Verzen's page

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 705 posts. 2 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 30 Organized Play characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 705 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"I doubt there is enough of a paper-only market to financially justify Paizo republishing repackaged material."

It could also be in PDF format as well ( I mean, why not?) The benefit of having ALL character options in one place is to 1) Easily transport it from place to place, 2) Save time on looking up options during character creation, 3) Have options available for use that was once in a book that you had forgotten about.

There are those, like me, who want ALL CHARACTER OPTIONS in one place for reference rather than trying to figure out and find out which book character X option is in so you can do Y with your character.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sure Doom, but looking through EVERY single PDF to find a small section on feats takes a lot of time/effort. Plus. Not everyone has laptops or tablets available for use. This is simply condensing ALL options together so they are all organized in one place.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So it would essentially be ultimate equipment but for classes, spells and feats/rules

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

This is for AFTER all the books/player companions are released.

Someone suggested something I think is worth looking into. Has paizo considered having three compendiums, one being the core rules along with ALL optional rules and feats, another book of ALL the core classes, hybrid class, new classes, archetypes, prestige classes ever released and the third a spell compendium of ALL the spells and magic ever released for PF 1st edition.

This would allow us to have all the options ever released for 1st edition in 3 books that we could transport rather than carrying around 400 pounds worth of books. I think, for those who prefer 1st edition rules, this would sell like HOT CAKES.

Just a thought.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I prefer front loading characters with a lot of stuff they can use, and then over time, gathering a little bit more here and there than just keeping it spreadout evenly through the levels.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mudfoot wrote:
Verzen wrote:
In D&D 3.5, a character was not defined until they were able to get prestige classes.
I do not recognise this sentiment. And given how nerfed prestige classes were in PF1, it sounds like your PF1 characters were never defined, at least not until the APG came along. And how did we define our characters in 1e or 2e?

In PF1, they gave each character a LOT more options to choose from to help fill out character definition apart from D&D 3.5.

Such as sorcerers now have bloodlines. Wizards now have objects they can empower if they so wished rather than a familiar.

Fighters were no longer just bare bones. They got weapon specializations at level 3, 6, etc and armor specializations.

Each class was fleshed out a LOT more than 3.5 which is what created that initial draw. The archetype system in the APG was the nail in the coffin of customization and character definition.

From my view, front loading characters like PF did was VERY beneficial for the game compared to how 3.5 did it which was they spread everything very thin.

In PF 2nd ed, they wish to revert back to spreading out classes to be thin like in 3.5 and I do not like this.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sure, but mutagens should still be level 1 and perhaps have a more gradual increase in strength later on.

For example. Level 1, they grant +2 strength, +1 natural armor, -2 int.

Level 3, the bonus to natural armor increases by 1 and every 4 levels after that.

At level 7, the strength is increased to +4... So on and so forth.

If nothing more but for the RP factor of changing into Hyde from the start.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Where is the druid preview at??? Can't seem to find it on google.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Yes. Archetypes are suppose to be lateral. Not better OR WORSE than the base class. Archetypes in starfinder were available to ANYONE and they were strictly worse than the base class and didn't feel like they were worth taking. In all honesty, using 2nd ed as an example, the class specific options felt more like an archetype than the actual archetypes did. (For example... I can specialize as a melee fighter or a fighter with a rifle by using the specializations)

And according to the alchemist blog post, they get mutagen at level 5.

http://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo5lkp5?Alchemist-Class-Preview

"But that's only the start—at 5th level the alchemist learns the secrets of mutagens, and as he progresses his ability to craft alchemical items on the fly becomes both greater and faster."

Furthermore, there are some key concepts in alchemist that just make alchemists work that you can get by level 2 in PF 1 that you can't do till level 6 in PF2

"At 4th level, an alchemist with the Calculated Splash feat can deal splash damage equal to his Intelligence modifier instead of the normal 1 splash damage. At 6th level, the alchemist can take the Precise Bomb feat, allowing him to hit everyone but his allies with the splash damage."

