Toxie2725's page

Monkey Goblin Urban barb sounds REALLY FUN to play lol. Shades of Gollum for sure.

Im in one now and it's working out fine. Although we're using decent 3rd party stuff by legendary etc.

The biggest thing so far has been unlimited flight (Deva) that allows options for scouting etc that breaks some encounters. Combat wise it's been pretty fair. Also, It's not a super min/max group and people are playing "fair" (Ie, not trying to break the game) so that helps too.

IMHO, I think it adds a ton of RP fun to have a group of heros that includes an actual angel and Minotaur. makes town runs....interesting.

Hydras.

And Purple Worms.

All the Oozes.

Shifter --> Legendary Shifter (so much so that it should have just been adopted as official)

Toxie2725 wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Toxie2725 wrote:

We're sticking with pf1. Well, actually we JUST converted from 3.5!

That said,v2 has some interesting things but because of how v2 has treated wild shape and magic in general we're not switching.

A small aside, but I cannot for the life of me understand walking away wholesale from a successful product like 1e. It's good to expand, but many people are going to stick with 1e...

You actually have your answer in your post, you just started Pathfinder 1, the designers have had to deal with that ruleset for over a decade, which was an evolution of a different company’s ruleset rather than something truly their own.

Also how successful, and continued success, is a question that also factored into them starting a new edition.

It's one thing to start something new, and quite another to abandon it altogether. 3.5/pathfinder etc have been popular for thirty years. It's popular for a reason.

So is 5e, and it has ditched 3.5, shot it repeatedly in the head and let it die by the wayside.

Also, 3.5 dates to 2000, so it's 20 years.

Well, one would hope that Paizo learned from the mistakes of Wizards.

Also, 3.0 came out in 2000. 3.5 Came out in 2003. I was exaggerating for effect.

Toxie2725 wrote:

We're sticking with pf1. Well, actually we JUST converted from 3.5!

That said,v2 has some interesting things but because of how v2 has treated wild shape and magic in general we're not switching.

A small aside, but I cannot for the life of me understand walking away wholesale from a successful product like 1e. It's good to expand, but many people are going to stick with 1e...

You actually have your answer in your post, you just started Pathfinder 1, the designers have had to deal with that ruleset for over a decade, which was an evolution of a different company’s ruleset rather than something truly their own.

Also how successful, and continued success, is a question that also factored into them starting a new edition.

It's one thing to start something new, and quite another to abandon it altogether. 3.5/pathfinder etc have been popular for thirty years. It's popular for a reason.

Wonderstell wrote:

The only reason you'd have to choose the Shifter is because the druid feels complicated. Kind of like playing a Warpriest with negative wisdom because you feel spells are annoying to remember.

That remind's me of Shifter's biggest flaw: A Druid with negative wisdom is better at it in everything except BAB (meh). A class focused on shapeshifting ought to at least be the best shapeshifter or a serious contender, but loads of existing shapeshifter options were better in every way.

That's the biggest flaw - for specializing in shapeshifting, its worse at it than most other classes than get it. Paizo went entirely the wrong direction with the shifter, and it shows. People wanted a class that would be BETTER at changing shape than the others, not one that mutates into weird combined animals or whatever it is that the shifter was designed to do lol.

We're sticking with pf1. Well, actually we JUST converted from 3.5!

That said,v2 has some interesting things but because of how v2 has treated wild shape and magic in general we're not switching.

A small aside, but I cannot for the life of me understand walking away wholesale from a successful product like 1e. It's good to expand, but many people are going to stick with 1e...

The Legendary Shifter Book is excellent, and what the shifter should have been from the start. Paizo clearly didn't understand why people enjoy playing shapechanger classes.

Gortle wrote:

All good points. So far we are about 3:3 split on this issue for the people who have posted an opinion.

Is it a balance problem?

In my opinion there is a thematic issue. I don't really want the barbarian/wild shaped druid to be better in animal form than the base barbarian.

Druid wild shape is very attractive for its non combat utility and for the extra options it gives in combat. I don't think it should also be the best damaging option as well, even if the extra damage isn't all that huge.

There is a second unresolved issue which also affects this. Does the bonus from handwraps apply to wild shape in the "if your hit bonus is better" clause? If it does, the advantage of wild shape grows

Wild Shape is essentially only a combat buff now. The utility is severely curtailed given how limited you are now in usage, limited duration, and special abilities.

After all, if the wild shaped barb/druid does slightly more damage after spending a round changing for ten rounds, I find that acceptable. The base barb will still be better for most encounters.

Yes. Yes they did.