Keydrin's page

Isabelle Lee wrote:

Benjamin Medrano wrote:

As an aside, Isabelle? Do you mind if I ask if you were involved in writing the Skirmisher Fighter Archetype, or the Flamewarden or Stormwalker Ranger Archetypes? Because I have to say, of the character options to come out of this book they are my absolute favorites.

There are a ton of rules that I like, too, but those are standouts for me.

I wasn't, I'm afraid. ^_^ My only contributions were the cavalier archetypes (green knight and saurian champion) and the following feats:

** spoiler omitted **

I think many of the feats you listed were the best part of the book.

Also the green knight is, IMO, the single greatest cavalier archetype in the game, and honestly the only thing that could get me to play one.

Though was annoyed it couldn't learn Surf...

I know this is a pretty old post, and maybe you already know this by now, but in case you don't I figured I'd mention it. You can get a surfing pikachu which you can evolve into the new raichu form in US/UM, by

That's not true. We had Druid and Beastmorph Alchemists. Also spells.

So... yeah, there are a lot of ways to play a satisfactory shapeshifter. First and Third Party.

Also Feral Hunters.

There is no contest. There is no discussion. There is an aberration which needs to be stamped out, and a glorious truth where water freezes at 0, boils at 100 and your armpits start to smell at 30.

Seriously, stop resisting, wayward colonials.

As one of the wayward colonials that uses fahrenheit, I don't get why there wouldn't just be both fahrenheit and celsius in the book.

If you "remove the WoW Hunter from the Druid" the Shifter would very much come out ahead, and be far more interesting to play than that.

I disagree, a class that only had druids full wildshape would still be a more interesting to play class than base shifter. It *might* not be as strong, but it would be more interesting.

Hey everyone, some of you might want to check out the Skin-Changer...

That does certainly sound interesting to me. I have a couple questions about it, if that's okay:

Does it have a limited number of animal forms it could choose to take? And could you give a little bit more info about the talents? To be more specific, are they similar to talents/discoveries/etc of the base pathfinder stuff or something else entirely?

Fair enough. I guess I wasn't really thinking enough about the negative modifiers. Someone with a penalty to Dex suddenly becoming more dexterous by becoming an ooze wouldn't make a whole lot of sense I suppose.

For me, speed and senses should be set with blob. Mental abilities from former race should be usable in blob form. Stats could be kept [as they stay with polymorph effects].

Yeah I guess mental abilities in general would make sense, although I still don't think physical ability score adjustments from race should carry over. I can see why they do for regular polymorph effects, since those are temporary and it would be a hassle to track most likely, but if this is permanently changing you into an ooze I think it should be thorough about what you do and do not lose.

Yeah the ooze form definitely needs its stats explicitly stated, as is it makes no sense. IMO the only thing you should keep from your base race is mental ability score adjustments.

I’m starting to notice the difference between people who don’t mind the Shifter versus those who don’t like it. The people who dislike it want to be able to play something as it’s written in the book, whereas its defenders are the people who don’t mind houseruling certain aspects and extrapolate past RAW to actually make something usable....

I have no problem with houseruling things, my problem with the shifter is that in order to make it a class worth taking, you need to houserule to the point of practically making a new class. If I'm making a character I intend to play for a full campaign, the shifter offers nothing new flavor wise or mechanically, and on top of that it isn't even particularly good at what it does.

So meaningless question that it may, it may be of use in the long run....

To be comfortable in the direction they chose to take the Shifter, what are your minimum fixes, and what would you need to see to make you willing to play a character of this class...what are the minimum changes you would need to see ?

I don't think there is anything other than a complete rework that could get me to play the base version of the class. The ooze and lycanthrope archetypes on the other hand I could definitely see myself playing. I'm not sure what changes I would want from the ooze one exactly, but for the lycanthrope I would like to see better scaling on their claws as well as some bonus feats, and maybe more uses of the hybrid form.

I expected at-will Wild Shape at least, considering that's the one gimmick the class does and it's only limited to certain forms.

Yeah that was bare-minimum for me. And what I was REALLY hoping for was something similar to evolution points to customize it.

Personally...I think it's a bad call.....that said it's the call they have made. I'm not going to speak on the product page, as I don't actually like being dictated what my opinion can be on a product....and actually aside from a handful of comments the disappointed majority were far more civil than is being portrayed.

Yeah, it honestly wasn't even that bad. Most of the posters were civil, they were just negative about one aspect of the book, which I guess people took as them being toxic? It makes the lockdown even more concerning imo.

So, is it just me or does the gag order in the product thread for Ultimate Wilderness feel like damage control so that the book's first-week sales don't get hurt? Sure, people were getting a little salty, but what with the sandbagging reviews and the general discontent, it feels like a band-aid on a sword wound.

Yeah, it is certainly concerning that they simply said to stop talking about what for many is the main draw of a product on it's own product thread. It would have been okay imo if they at least addressed the feedback with their post, whether that be by saying they would try and change it to meet expectations or by saying that they have no plans to atm, but just saying to not talk about it sounds 100% like pr damage control to keep sales up.

Not to sound like an ass, but you do realize that neither his Hunter, nor his Druid, had any spells involved in it right? The only reason the Warrior (not Fighter) uses Scrolls is because there's no other way it'll work, and he wanted to show that even someone shapeshifting through a consumable item, with almost no class features, can perform at the same level as a Shifter.

No character in his comparisons (save the Warrior and his Scrolls) goes in pre-buffing, casting any spells, or consuming any potions
He, and the rest of us know this is a party-based game. That's painfully obvious. He's pointing out how horridly underwhelming the class is.

While I think the point still stands, the shifter is certainly underperforming, unless I'm reading his stats wrong the druid has cat's grace and barkskin, and the hunter has barkskin.

Keydrin wrote:

Dragonborn3 wrote:

...what if, instead of shifter, we call the class Totem? It's more suited to that, mechanics wise. Extra aspects become Totem Pole.

With a different, more tribal, flavor, and those names/abilities it would be much better imo. It certainly fulfills that fantasy better then a master shapeshifter one.

Problem there is that it overlaps with the Barbarian's totems.

That's a fair point. If this helps, I did mean tribal more based on native american tribes, more spiritual and respectful of nature (and with the general aesthetic of them), rather than the stereotypical barbarian tribes.

...what if, instead of shifter, we call the class Totem? It's more suited to that, mechanics wise. Extra aspects become Totem Pole.

With a different, more tribal, flavor, and those names/abilities it would be much better imo. It certainly fulfills that fantasy better then a master shapeshifter one.