So I won't be able to throw any bombs in PFS to guys in combat until... level 6? And I don't get mutagen till level 5, so I can't be effective in melee till 5th level....

So level 1, I will literally be doing nothing lol

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

First of all, I'd like to state what I LOVE about PF1 and why I switched from D&D 3.5 to PF1.

In D&D 3.5, a character was not defined until they were able to get prestige classes. Prestige classes carried with it a LOT of flavor. I remember the Green Star Adept. A prestige class that you could literally transform into a golem. This concept was really cool. Offered a lot of flavor and a lot of character conceptualization along with roleplaying opportunities. I loved it.

The only downside to it is that it took 5 levels to be able to qualify for it. So you could take it at level 6. (1 level of sorcerer, 4 levels of fighter, for example would qualify)

That means my character concept wouldn't be functional between levels 1-5 and MOST GAMES that are played happened to be low level games from levels 1-5. High level games were often NOT played nearly as much. This is due to the simple concept of drift. Statistically speaking, over time, games tended to fall apart or start over. There were some high level games being played, but those were much more rare. Games usually start characters off as a level 1 and over the course of the game, get to around level 5 and the games themselves begin to fall apart by mere chance occurrence. Just like drift (if anyone studies biology here).

When 4th edition came around, people HATED it. It felt more like a board game or video game than it did a tabletop roleplaying game. Paizo saw an opportunity and took the 3.5 mantle. They did everything right. They realized that prestige classes took too long to take advantage of. So they created character identity at level 1, knowing that most games are low level. They created archetypes which also allowed further customization and identity at level 1. My favorite archetypes are those that immediately effect my character and change the way my character functions right from the start.

Example. I'm a huge fan of the flavor of the kineticist. I know some of the mechanics could use work, but the flavor itself is why I play the class. At level 1, I can be a kinetic knight. It changes my character drastically right from the start. At level 1, I can use my kinetic blade for zero burn cost. At level 2, I can use a shield, wear heavy armor. This is awesome!

Then there is the elemental purist. How crappy the archetype is put aside, for the moment. One of the biggest problems is that it is literally functionless until level 7.

Waiting so long for your character to have IDENTITY is terrible for the game and it's one of the problems 3.5 had and what Pathfinder actually accomplished.

Here comes 2nd edition pathfinder.

What I noticed is that they are stripping the level 1 IDENTITY from characters away. They are regressing character identity. The one thing that makes Pathfinder a top game imo is the ability to immediately have character identity.

I may want to be a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character. I may not want bombs. I may want an alchemist that can transform into Hyde.

But I can't do that at level 1. I have to wait to level 5 to get a mutagen.

This is detrimental to the character I'd like to play. Now I know that you guys are probably worrying about multiclassing, but I honestly think it's a non-issue. At level 1, a mutagen only lasts 10 minutes per level. If I dipped into alchemist, I'd lose 1 BAB to gain mutagen for pretty much one combat per day. I've never thought it was worth it as a min maxxer. I have looked at it extensively, and I don't think the bang is worth the buck.

In PF 2nd ed, archetypes could be something like, "Lose bombs, gain mutagen. Mutagen lasts twice as long." then each class/archetype could have a BONUS for being a single class. "If this class is your only class, then when the character is dealt damage, the alchemist must roll a will save equal to 10 + character level. If they fail their will save, they turn into their mutagen form without using any daily uses of the mutagen."

I'd prefer archetypes to be a concept that controls and dictates character identity from level 1 and separate it from the class feats. And I'd most definitely stay away from allowing an archetype to affect every class out there. This helps to further strip character identity.

It might seem great on paper to allow rogue, fighter, or clerics to be pirates. But perhaps you should keep 'pirate' as a prestige class concept and limit the ability to be a pirate at level 3 and it adds (never takes away) class abilities. But you're only limited to one prestige class per character. They still have prereqs to gain them.

