Priest of Asmodeus

Player Killer's page

177 posts. Alias of Brainiac58.


RSS

1 to 50 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

My nephew is playing an alchemist and wants to be able to take on the form of a demon or devil? Are there any spells similar to Fey Form or Form of the Dragon but based on granting a demon or devil form? I'm the GM and I'm fine with third party spells, archetypes, etc. I couldn't find anything like this on the d20pfsrd. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you!


Great to see more support for the Shifter before the PF1 line ends. Thank you Paizo! I hope there are some more reactive forms for the adaptive shifter archetype. I really like the direction they went with that archetype.


I've got a couple of old school murder hobos in my gaming group and now there's an actual Murder Hobo class but it's for D&D 5th Edition. I poked around the Internet but haven't found a conversion for Pathfinder. Anyone know if there's a similar class or an actual conversion for Pathfinder out there somewhere?

Below is an article about the class and the actual class...

https://comicbook.com/gaming/2018/10/14/dungeons-and-dragons-murder-hobo-cl ass/
https://www.dmsguild.com/product/254797/MurderHobo-Class


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like this approach to multiclassing. It's a very elegant and flexible system that can be easily expanded.


Cuttlefist wrote:

Definitely in the minority, but I am actually really excited about resonance. I think it is a great solution for streamlining magic item inventory and curbing unwanted item abuse. I do understand the concerns from people on it discouraging consumables use, but I don’t actually think it will be an issue once playtesting begins. I do share in the disappointment in seeing items with daily uses, as the resonance system is supposed to replace that, just makes it wonky to have both in my opinion.

One thing I absolutely do not understand is the complaint that it is narratively inconsistent with the previous edition. How is that an actual concern? This is a new edition of a game, mechanics change and it doesn’t have to have a narrative explanation. It’s not hand waving, it’s a new game. It’s not like there are any significant plot points that revolved around a character being able to chug 30 potions and then shoot off 50 magic missiles from a wand. As far as the setting is concerned this could always have been the norm but it just never came up.

I'm right there with you Cuttlefist. I like the resonance system. I was hesitant about 2E when it was announced but so far each of these blog posts has only made me more excited!


JoelF847 wrote:
Not really sure I get the reason for trinkets. How are they different than potions or consumable wondrous items were in PF1? I'm definitely not a fan of attaching them to armor or weapons - that feels like a bad import of a common video game implementation.

I pictured the attaching of trinkets differently. I could see them as little magic charms or similar items that you would perhaps tie on a weapon with a bit of twine or hang off of an item with a small strap of leather.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a GM, the redesign of monsters has me very excited. They look like they will be much easier to play, adjust, and create. i know some GM's love spending hours creating monsters from the bottom up but I'd rather devote more time to story development.


N. Jolly wrote:
Player Killer wrote:
I just posted my review (Brainiac58) here and on Amazon. I also picked up the paperback version to go along with the PDF. Great work Jason and N. Jolly!
Very much appreciated; I've been having quite a few people talk to me about things they'd like to see in a Legendary Shifters 2, and with this one doing rather well, I think that's a conversation I'd be willing to have. If we do a sequel book, it's going to support the base shifter as well, at least as much as I can, as I'd like to expand things. There's a good chance I'll be doing a small conversion doc for how to use the Leg Shifter archetypes with the original shifter.

I would buy a Legendary Shifters 2 in a heartbeat! I'd love to see your take on the Rageshaper (The Hulk is one of my favorite heroes and I'd love to play a Pathfinder version) and your take on the Fiendish Shifter (and/or possibly an Angelic Shifter). Keeping my fingers crossed for a follow to the LG!


I just posted my review (Brainiac58) here and on Amazon. I also picked up the paperback version to go along with the PDF. Great work Jason and N. Jolly!


Latrans wrote:

While it is a cool concept, the Rageshifter is a poorly designed archetype that is nearly unplayable.

1) They gain the bonuses of a barbarian’s rage and increased sized damage dice but no size based bonus to STR or Con. Unlike enlarge person, it does not grant a bonus to strength but still inflicts the penalties to attacks and AC. The only benefit to as written is that they don’t gain the typical Dex penalty.

2) As written there is no scaling. If it was meant to scale the writers, editors, and FAQ people afterwards have all overlooked it. Losing defensive instinct alone made this a serious loss.

