with things like significant optimization pushing the game's parameters outside of the norm, and there are going to be instances where shoving in handfuls of mooks just doesn't make sense for the encounter.
Slashing Grace was actually printed originally only applying to slashing weapons, so if there was something else I may have legitimately missed that one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find oozemorph to be a viable class. You just have to assume one of the following interpretations

1. You use your base race movespeed and oozeform is a Polymorph affect.

2. Oozeform isn't an ability, it is an affliction described in that ability. You use your base race move speed, oozeform is ex and whenever you turn into that form your magic items fall out.

I think 2 better aligns with intents and the general rules. I think 1 is the closest playable RAW interpretation. I personally do not find the ability to talk to be essential, but the vast majority of our campaigns take place in the 8-20 range. So early level annoyances don't matter to me.

Oh btw, oozemorph can wear heavy metal armor. That ability was replaced. So grab those profs, wear a shield, and then beat people with tons of tentacles.

Oh and you have more utility forms than base shifter and more uses.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Freire wrote:


Since joining these boards i've come to find out that there are people who earnestly believe Paladins are unplayable and ban them from their table, and that standard adventurer stuff would cause an autofall for any paladin anyway.

Whats the inherent value in an opinion that literally removes a core book class from play, not on balance or theme considerations, but because you believe its non functional out of the book?

Yeah there is this weird myth that people on these boards tell themselves that paladins are somehow inherently the most disruptive class in the game.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

nighttree wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
nighttree wrote:


I actually can't make it more than a quarter way through the posts....because they are completely focused on why people should not have the opinion they do.

Peoples opinions don't have inherent value.
Which I suppose you can take as an absolute....or absolute rubbish ;)

I actually wasn't trying to make any statements about the opinions anyone should have, just pointing out why they might not actually change the end result.

Paizo has a huge fan-base and a ton of tools at their disposal, like professional designers, the PFS marketing engine, sales records of published products, etc. They know what sells and what doesn't with some margin for error, they know what's trending up and what's trending down, and they have spreadsheets and other design tools that allow them to assess and evaluate various benchmarks like class performance at various levels against enemies of various CRs.

If someone says "I don't like the class and I don't think it compares well to core classes in similar niches", they have the ability to compare the class to their established metrics and say "Okay, how does it do? Good? Okay then" and move on. To Ryan's point, one person's opinion has very little value unless it is shared by a significant piece of the market, and we on the forums have no way of accurately evaluating what percentage of the market we actually represent, especially when the forums are divided on the subject or unable to identify what, exactly, isn't working. A forum posting is far from a litmus test, especially with Paizo's growth since Pathfinder was first released. A forum post with accompanying data accounting for how you formed your opinion is more helpful; at least then the designer knows what benchmarks you're using and can identify whether the issue is in the player's perception/use of the class, an unrealistic goalpost comparison ("My mounted barbarian deals literally three times as much damage as my shifter!"), or if there's a genuine issue in the class's ability to do what they want it to do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My benchmark is "Has the flexibility of a feral hunter with 9 wisdom". The Shifter fails. If you can't out-shapeshift an actively self-nerfed character, don't call yourself a Shifter. Call yourself a Beastsoul or a Berserker or something more appropriate.

Is my benchmark invalid, considering the massive cribbing that is the Shifter's class features?


4 people marked this as a favorite.
MR. H wrote:

As a Creator it behooves you not to be insulted and to not be abused. As in, you shouldn't be looking at criticism that way.

Someone not getting their feelings hurt doesn't mean that person wasn't insulted. As an example if I am an award winning model and bodybuilder and someone calls me ugly I might not care because my achievements say otherwise, but someone still pointed an insult in my direction.

The same thing applies with some of the playtest comments.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
technarken wrote:

My benchmark is "Has the flexibility of a feral hunter with 9 wisdom". The Shifter fails. If you can't out-shapeshift an actively self-nerfed character, don't call yourself a Shifter. Call yourself a Beastsoul or a Berserker or something more appropriate.