This has the result that everyone will ultimately choose a prestige class to be part of. But it helps to define a character concept.

While archetypes are variations on a class. Archetypes should remain acting as variations on a class rather than some bastardization of what prestige classes once were.

Please let's maintain character identity. I'd love for PF 2nd ed to succeed, but I just don't feel like it will be the game for me if you guys strip character identity and revert it to feeling like 3.5 all over again.

My fear is that class identity will NOT begin at level 1, and everyone will begin to feel the same and that archetypes will all be worse than any base class because paizo will be afraid that an archetype will be taken by everyone all the time despite the class they are.

They will purposefully make their options far worse than the standard options which, I feel, will strip character identity significantly.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope my concerns make sense.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Verzen wrote:

Honestly, I was expecting Void to get a real write up in this book considering that wood got one in the last... =\

Perhaps in 2nd edition, any options like new elements or what not like with the kineticist should only be released in major releases...

Void's a weird concept. As described in Bestiary 3, on page 210 where we stat up the void yai, "void" is an element that represents the sky, outer space, the spirit world. and the capacity to create new ideas. In some ways, "void" is the element of "imagination."

It's an intriguing concept, yes, but it's not something that's particularly associated with a specific region of the Great Beyond's cosmology. Same with "wood" which is why we put that into Ultimate Wilderness.

In 2nd edition, I'd really like to limit our "elements" to air, earth, fire, and water, and perhaps quintessence, and NOT have things like wood or metal or aether or void or whatever creep into the game. Those concepts need different words than "elements" so that we don't confuse things by implying there are more than four elemental planes in the Great Beyond, which there are not. (That's certainly an interesting potential model for the other planes, but it's not the default assumption in Pathfinder.)

EDIT: For example, if we DO do some sort of class like the kineticist in 2nd edtion, I'd rather see us tie the class to categories of "power" rather than "elements." That lets us present options for the class that use fire power, water power, earth power, void power, air power, wood power, metal power, time power, thought power, life power, death power, whatever power we want, rather than limiting it to the four elemental plane options and/or implying more about the nature of the Great Beyond than we intend. (And note that I use the word "power" above as a stand in—any word would do, be it power, force, agency, source, mana, ki, or whatever.)

Just curious but uh... We have earth, wind, water, fire...but no heart?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Xenocrat wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Paizo released a book on PLANAR ADVENTURES and didn't include anything for kineticists who are deeply tied to the elemental planes? o.O

James Jacobs developed it, I'm not sure he's even read the entire Kineticist class yet based on past answers in his thread.

There are Kineticist planar options in the Player Companion Planes of Power.

My reasons for not including kineticist stuff in the book are purely a consideration of space issues. There was VERY little room for player focused rules in this book, since the bulk of the book was intended to focus on the planes themselves, and as such I needed to try to focus the player section on the core classes and on options that aren't tied to one specific class. The kineticist is its own worst enemy there, since it can't use many options from other classes and its options can't really be used by other classes.

We DO have a few more bits of kinitecist options coming up before the switch to 2nd edition, but there just wasn't room for them in Planar Adventures.

Honestly, I was expecting Void to get a real write up in this book considering that wood got one in the last... =\

Perhaps in 2nd edition, any options like new elements or what not like with the kineticist should only be released in major releases...

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Paizo released a book on PLANAR ADVENTURES and didn't include anything for kineticists who are deeply tied to the elemental planes? o.O

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Anything for kineticist ?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Apparently D&D 5th eds "society" only allows the core and ONE extra rulebook to be used for characters.

Please do not do this. I think this is a terrible idea. Overbalancing a game really, honestly, removes fun, creativity etc from the game. I LOVE having lots of options from lots of books. I do not like the idea of only picking one book to be able to pull stuff from *besides the core*

Just my two cents.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, the items available on chronicles are useless noise.