I agree that this archetype gets in exchange for what it gives up is far from fair. Also note that the enlargement prevents you from wearing normal armor and takes a full round while provoking to activate but only last for rounds per level. This means that it’s too short to use it before a fight starts thus you waste your first round to enlarge. And once you do finally gain enough rounds of frenzy to last longer than a fight he has to make a will save or possibly attack allies while wasting precious rounds of frenzy.

And don’t forget, the slams bypass the far less common problem of hardness of objects and never count as even magic without an Amulet of Mighty Fist.

Like the Brute before it, this pseudo-Hulk is worthless.

Good point about the slam replacing claws and trading hardness for bypassing DR. That's another big loss. What is frustrating to me is that the developers haven't gone back and fixed these archetypes even though people on the boards have put forth a plethora of fixes that could make this archetype and the oozemorph not only viable but fun to play.


Player Killer wrote:
It's shame. This archetype was a cool concept (the Hulk) with a really inadequate execution. What is a rageshaper supposed to add to the party when s/he is done with their incredibly short devastating form duration (besides being fatigued)? Does the rageshifter get the boost in strength, constitution, and natural armor and the reduction in dexterity that a creature normally gets when it increases a size step? Does the boost in strength from rage stack with the increase in strength from moving up a step in size?

Chess Pwn is right. I built a 10th level rageshaper in Hero lab to see how he'd compare to other characters and he doesn't come close to being viable. The only strength and constitution bonuses come from Rage or Greater Rage, nothing from actually growing in size. I don't understand why they didn't make Invulnerable defense scale. You can't use most armor because it doesn't change size when you shift and you give up so much for that little boost. Making Invulnerable Defense scale and giving the archetype access to a small number of rage powers would have gone a long way to making this archetype fun without making it unbalanced.


It's shame. This archetype was a cool concept (the Hulk) with a really inadequate execution. What is a rageshaper supposed to add to the party when s/he is done with their incredibly short devastating form duration (besides being fatigued)? Does the rageshifter get the boost in strength, constitution, and natural armor and the reduction in dexterity that a creature normally gets when it increases a size step? Does the boost in strength from rage stack with the increase in strength from moving up a step in size?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Harveyopolis wrote:
Definitely the modular character customization. One reason why I didn't convert to 5e was that every Fighter played the same. I've always liked Pathfinder's "here's a bunch of options, dig through them and build the character you want" approach. I want a simpler version of that where you don't have to have a billion feats to do one cool thing.

I agree with Harveyopolis. I and my gaming group have stuck with Pathfinder due to the vast array of character options. You could have a group of 6 fighters and they could all be thematically and mechanically very different because of archetypes, skills and feats. In Pathfinder, if you can dream up a fun character concept, you can build it. There's a character class and/or archetype for just about any concept you could want to play.


Squeakmaan wrote:
It's a major step forward in game design. I hope that comes across loud and clear in your August play test and you keep it.

Agreed. I like where they seem to be going with crits and fumbles and dumping ability damage for effects that make more sense story wise (and are easier to apply in game).


KingOfAnything wrote:
Yeah, I think Mark mentioned that ability damage/drain were replaced by progressive conditions that do the math for you. You don't need to recalculate your strength score and bonuses when the shadow hits you, you just apply a penalty to the things that the enfeebled condition affects.

I love this mechanic! Recalculating attributes is a pain. I curious to see if any of the buff spells have changed in a way that don't require you to recalculate your attribute bonuses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I figure that without some kind of hard limit, the sword that shoots fire is going to be a big enough problem that you wouldn't give one to the party. Now, you might.

I agree with PossibleCabbage. Many magic items with abilities such as firing a ray of fire, would likely have a limit in the existing system in the form of charges or uses per day. Resonance plays the same role (in a more elegant and player focused manner in my opinion).


Mark Seifter wrote:
thflame wrote:

Will there be capstones(AKA Level 20 prerequisite Class Feats)?

The best part of that kind of capstone is that you get to choose your capstone! Not everyone was always well-served by the capstones in PF1 (for instance, omnikinesis, the ability to use any wild talent in the game, is a very powerful capstone, but it doesn't necessarily fit a fully focused kineticist, even though the class lets you build a fully effective single-element kineticist up to that point).

Being able to choose a capstone that fits best with your character concept sounds very exciting! Thanks Mark!


Morgen wrote:
I've already burned all my old books and am now waiting for the play test book to come out to start playing it. It's dead to me.