Is my benchmark invalid, considering the massive cribbing that is the Shifter's class features?

I would say "Probably, yeah". The shifter would be much simpler to build than said hunter, and generally more powerful in combat despite the lack of flexibility. Plus, and this is kind of pedantic, they never advertised a "flexible" class. In fact, they said it would be to the druid as the paladin is to the cleric, and the paladin is one of the least flexible classes around. You basically pick whether you want a horse or a sword and what order you get your mercies in.

As to whether or not "shifter" was an appropriate name, the last official "shifters" in the Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder continuum were a race of creatures that could transform into one type of animal, and then not even a full transformation, just small changes like growing claws or thickened skin. Shifter is also fairly commonly used in modern fantasy books to refer to a variety of therianthropes, most of whom can only assume one shape. The only 1pp shifter I'm aware of that actually was a master shapeshifter who could assume a bunch of different forms is a 20 year old PrC from a softcover for an edition that was rebooted less than halfway through. There's also Drop Dead Studio's shifter class, but I'm guessing that the Paizo design team probably hasn't even looked at that or is aware of its existence.

So your benchmark was "can transform into lots of things" and their design goal was "has a limited number of scaling transformations so that you can quickly pick an option and start playing without having to dig through a bunch of books". Your benchmark has nothing to do with their class design, so from that perspective, yeah, it's irrelevant, a note for marketing rather than the design team.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
Except neither arcanist nor vigilante were particularly well received.

For entirely different reasons though. People complain about the arcanist being too strong. Or about a class that's halfway between two already similar classes being unnecessary. People complain about dual identity being a gimmick or the vigilante not 'fitting' well enough.

None of those complaints have anything to do with accessibility (or even all that much to do with the ultimate specific design direction of those classes), so I'm not really sure what the point is in bringing them up.


Vigilantes are an excellent class that just has a slight problem with having so many options it looks intimidating to people just getting into the class. Once you get into the groove of it the vigilante is one of the best classes designed for d20 though.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Except neither arcanist nor vigilante were particularly well received.

For entirely different reasons though. People complain about the arcanist being too strong. Or about a class that's halfway between two already similar classes being unnecessary. People complain about dual identity being a gimmick or the vigilante not 'fitting' well enough.

None of those complaints have anything to do with accessibility (or even all that much to do with the ultimate specific design direction of those classes), so I'm not really sure what the point is in bringing them up.

I brought those up as road markers for Paizo's design trends. Your response was basically "Yeah, but that doesn't support your point because those are actually good classes", but not everyone agrees with that. A lot of people find the arcanist unnecessary and overpowered, despite it being much more friendly to new players and still not as a powerful as a wizard. A lot of people get hung up on the vigilante's dual identity despite the fact that it's a fluffy extra and the entire class operates at pretty much full strength regardless of whether or not you use it, or if you refluff it as your "game face" instead of your vigilante identity. So those classes were part of the continuing process of making Pathfinder more accessible, but in some ways they're still failures. A lot of people couldn't get past the vigilante's fluff to see the potent mechanical framework underneath, and a lot of people couldn't see past the arcanist's flexibility to account for things like the reduced spell progression or the actual framework some of its abilities sit in, like the improved counterspelling that is probably never going to come up in an actual game since it devours resources and still wouldn't be viable against an enemy spellcaster's strongest (and thus most likely to be cast) spells at most levels of play, all of which just means that it's really not as powerful as it's made out to be.