If I have 36 fame and I just do a level 10 scenario, what good does a "+2 belt" do me? I can already buy it. Why is it on my chronicle sheet? It's useless.

Make items we FIND in pathfinder more desirable. MAYBE have items we find on the chronicle sheet worth like 50% of the value of the actual item *as if we were crafting it* or something like that so that there can be an actual benefit to finding it on a chronicle sheet, but if we REALLY want an item not on any of your sheets, it's not impossible, albeit more expensive, to get.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, yes. I'd love for the Ragechemist to come back, but be more balanced. When (if) they redo the summoner, I'd love for Synthesis to come back, but in a far more balanced way than it was before.

Why ragechemist? I like alchemist to have a good melee option. In 1st Ed, there were no real good melee focused archetypes for alchemist. Synthesis is the same way. No real good melee focused archetypes for summoner.

I think archetypes should exist to give a player the ability to be nearly any role they want to with a specific class. Want to melee as a wizard? There's an archetype for that. Want to melee as a summoner or alchemist? There's an archetype for that, too. There should be archetypes for fighter or rogue that make them more magically gifted. Want to be a fighter? You lose a lot of your combat expertise, but you gain up to 4th level spellcasting and learn to be able to weave your combat with your spells. Want to be a melee wizard? Sure. You get far less spells and perhaps stunted spell growth, but you gain some of the fighter capabilities as well. Stuff like that.

I'm not a big fan of prestige classes, but if they must be in, then perhaps make prestige classes very story focused and fun. Options that people will definitely want to pursue. Some of the notable fun archetypes are things like Green Star Adept where you turn slowly into a golem from 3.5 or dragon disciple. Things like that.

Maybe some prestige classes that induct you into a cult or a militant religious order.

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Starfinder came out with some archetypes for their classes. These archetypes are more so universally based. I think this is the 'wrong' direction for archetypes to go. I hope that in 2nd edition, each class gets 4-5 unique archetypes for the class that are focused on a unique take on the class. Starfinder did not do archetypes correctly. They made them very unoriginal and very very undesirable.

PLEASE still use the unique take that pathfinder has on archetypes. Save the "universal application" type that starfinder uses for prestige classes instead or just get rid of prestige classes alltogether and keep the unique archetype feature.

PLEASE do not emulate Starfinders system with Archetypes. That was the biggest disappointment of Starfinder.

Thank you for your time.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Hey Mark or Jason or whoever. I know I'm just a small fry, but I've gathered some of the issues with the Shifter and I read through the shifter (even started a guide, but stopped when I realized how boring the class actually was as written) and came up with some critiques.

One of the critiques being that the minor aspect forms are BORING.

No one likes +2 con enhancement bonus for minutes per level or what not. Copying the hunter aspects is just BORING.

The shifter having a very selective group of what to select is also extremely boring. But I understand it's necessary for the class.

So this is what I would do.

1) Make the minor aspects a permanent ficture of the class. Not something you activate.

Provide different bonuses other than just +2. Something that's more imaginative or creative that's also thematic. Treat the minor forms as if it were 'part' of your character that bled over to your natural form. For example. In many fantasy settings, werewolves or shapeshifters had obvious traits that 'bled' in from their animal half.

A minor aspect of bull might be the ability to overrun an opponent and get a full attack or some such... or a natural gore attack. You get the idea.

Make this a permanent part of the class. No need to 'activate' it. Plus, this would fix the weird issue with the raptor dinosaur aspect thing in which they need to activate their initiative bonus before combat starts, so you need to anticipate combat will happen before it happens.

2) Change Wildshape to be able to freely transform into any aspect you currently have chosen while wildshape is active.

3) Add in abilities that IMPROVE wild shape while you're wildshaping such as increasing movement speed, or increasing stats, or some such.

The reason for these suggestions is that yes. The shifter gets LESS FORMS than the druid to choose from (making the shifter far easier for a NEW person to pick up, apart from the druid) but this makes what the shifter DOES shift into to be superior to what the druid shifts into.