Now that's commitment ;)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Great interview. It made me much more comfortable with the switch from 1e to 2e. These two points were the biggest for me:

They intend to make PF2 Characters extremely customize-able and crunchy, not a dumbed down system at all for PCs. I know it'll take a few years to build up to all the classes and races in 1e, but I'm willing to collect the 2e books until they reach the critical mass of class and race variety that my group likes. My group can keep enjoying 1e until 2e catches up.

Simple Monster Creation aimed at hitting similar stat ranges as PCs, unlike Starfinder's different balance for NPCs / Enemies. As our group's GM, this is huge for me. Anything that makes customizing monsters or building unique monsters easier is good news in my book


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want to thank all the community members who have experience with 5E and who are posting in this thread. I've been playing Pathfinder for years but stopped playing D&D when they moved to 4th edition. I'm intrigued with what has been posted about 5E. It seems like it is a significant commercial hit and based on the comments in this thread I can see why. I think this thread could be really valuable to Paizo. They have an "Apple" moment here. By that I mean they can iterate on existing products and make a superior product (i.e. blackberry to iPhone). If they can take the strengths of D&D 5e (sounds like most of them are built around player accessibility, easier to use rules, and easier NPC/monster creation) and the strengths of Pathfinder 1E (Player customization through many class and race options, archetypes, a rich campaign world with tons of existing support, etc.) and combine them to make a superior product, this could really be great. I am slowly becoming more excited about Pathfinder 2E.


I know I'm putting the cart waaaay ahead of the horse but I wanted to plant a seed for future development after 2E is published. Something that would really mean a lot to me and move me to adopt 2E faster would be PDF conversion guides for each of the existing Adventure Paths. My group is starting to play with the APs (we've just started RotRL and love it!) and my bucket list includes GMing all the APs before leave the Prime Material Plan for the Great Beyond :)

The APs contain such great storytelling and really you'd just need conversions for the main NPCs and monsters (though monsters may be taken care of in new Bestiaries) and possibly reference any new mechanics in 2E that should replace specific 1E mechanics. Just a thought/request.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
And again, it doesn't matter to me how easy it will be to build NPCs for PF2 since I have no intentions to play PF2. what matters to me, however, will be how easy conversion will be. That's two different things and it is really not a concept that should be hard to understand

It doesn't matter to you, because you want to stick with your OPF edition with slower prep time, regardless of what, for whatever reasons (aversion to change, sunken cost fallacy, whatever).

That doesn't change the fact that OPF has a slower prep time, and that NPF is being built to reduce that concern, because plenty of people preffer to reduce prep time, including new players.

As someone who has been DM/GMing for many years, I agree that it takes me quite a bit a time to build NPCs and unique monsters in Pathfinder 1E. Hero Lab has really helped but I would be excited about rules that make building NPCs and Monsters faster or on the fly.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Player Killer wrote:


This is the only issue holding me back as well. I've sunk so much into my 1E collection that it'll be hard to move forward, not because I'm adverse to the rules being improved (what I've read so far and heard on the podcast sounds pretty good), but because of the sunk cost fallacy. Even though I understand this form of cognitive bias, I'm finding it hard to shake off lol. I've been playing Pathfinder for years but just got into Adventure Paths this year (they're amazing BTW). So I started collecting all the old APs (I'm addicted to dead tree game books) and I'm down to only 4 more books for a complete collection. My group just started RotRl and we're having a great time. I don't see myself abandoning literally decades of gaming fun currently sitting on my bookshelves.

I know myself and I'll definitely buy the Pathfinder 2E rulebook but I don't think my group will want to make the switch to 2E until it has the same variety in classes, archetypes, and races that 1E has given us. I don't expect that 2E will be broadly compatible with 1E, especially when it comes to the classes and races. I understand how hard it would be to redesign your entire rule set and make it backwards compatible, but for my players and myself, the variety in class and race options is a big part of what makes the game fun.

This sounds like you will be a late adopter. Stick with OPF (Old Pathfinder) until NPF has enough books and splatbooks to give you a wider option menu. The 12 core...

That's probably what I'll do. It's tough because I also don't want to be "left behind" and want to support Paizo, a company that has brought my friends, myself, and now my daughter, niece, and nephew so much gaming enjoyment. Maybe I'll buy and stockpile the new books until they hit that critical mass of variety in classes and races.


Nezzmith wrote:

If I can't easily convert/transfer the three Pathfinder 1st edition campaigns I'm running into 2nd edition, then I have no use for a second edition.

There's no reason to wipe out everything that came before, especially when it sounds like the setting is treating the change as no change at all.