So arcanist, failure. It appealed to people who were already playing wizards but didn't capture new players and wasn't terribly well-received even by the forum communities. Vigilante, failure. The fluff was too distracting for people to actually see the strength of the mechanics. These classes failed to appeal to the people they were marketed to and have struggled to gain traction even with the core fanbase, or at least that's my understanding, and they actually did have playtests. That brings into question the actual value of playtests, and leads to the conclusion that Paizo is still looking for that right mix to keep the game alive and growing.
So if Paizo wants to keep Pathfinder alive without rebooting into a new edition, which I suspect they honestly might not survive as a company, they need to keep looking for that formula of accessibility and function that's going to be appealing to experienced players but still friendly and attractive to new players. Shifter is a natural step in that process- familiar options, boiled down and compiled in a simple and streamlined chassis that you can pick up and play using only one book (maybe two if you count the CRB). It checks a lot of the boxes that people have suggested or asked for over the years- it cuts out spellcasting and lots of the "fiddly bits" that can make a class too intimidating to new players, it gives some improved versions of options that have long been standard suggestions for similar character types (like how dipping monk on your druid is commonly suggested in guides and on the forums), and it puts everything right up front so you don't need a big stack of monster books to play your class. I would have liked it if the class offered the option for a gore or bite instead of just the claws (I can guess why they didn't, but I think it's a marginal balance concern compared to the benefits it might have had on how the class was received), didn't have limited uses on the aspects, and had about twice as many uses of wild shape, but I also tend to run a game that's fairly different from what you'd see in PFS or even at a lot of home tables.

Silver Crusade Contributor

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
It's worth noting that they never intended a change with the monk's flurry; as SKR described in the post, he literally spun in his chair, said "Hey Jason, what did you mean when you wrote this?" and then spun back and typed the answer online, at which point the forums exploded.

On a semi-related note, I suspect that this is why FAQs take so long to come out. After learning how well quick off-the-cuff answers go over with the community, they now give each and every FAQ, design post, and similar official answer full discussion by the entire Pathfinder Design Team (when all members are available). And since those circumstances aren't always guaranteed... neither are FAQs. Especially for lengthy, intricate issues like bardic masterpieces or adjudicating simulacrum. Or, indeed, even the Ultimate Wilderness release FAQ.

But at least they're learning. ^_^


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Or, alternatively, the playtest could have immediately devolved into the same thing we got when the class released, with people trying to redesign the class instead of giving useful feedback on the class Paizo was actually trying to write.

I'm sure some players would do that, but I also think that people would take into account the fact that the class is still forming rather than done and released, and put in as much constructive feedback as possible. The ratio between the two is (I believe) directly related to how on the ball Paizo would be with directing the playtest. I know I would be happy to contribute if the Shifter was being playtested, I really want this class to work! :)

Ssalarn wrote:
There's also the fact that Paizo is a much bigger company than most (all) 3pps. Dreamscarred Press is run by two guys with day jobs and doesn't have many business expenses outside of actually producing the book, and their designers don't get paid until the book is published. So they can sit on a product for however long it takes until they need to push it out before they start cutting checks. Paizo has a full design team, editors, marketing people, etc. and needs to pay their bills every month, so every half hour someone spends on the forums answering questions is a half hour that person isn't doing the other work they're being paid for.

I may be naive, but I'd think that engaging with and directing the players conducting the playtest during the 1-2 weeks it's active would probably be some of the more important work they'd be doing for that period. DSP can do six-month playtests, obviously Paizo doesn't have that luxury. But (and no disrespect intended to DSP, they make some of my favorite content) I think Paizo class playtests get more eyeballs in one week than a DSP playtest gets in six months. Setting aside two hours each day for one week so a designer can coordinate and read a playtest doesn't seem like an impossible amount of time, and based on what I can recall from the original v the revised version of the ACG playtest classes I think they can be well worth the time.

Ssalarn wrote:
A shifter's 4th level wildshape gives forms and abilities equivalent to the druid's 6th level wildshape, and as the druid gets more types the shifter gets expanded abilities, bonus feats, etc. that continue to build on the base form. The druid's biggest advantage is having vastly more versatility in their wild shape options and the advantage of having their power grow with each Bestiary that gets printed.