The druid, atm, gets a much better wild shape, 9th level spell casting, and a pet.

This change will make the druid a more VERSATILE wild shaper while the shifter is a far more SPECIFIC wild shaper that is better than the druid at what he does in a much simpler way than the druid does. (Unless you try to break the druid with some outlandish forms... all that withstanding)

---

I would also suggest fixing the verdant shifter to being hours per level with their form rather than what it currently is. It's currently I believe rounds per level which is not at all comparable to wild shape in any way and it isn't stronger than wild shape, either, as far as I am aware.

In fact, druids at level 8 get Plant Shape for an hour per level!

So the verdant shifter is still WEAKER than the druid while being far less versatile.

You also need to fix the oozemorph shifter to be more balanced. ATM, it's very cool flavor, but it SUCKS as an archetype which is really disappointing.

Also I'd suggest going through and fixing all of the elemental shifter elemental aspects as well and fixing those to be more thematic and less boring as per the suggestion to the change up above with the elemental shifter.

I think this would go a long way to making the shifter into a great class.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Was wondering for "Menhir Guardian"

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Can the Shifters edge feat only be used with shifters?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Personally, shifters edge and shifters rush should have been built into the class along with the ability to change forms without burning wild shape.. or making wild shape unlimited at lvl 1. I would have personally preferred that.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Verzen wrote:
I think a dino lycan will be fun
Now, do you pick elf for the extra speed of the halfling for the extra AC vs large+ creatures? [FCB]

Probably human for the extra feat like always. ;)

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think a dino lycan will be fun

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"To be honest, I find the Tiger to be the useless one as it doesn't stack with a dex belt:"

And? Saves money. We can just use strength belt since strength damage stacks with shifters belt as long as we use dex to attack.

"The initiative is useful for ambushes or uses in areas where you KNOW foes are around."

No it's not. I will use it. It lasts for a MINUTE per level +3 for the ENTIRE DAY.

That means that if I am anticipating enemies around, then enemies don't jump me for 10 minutes? Oh, well, as a level 7, I am now out of aspects. In actuality, according to game time, the usage of such an ability must happen immediately before the outcome. Combat merely slows "time down" so to speak.

But using it will immediately expend it and not be useful at all. For a level 20, lets say, that's 23 minutes of usage.

23 / 960 = 2.3% chance for a FULL USAGE OF THE ASPECT AT LEVEL 20 that it will be active throughout a 16 hour day (providing 8 hours for sleep)

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Graystone. In all honesty, I would NOT select dino as the first form. I'd select dino as the second form.

Tiger as the first.

(Except if going lycan)

The reason for this is, is that the dino aspect minor form is absolutely useless.

They really didn't think that through. +2 initiative modifier that lasts minutes per level? Uh huh....

Unless I can use it right as he says, " Roll initiative" then it's useless. It IS a swift action, but not an immediate action. What would you say, Gray?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Sorry. Wild Vigor. Woops

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The dino is the best. The tiger is a close 2nd. Wolverine is the best for a tank build. Wolverine + Shifters vigor... lol

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Tiger isnt the best aspect, fyi....

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Feros wrote:
Holding the physical book in my hands! :D

Ty for saying something. My book was just outside my door! Lol didnt want it getting stolen again.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ahhh gotcha! Thanks!

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Either won't work. Too high level and or metal armor.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Interesting...

Is there a way to get wing buffet as a norm pc

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Are they primary or secondary for the dinosaur aspect???

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Ah kk. I read a ruling that claws on feat dont count for pc chars. So thats why i was curious.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Do talons count as claws for the purpose if number of attacks? Say you have 2 claws, 2 talons, a bite, and a gore. Do you get 4 attacks or 6?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Any physical DR from what i remember.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Well, in that case, I hope they leave Shifters Edge alone.

BTW, there are some REALLY cool feats for shifters in U Wilderness.