I want to support Paizo on this, but if I have to wait another several years to play an Occultist like I could do before, I'll just keep my money instead of investing it into this new system.

This is the only issue holding me back as well. I've sunk so much into my 1E collection that it'll be hard to move forward, not because I'm adverse to the rules being improved (what I've read so far and heard on the podcast sounds pretty good), but because of the sunk cost fallacy. Even though I understand this form of cognitive bias, I'm finding it hard to shake off lol. I've been playing Pathfinder for years but just got into Adventure Paths this year (they're amazing BTW). So I started collecting all the old APs (I'm addicted to dead tree game books) and I'm down to only 4 more books for a complete collection. My group just started RotRl and we're having a great time. I don't see myself abandoning literally decades of gaming fun currently sitting on my bookshelves.

I know myself and I'll definitely buy the Pathfinder 2E rulebook but I don't think my group will want to make the switch to 2E until it has the same variety in classes, archetypes, and races that 1E has given us. I don't expect that 2E will be broadly compatible with 1E, especially when it comes to the classes and races. I understand how hard it would be to redesign your entire rule set and make it backwards compatible, but for my players and myself, the variety in class and race options is a big part of what makes the game fun.


Jason Nelson wrote:
Belabras wrote:
I know there's 3rd party support in the works too.
Interested parties also might check out Legendary Shifters, with support for the core shifter as well as a redesigned shifter alternate class. Several 5-star reviews already!

I picked this up and it is everything that was fun about the third edition Shifter and Master of Many Forms updated for Pathfinder. Fantastic class! I can't wait for my daughter to play one in our RotRl campaign so i can see how it plays.


Greylurker wrote:
This was actually in the Podcast. It's an Athletics attack vs. Reflex save (IE: Reflex+10 score)

That is so much easier than the current grappling rules! I like it.


I see my group playing PF1E for a few years. My group really enjoys the huge variety of character class and race options that PF1E provides. I'm guessing it will take years before all of these options are converted to 2E. A big factor for me is also backwards compatibility. The lack of backwards compatibility drove me away from D&D when they switched to 4E. I'm hoping that I won't be required to re-buy all the bestiaries to play 2E. I'm ok with buying books updating the classes and races if they are combined into a handful of larger class/race books and not sprinkled across a wide range of books over the years. My group and I just don't want to go back to being restricted to the core classes and races again.

Even if 2E doesn't grab me or my group, I've been collecting all of the adventure paths and I have most of the 1E hard cover books (plus reams of 3pp material). My group just started RotRl so given 2-3 years per adventure path, one adventure path at a time, I have enough material to keep my group going until I'm about 118 years old. Given that I'm in my late forties now, I'm not to worried ;)


I'm also a big fan of Legendary Games. Their Legendary Classes are some of the best class designs/redesigns available. If they decided that making some further rules changes in a 3.875 version of PF was a viable project, perhaps some of the financial risk could be mitigated by crowdfunding such as a Kickstarter campaign.


John Compton wrote:
There's still plenty of good content coming down the pipeline, and that includes some new stuff for shifters.

Thank you for the update John. That's good to hear! I've posted questions like this in other threads but had not heard anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My guess is that the patches we got to the Shifter and oozemorph are all we're going to get. I wouldn't be surprised if Pathfinder 2e and Starfinder supersede any significant support for the shifter.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sadie wrote:
..., and a global pool of do-cool-stuff-points.

Can I put in my vote for a class with a "do-cool-stuff" pool that drives class abilities. I don't care what the class is, as long as they have a pool of points with this specific title ;)


Cydeth wrote:
Jahhdog wrote:


Who would pay extra for a version that won't be the "final" version?

Me. And what I do with my money is none of your concern.

I also know at least one other person who's seriously considering it, and haven't talked to the other 5 people I game with yet.

I'll be picking up the hardcopy version. I really like having hardcover books to go along with my PDFs as well. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I really like to be able to hold a real book when I'm reading. The collector in me also likes to have the books on my shelves. I like the PDFs for actual gameplay because they are much more portable.


MMCJawa wrote:

If Planars adventures is full of lore it could still be useful.

As for monsters, I kind of hope they just decide to do a big Tome of Horrors style book, and consolidate the majority of current bestiary monsters into a single big book, updated to 2.0. I am not down to buy a a rehash of Bestiary 1, 2, etc.