For me it just doesn't really balance out. The unrivaled utility of Wild Shape more than makes up for the relatively low-key things shifters get from aspects. I might change my mind if they had a system that allowed them to shift frequently and the action economy to make changing in combat viable, but as it stands I just don't see it. :-/

I've only read the class itself though, not the full book - it's absolutely possible I'm missing some synergy with the right feats or archetypes that makes the shifter better than the class writeup indicates.

Ssalarn wrote:
It's hard not to look at the discussion as a neutral party and feel like 90% of the actionable issues get solved with more wild shape uses.

I think it depends by what you mean with "more wild shape uses". Unlimited uses, sure. +2 uses at level 4? Ehh... I think it needs something more.

Ssalarn wrote:
I don't disagree here. I think the vigilante is one of the best designed classes Paizo has released, in no small part specifically because they chopped up the social options and the combat options so you don't have to choose one or the other. However, my impression is that most people didn't really get on board with the vigilante; social talents only matter if you're able to leverage them, which tends not to be the case in dungeon crawls and the like. And most people, if they see class features that don't do anything in the type of game they like to play, write off the class. Mark Seifter talks about this a bit here.

Interesting point and thank you for the link, great reading there! I'm not sure it translates well to what I suggested though? The drawback to the vigilante's social side is that the ratio of "social content" will vary dramatically from campaign to campaign - in Hell's Rebels it'll see tons of use, in Emerald Spire it'll barely get scratched. Utility Forms wouldn't have that problem since if done right the "utility shape" options would be wide-ranging enough that there'd be something useful for most situations no matter what kind of campaign you're running. Even the most jaded player recognizes the utility of a a swim/water breathing form or a flight form. I don't think they'd be scoffed at or disregarded.

Ssalarn wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Remember when they changed flurry for monks? FAQ'ed free action limitations? 'Errataed' Crane Wing or Slashing Grace?
I do, actually.

Great! We're on the same page then. :)

Ssalarn wrote:
It's worth noting that they never intended a change with the monk's flurry; as SKR described in the post, he literally spun in his chair, said "Hey Jason, what did you mean when you wrote this?" and then spun back and typed the answer online, at which point the forums exploded. Ultimately, they errata'd the flurry to the most commonly accepted definition on the forums. So Paizo issued a clarification, heard the community, and updated their ruling accordingly.

I went back to see if I could find the original post but it looks like both SKR's post and the blog post they subsequently put up confirming the (now reversed) ruling has been deleted, which is probably good since it could have been found and implemented by inexperienced GMs. A quick search found references to the change in March 2014, here they mention that a fix was promised sometime in April, and that fix was then (to their credit) implemented in a blog post posted in December 2014.

Turnaround: ~9 months. That's actually pretty good by Paizo standards, but I hate to think of all the crumpled up monk sheets that were thrown out in the meantime. :(

Crane Wing was released in Ultimate Combat in 2011. It was nerfed into oblivion in the UC errata in January 2014, an errata that also made Crane Riposte nonsensical (though to Paizo's credit they fixed that almost immediately). After massive complaints Paizo issued a blog post (again, to their credit) stating that they over-nerfed the feat, and made a third version of the feat that was somewhere between the original and the struggling version. Unfortunately that blog was posted in August 2015, or 18 months after the nerfed version destroyed a lot of character builds.

Turnaround: 3 years for the first change, then ~18 months for the second one.

Ssalarn wrote:
Slashing Grace was actually printed originally only applying to slashing weapons, so if there was something else I may have legitimately missed that one.

Ah, Slashing Grace was a bit of a trip. A lot of people were excited that ACG would have a new feat that would allow people to do dex-to-damage without Dervish Dance, since dervish dance magi were a plague upon the land back then. Unfortunately, when Slashing Grace first came out in August 2014 it let you use dex for melee damage only with one-handed slashing weapons (not light ones), so it only worked if you took a level of swashbuckler and it heavily incentivized swashbucklers to use scimitars (or battle axes...) instead of rapiers. Paizo solved this by promising an errata down the line and in the meantime released a new feat (Fencing Grace) in a softcover (inner sea combat I think?). Fencing Grace didn't have the language disallowing Spell Combat, so magi players were happy that at least now they had three options - dervish dance for a scimitar or fencing grace for a rapier (arguably the best two options for magi since they want to spellstrike critfish), or dip a level of swashbuckler and take Slashing Grace to use whatever one-handed slashing weapon they wanted. Then they errataed Slashing Grace to work with light weapons in August 2015, but simultaneously put in language that kept it from working with TWF and Spell Combat, cutting off that avenue. Finally they re-released Fencing Grace in Ultimate Intrigue and added similar language to disallow Spell Combat again. For a little while magi were freed from the death grip on their scimitar, but the wheel turns and all things must begin anew.

Turnaround: ~12 months for the first patch, then Ultimate Intrigue 9 months after that.

Ugh, now I feel like I'm airing out dirty laundry...

I'm not here to drag up old luggage to embarrass Paizo. I'm happy both that they're taking responsibility by pruning back things that may be too good (whether I agree with it or not) and also willing to reconsider changes they've implemented in the past. I'm still holding out hope that we'll see a return of the scarred witch doctor!

Getting back on track, my point was to show that they've proven to be slow in the past when it comes to implementing balance changes based on public opinion. The reason I used these three examples was that they were all extensively debated on the forums and were widely considered major problem rulings, but it still took on average a year from discovery before the problem was solved. Though I'd love to be proven wrong, a quick FAQ that fixes all the shifter problems seems overly optimistic to me, and I'm a pretty optimistic guy by nature. :)


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kalindlara wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
It's worth noting that they never intended a change with the monk's flurry; as SKR described in the post, he literally spun in his chair, said "Hey Jason, what did you mean when you wrote this?" and then spun back and typed the answer online, at which point the forums exploded.

On a semi-related note, I suspect that this is why FAQs take so long to come out. After learning how well quick off-the-cuff answers go over with the community, they now give each and every FAQ, design post, and similar official answer full discussion by the entire Pathfinder Design Team (when all members are available). And since those circumstances aren't always guaranteed... neither are FAQs. Especially for lengthy, intricate issues like bardic masterpieces or adjudicating simulacrum. Or, indeed, even the Ultimate Wilderness release FAQ.

But at least they're learning. ^_^

I’m sure that’s right. I also suspect internet fury is part of why the designers don’t post as much as they used to. There were plenty of debates “back in the day” where designers would chip in with opinions as to how they’d rule something, only to have that pilloried (or treated as official clarification). When stepping in to help ends up making things worse, I’d be hesitant too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:
A lot of people couldn't get past the vigilante's fluff to see the potent mechanical framework underneath, and a lot of people couldn't see past the arcanist's flexibility

Yeah, of course. But the topic was whether or not the shifter's mechanical shortcomings were a necessary evil of broadening its appeal. You mentioned the arcanist and vigilante, I argued neither of those classes had a particularly compromised design.

The vigilante had some issues appealing to people, but someone you know not liking Dual Identity has basically nothing to do with whether or not vigilante talents were well conceptualized or whatever. There are people who hate the shifter's fluff too, but it's neither here nor there when we're talking about a class' mechanical direction.

Also think it's a little bit strange just asserting those two classes are abject failures, but that's another issue entirely.

anyways, to go back to an earlier point:

Ssalarn wrote:
How big an issue low build diversity actually is... Well, I disagree that some forms being better at combat than others is an issue.

Well, for starters, a utility form maybe not being as good in a fight but having some awesome other uses is all well and good. What's less good is when you have two forms that are both meant for combat and one of them just falls flat.

Beyond that, I think part of the trouble here is you're thinking optimally. Using your claws as a primary damage source while leveraging a utility form until your usage and options expand makes a lot of sense when you know how to play the game.