I like this idea for both monsters and classes way more than rebuying all the bestiaries, a new advanced player guide, Ultimate magic, Ultimate Combat, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to see a do over with the Shifter to make it a true martial master of shapeshifting. Being restricted to the core classes plus alchemist is the biggest hurdle for my group in terms of 2e. How fast they introduce all of the other classes will have a big impact on whether we make the move anytime soon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Keith McVay wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
I've yet to see a good reason why that step was necessary at all. "People nowadays are too stupid to understand the PF rules" can't be it
Its to sell people a whole new set of books they already own.

That seems like a harsh assessment to me. I believe that the Paizo staff love RPGing as much as we in their community do. It's obvious when you see the quality of the products they have given us over 10 years. Also, taking steps to ensure the long-term viability of your product isn't greed, it's sound business practices. As an older GM bringing a new generation of young people into the game, I see great potential in a more streamlined, easier to use rule system. I listened to the GPC podcast (love the GPC crew!) and I didn't get any sense that the rules were "dumbed down". I really liked the streamlined action system and just from that brief exposure found it much easier to grasp than the current system of move actions, free actions, swift actions, etc. My big concern is that it will take years to roll out updated versions of all the classes and that this will slow adoption of the new rules for GMs and players like me who really love the massive variety that Pathfinder 1e provided.


I'm hoping they use this opportunity to completely rebuild the shifter into a true martial master of shapeshifting.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Elizabeth Zeigler wrote:

Of all the things about 2e, this statement has me the most nervous:

"As the new edition of Pathfinder develops, most of your favorite classes, archetypes, feats, spells, and magic items will find a home somewhere in the game."

One of my favorite draws to Pathfinder IS the huge variety of classes and archetypes. Vigilante is one of my favorite classes, specifically a certain archetype of Vigilante; with the uncertain nature of what classes will be rolled out and when in 2e, I could hypothetically be waiting nearly ten years to play that class...if at all. We are flipping a coin to see what classes get an official 2e release, flipping another coin to see what archetypes get an official release, and yet flipping a third for what point of the edition's life cycle that it will be released.

That's a whole lot of coin flips just to reach the status-quo. Last thing I want to do is shell out the big bucks investing in an edition that may or may not even have the classes and archetypes I play.

You’ve nailed one of my two concerns. My favorite part of Pathfinder is the immense diversity of classes. My players also immensely enjoy the wide range of class options. In my opinion, this is a strength that has helped differentiate Pathfinder from the esteemed competition. Whether my group and I switch to PF2e will depend on how quickly the other classes are reintroduced. Hopefully they will come out quickly as the heavy lifting of creating the class has already been done. I’m hoping they come out with class books that include classes of a similar theme together (martial, arcane casters, nature based, etc) to give us access to all the classes faster rather than sprinkle them across other books over years and years.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
The Gold Sovereign wrote:

I just hope there will be no need for six new bestiaries, and that we can easily use the present ones with PF2E. I'm not looking forward for books filled with the same creatures, just with different rules...

I'm also hoping that we can quickly get our favorite classes, like the base classes or the occult classes. It would be a shame if we needed to wait for years to use those classes, and when we finally get to them, we would be seeing the same concepts merely reinvented in new rules...

I second hoping to see all the classes converted quickly. The huge range of classes is one of my favorite aspects of Pathfinder.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I too was frustrated back when WotC jumped from 3.5 to 4th edition. I went with pathfinder because I could still use my 3.5 library (and still do). That being said, Paizo has given my friends and I a decade of great gaming experiences and their products have been top notch. I don't believe for a minute that this is a cash grab to get loyal fans to buy remastered books. I just listened to the Glass Cannon Podcast crew playing under the playtest rules and Jason was able to convert a first edition Pathfinder module on the fly. That answered my question as to whether I can integrate the many Pathfinder books I have with the new rule set. I'm also excited because my gaming group is growing with new players including my 10-year old daughter and my niece and nephew joining. The existing rules are great but have a pretty steep learning curve. A streamlined rule set could be a big plus. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with.


Well, with today's announcement of Pathfinder Playtest I think it makes more sense as to why we haven't seen additional work to fix the Shifter and its archetypes. Maybe it'll be rebuilt in Pathfinder 2.0.


GodsBlister wrote:
Well guess it's about time for me to start home brewing up some things to make the shifter more palatable to people who don't see a reason to play it in my groups. Still does nothing for the official play crowds.