But is a new player going to think that way? Most new players I introduce to the game don't.They just want to play a thing that looks cool and realizing your giant lizard form is literally just a worse tiger until level 8 or watching your bull's relative damage to HP taking a nose dive as you level is not a nice feeling. "Just use your claws" might be a good mechanical answer, but it's not going to be satisfactory for someone who's wooed by what the shifter offers.

This is doubly true for something like the Weretouched, since it's locked to a single form for the whole campaign.

Basically, if a class exists to try to appeal to newer or less experienced players, I think extra care should be put into making sure the class does everything it can to fulfill its own fantasies perfectly, because it could very well be one of the player's first impressions of the game.

As it stands right now, I really don't want the Shifter to be anyone's first impression of Pathfinder.

At least as written. In a home game I'd just give them unlimited wild shape right from level 4 and rescale a bunch of forms so they aren't silly at level 4 and painful at level 12 and so on.


I think the arcanist was perceived as being stronger than it actually was before being released, and that was the main reason for those who had issues with it. After playing it that notion seems to be gone for those who have actually played it so the reputation is not bad for that class. It definitely isn't a failure.

Admittedly it's not a class that was needed, but that doesn't make it a failure.

If any classes seem to questionable it would be the hunter, and the skald. I almost never seen them being talked about on the boards, which makes me question their popularity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Both Arcanists and Hunters get a decent amount of play in my neck of the woods, admittedly my scope is fairly limited but I wouldn't consider them failures. Skald is definitely rare, I've only seen one person play a skald and he quickly remade the character to a bard.

Vigilante hasn't seen much use, but it's such a specific class concept that I think people find it daunting to try and use it for different characters.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The trouble with the Skald is that it's arguably the most niche class in Pathfinder. It cares a lot more about party comp than anyone else, which makes playing one often a more of a reaction than a conscious choice. At least, from my experience.

It's also I think the most archetype-like of the ACG classes, which isn't really doing it any favors either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
The trouble with the Skald is that it's arguably the most niche class in Pathfinder. It cares a lot more about party comp than anyone else, which makes playing one often a more of a reaction than a conscious choice. At least, from my experience.

Come to think of it, that was why the skald switched to bard! The party he joined had a swashbuckler, a TWF-focused unchained rogue, and an archer warpriest. There was an awkward silence every time he used Inspired Rage.

Silver Crusade Contributor

4 people marked this as a favorite.

He just needed some wyrm singer. ^_^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That could have worked! I showed him Spell Warrior but it didn't tickle his fancy. Near as I can recall this was back in early 2016, Wyrm Singer wasn't around back then. :-/


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really, I consider the Vigilante the most niche class in Pathfinder.

Classes I have yet to see people play include Arcanist, Medium, Investigator, Shaman, Skald, Shifter, and Vigilante. Though eventually I am interested in playing an Investigator.

Cavalier, Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai and Slayer I have only seen once.

Our current party consists of a...

Bard
Bloodrager
Kineticist(Me)
Ranger
Sorcerer
Warpriest(formally Occultist)


Kudaku wrote:
Getting back on track, my point was to show that they've proven to be slow in the past when it comes to implementing balance changes based on public opinion. The reason I used these three examples was that they were all extensively debated on the forums and were widely considered major problem rulings, but it still took on average a year from discovery before the problem was solved. Though I'd love to be proven wrong, a quick FAQ that fixes all the shifter problems seems overly optimistic to me, and I'm a pretty optimistic guy by nature. :)

Well, do keep in mind, it has been faster sometimes...like when they put out a FAQ for Ultimate Wilderness within days of the book launch. To nerf the finesse fighting shifter.

Am I unreasonable to be a bit peeved that they can react that quickly when it's to crack down on finesse builds?