Unfortunately, I'm thinking the same thing, that the Shifter we have now is the Shifter we're going to have moving forward. I think it's a solid class but unfortunately doesn't scratch that master of shapeshifting itch I envisioned when it was announced. In retrospect, naming it the "Shifter" conjured up thoughts of the old third edition Shifter so this is what I was hoping to see in terms of concept. That's more my problem than Paizo's though. Fortunately, I'm the GM of my group and we don't do anything with Pathfinder Society so I'm making the Legendary Shifter a playable class in my campaign. It fits in with the hopes I had for a Pathfinder-based Shifter.


It seems like further changes to the shifter class and archetypes may not be forthcoming as we haven't seen any updates to the FAQ in awhile. I did pick up Legendary Games Legendary Shifter and was really impressed. I know it's 3PP material but if a GM allows it and you want to play a shifter class that has much of the input the community has been providing integrated into it, consider checking it out.


Jason Nelson wrote:
Player Killer wrote:
Jason Nelson wrote:
I wonder if anyone has questions about our upcoming Forest Kingdom Campaign Compendium Kickstarter, or perhaps which campaign line you'd like to see us compendify next!
It's not a campaign line but I'd back a kickstarter built around your legendary classes in a heartbeat. especially if it included a hardcover collection or collections and maybe additional archetypes, feats, etc. and Hero Lab support.

We are considering that, and given that we've covered most of the martial classes already the chances are good that we'd go that direction first. Doing a compilation of ALL the possible classes out there would probably end up too big and unwieldy as a single project. I'm not sure how many new archetypes, feats, etc. that we'd add, given how jam-packed the class books we make already are in that way, but there might be a few new ones.

On the HeroLab side, they've indicated they're turning the faucet down to a drip when it comes to new 3PP Pathfinder content onboarding to their site, especially things that can be time/resource-intensive to integrate like new alternate classes. We'd love to be able to offer it, but it's probably not realistic, sad to say.

That's sad to hear about Hero lab but possibly great news if you decide to move forward with a Legendary Class Kickstarter for the martial classes! Thanks for the response Jason!


I try and use actual minis (pathfinder & D&D) for everything. It's expensive but our group finds they really add to the gaming experience. We've started a group adopt a mini program so that I don't have to keep buying them all as the GM :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.
necromental wrote:
Dragon78 wrote:
Yeah, I wish the shifter was formatted in the book like the monk(unarmed strike/AC bonuses) with claw and AC bonuses on the chart progression and not listed in the special abilities.
But then it would be obvious how many dead levels the shifter actually has.

I know I'm a broken record, but I agree. Even adding bonus feats would be great.

Jason or other development team members - if you're checking in on this thread would it be possible to get a brief update as to whether further changes to the Shifter are in development or is the class "done" in Paizo's eyes (with the understanding that all classes are open to adjustments/clarifications in the future as the game evolves and questions arise)? I'm not trying to be rude in any way but such an update would let all of us posting ideas and opinions know whether we are spinning our wheels at this point or whether we should continue posting ideas. Thanks for your work on the class and for considering the input the community has been providing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Name Violation wrote:
I'm still disappointed there's no Dragon shifter

I second that! I'd really like to see a dragon shifter archetype to go along with the fiendish shifter.


Jason Nelson wrote:
I wonder if anyone has questions about our upcoming Forest Kingdom Campaign Compendium Kickstarter, or perhaps which campaign line you'd like to see us compendify next!

It's not a campaign line but I'd back a kickstarter built around your legendary classes in a heartbeat. especially if it included a hardcover collection or collections and maybe additional archetypes, feats, etc. and Hero Lab support.


These classes are fantastic! Please consider compiling them into a hardcover book, maybe with additional archetypes, feats etc. I would buy that book or support a Kickstarter campaign to create such a collection in a heartbeat!


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Really I think the biggest missed opportunity is the lack of any way to combine major aspects, since if you can turn into a bear and an owl, why not let us turn into a owlish bear or a tiger-snake or a monkey-shark?

It seems like the best reason to keep major aspects limited is so you can have players actually able to combine things in a way that regular wild-shape can't manage. I wonder if that was that was the original plan, but it ended up very complicated (like the Harrowed Medium).

This is the one change I'd really like to see added to the shifter. It would give them a specialized form of wild shape that has abilities beyond what a druid has and builds on the chimeric vibe teh shifter has going on.

I'd also really like to see a dragon shifter archetype in a future product like the fiendish shifter archetype.


I know this is off topic, but has anyone heard when the Ultimate Wilderness Hero Lab files will be updated with the changes to the Shifter?

1 to 50 of 177 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>