Silver Crusade

technarken wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Getting back on track, my point was to show that they've proven to be slow in the past when it comes to implementing balance changes based on public opinion. The reason I used these three examples was that they were all extensively debated on the forums and were widely considered major problem rulings, but it still took on average a year from discovery before the problem was solved. Though I'd love to be proven wrong, a quick FAQ that fixes all the shifter problems seems overly optimistic to me, and I'm a pretty optimistic guy by nature. :)

Well, do keep in mind, it has been faster sometimes...like when they put out a FAQ for Ultimate Wilderness within days of the book launch. To nerf the finesse fighting shifter.

Am I unreasonable to be a bit peeved that they can react that quickly when it's to crack down on finesse builds?

They had that one already since it was something they had noticed after they had sent the book to the printer but before it was released, it wasn't a case of it being pointed out and them reacting fast to nerf a Dex build.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

However, this DOES hit an important point of consideration to tie it back to the OP.

Namely that perception drives reality, and even if Paizo knew about this, had it in the pipe, had it ready to go on Day One... the potentially faulty inference is that they only had time to notice that *one* issue when there's a multi-page thread of FAQ requests and potential Errata findings that also needed attention from Day Two...

Reconciling perception and reality is a difficult task when viewed in a vacuum.

Silver Crusade Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

To be fair, a lot of the errata thread seems to be low-impact issues like "these familiars are listed in nonalphabetical order". I wouldn't read too much into the thread's overall length.

As for the Day One/Day Two thing: they presumably noticed the Shifter's Edge issue after the book had gone to print, but before release. Many of the complaints presumably only came to their attention post-release - see my previous post regarding the speed with which new FAQs are produced.

As for the much-discussed oozemorph archetype: I suspect a lot of people either won't notice the lack of thoroughly detailed information about speed and such (as I originally didn't, until the forums pointed it out to me). If they do, I foresee a lot of simple "How about X?" "Works for me." conversations.


Dragon78 wrote:

Really, I consider the Vigilante the most niche class in Pathfinder.

Classes I have yet to see people play include Arcanist, Medium, Investigator, Shaman, Skald, Shifter, and Vigilante. Though eventually I am interested in playing an Investigator.

Cavalier, Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai and Slayer I have only seen once.

Our current party consists of a...

Bard
Bloodrager
Kineticist(Me)
Ranger
Sorcerer
Warpriest(formally Occultist)

In my gaming group unless a player really wants to try something different more often than not they take a class from the core as in many cases it does the job and well. With the Druid I could never see myself taking a Shifter as for myself it's a downgrade imo. Since Pathfinder was released I have seen one Alchemist, Oracle, Gunslinger, Samurai, Warpriest and Investigator played at the table. Out of the list I was the one who played the Samurai as I wanted to play a Fighter not the core class. I'm going to play a Investigator soon in another campaign. The only reason Warpriest was chosen by another player is wanting to play a Paladin hated the alignment requirements.

Most gaming table tend to stick with core classes as they get the job done and do it well imo. Any errata that nerfs a class or other option badly is a option we as a group will never take.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dragon78 wrote:

Really, I consider the Vigilante the most niche class in Pathfinder.

Avenger Vigilante is a full BAB martial with 6 skill points and a decent array of combat and utility talents to pick up as you level.

I can't think of a campaign where that kind of chassis wouldn't be useful.

Contrast with the Skald's Inspired Rage which expects to have specific types of party members coming along in order to leverage what it has to offer.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think a lot of people just can't get past the "dual identity" fluff of the Vigilante, thinking they have to be "the Crimson Ferret" who is highly invested in keeping their secret identity a secret.

It's totally valid to just play a Vigilante in just one identity the whole time, or as two different relatively ordinary people who just don't show up at the same place or same time. Like my Avenger Vig for Hell's Rebels wasn't invested in people not recognizing Alan Argent (quite the opposite, honestly), he just didn't want people to find out he and Aurora Aulorian are the same person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:

Really, I consider the Vigilante the most niche class in Pathfinder.

Avenger Vigilante is a full BAB martial with 6 skill points and a decent array of combat and utility talents to pick up as you level.

I can't think of a campaign where that kind of chassis wouldn't be useful.

Contrast with the Skald's Inspired Rage which expects to have specific types of party members coming along in order to leverage what it has to offer.

On top of which, avenger vigilante has the same number of feats as a core fighter + pounce.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
technarken wrote:
Kudaku wrote:
Getting back on track, my point was to show that they've proven to be slow in the past when it comes to implementing balance changes based on public opinion. The reason I used these three examples was that they were all extensively debated on the forums and were widely considered major problem rulings, but it still took on average a year from discovery before the problem was solved. Though I'd love to be proven wrong, a quick FAQ that fixes all the shifter problems seems overly optimistic to me, and I'm a pretty optimistic guy by nature. :)

Well, do keep in mind, it has been faster sometimes...like when they put out a FAQ for Ultimate Wilderness within days of the book launch. To nerf the finesse fighting shifter.

Am I unreasonable to be a bit peeved that they can react that quickly when it's to crack down on finesse builds?

As Rysky said they probably caught that error after the book was printed but before they released it, so they had the FAQ ready to go. That's not unusual, they actually had a very impressive FAQ selection ready when (I think) Occult Adventures released. That said, the timing for releasing a shifter nerf could have been better. :-/

The more I think about it the more confident I feel that the main problem with the Shifter is one of perception. If you compare it to the other baseline martials I'm not convinced that it's an awful class - it could do with some tweaks and improvements, but it's not a hopeless case. It's just that when "shifting" is your main thing you're gonna get compared to the druid, not the fighter - and when you put the shifter next to a druid it's coming up very, very short.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kudaku wrote:
The more I think about it the more confident I feel that the main problem with the Shifter is one of perception. If you compare it to the other baseline martials I'm not convinced that it's an awful class - it could do with some tweaks and improvements, but it's not a hopeless case. It's just that when "shifting" is your main thing you're gonna get compared to the druid, not the fighter - and when you put the shifter next to a druid it's coming up very, very short.

I expected it to come up short next to a druid - it's not a full caster.

I didn't expect its shapeshifting to be so much more limited than the druid's.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Druid Wild Shape: Eventually... Form = Pretty much yes.

...for a class where it is but one of many abilities available to the class.

Shifter Wild Shape: Eventually... Form = 5, limited applications.

...for a class named 'Shifter'.

This still makes my brain shut down partially. The hope is that there was some important text lost on the 'cutting room floor' that indicates that yes, all forms for a given flavor are available, just that the Aspects are a 'bonus' buff.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

When I heard that the Shifter was an "entry level" shifting class, I did not imagine "it's like the druid, except you only have to look up 5 things in bestiaries!".

My imagination was more like "you get some stat boosts and can pick some universal monster abilities, and you can describe it as a bird or a lizard or whatever you like."

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Didn't 'entry level' come about after the backlash, and was summarily disproven as 'less complex' than regular Shapeshifting though? Just a thought...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In B4 Shifter Unchained


That is nice that you have one vigilante build you like. But it doesn't change the fact the class is a single city focused dual identity super hero class that is designed for a single city focused adventure or at least as an interesting NPC in one city of an adventure. That is still very niche. It also doesn't help that many aspects/options of the class are focused on how popular/infamous you are.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragon78 wrote:
That is nice that you have one vigilante build you like. But it doesn't change the fact the class is a single city focused dual identity super hero class that is designed for a single city focused adventure or at least as an interesting NPC in one city of an adventure. That is still very niche. It also doesn't help that many aspects/options of the class are focused on how popular/infamous you are.

That's a interpretation of the class, it's not the only one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Gotta agree with Rysky here. The vigilante is a chassis, around which an infinite array of character ideas can be wrapped around. Ignore the trappings, and enjoy the mechanical benefits to create the character you want.

I'm not even sure it is "designed" for a "single city focused adventure" solely - sure, you could use it for that, but it is so much more.

151 to 200 of 282 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / So....for consideration.... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.