Mutated Shape (*****) (Classified as purple in my guide) is an awesome feat to take.

Btw. Something just came up and I am curious about.

If you are granted a trait or racial trait that grants bite attack and you get another bite attack from say... shape shift, do you get 2 claws, 2 bite attacks? I want to say 'no' but I want more of a clarification on this so I can put things like this in my guide.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Disk Elemental wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Can you guys add this in to Errata. I think it would go a long way to fixing the shifter.
Paizo doesn't errata or reprint to buff under powered content. They only do it to nerf.

That's disappointing

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Mark

"
One errata that they could make that wouldn't drastically change the class writeup but would have an enormous impact on its reputation as a shifter:

"A Shifter in one of their Wild Shape forms can change to any other of their available Wild Shape forms as a move action without consuming uses per day of Wild Shape.""

Can you guys add this in to Errata. I think it would go a long way to fixing the shifter.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Mark, does this mean also that shaping focus doesn't work since druid isn't listed as a prereq?

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mbertorch wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Mbertorch wrote:

Speaking of the Forester, would it be allowed/possible to get a level by level breakdown of said archetype? Because I'm not kidding when I say this is my new favorite. This is everything I want in a class. Bonus combat feats, the first six levels of Druid spells (only sorcerer/wizard would be better to me), innate self buffing... I love this thing.

Also, this might be a dumb request, but could the elementalist shifter's attacks be explained a little more? Does it scale? Is it 'pure energy' damage? Etc...

Yes.
Yes it's a dumb request?

No. It scales and it's "pure energy" .... added on top of any melee attacks you deal. Tops off at 6d6.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Mbertorch wrote:

Speaking of the Forester, would it be allowed/possible to get a level by level breakdown of said archetype? Because I'm not kidding when I say this is my new favorite. This is everything I want in a class. Bonus combat feats, the first six levels of Druid spells (only sorcerer/wizard would be better to me), innate self buffing... I love this thing.

Also, this might be a dumb request, but could the elementalist shifter's attacks be explained a little more? Does it scale? Is it 'pure energy' damage? Etc...

Yes.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
PhD. Okkam wrote:
Many thanks, Verzen! And do they have animal forms shape?

No. Just elemental body instead of beast shape.

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Verzen wrote:
Honestly, one of the funnest aspects of the shifter I think is the ability to get 60 foot movement speed (with pounce) at lvl 4...
...given the way the class is going, that'll probably get nerfed (or disallowed for PFS play) in the first errata patch.

I hope not. But fyi, movement DOES have a soft cap. Eventually, you won't be able to benefit from additional movement speed once it gets to a certain point. ;)

Sczarni

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

In all honesty, a shifter starting stats of 14, 16, 14, 7, 15, 7 (coming out at 19) is good. This is pre stat buff. Throw it into dex and you're golden.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

They also get an almost essential feat that increases your damage by 1 every 2 levels of shifter (the book is incorrect and is getting faqed. This is the correct form as per Mark). You just need to attack with your dex modifier....

Sczarni

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Honestly, one of the funnest aspects of the shifter I think is the ability to get 60 foot movement speed (with pounce) at lvl 4...

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

"Can I tell you more about Elementalist Shifter? What loses, what does it get? What are its aspects?"

Sure.

They lose wild empathy, gain elemental speech. They lose their claws, but gain elemental attacks instead.

Air, Earth, Fire, Water, work like picking different aspects each provide different bonuses. IMO Fire is the best, but immunity to fire is so so common...

At level 9, they can start combining elements to create new effects. From my view, only the Earth and Fire combination is really good. The air and earth option is okay. The fire and water one is just obscurring mist.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I have a hard time trying to compare this class with the druid. Think of this from a mechanical point of view. They wanted the class to be available to a wide range of players, new and old alike, who wanted a shapeshifting base class.

But then you guys turn around and say you want... the druid but with full BAB.

Druids wild shape is VERY open ended and overwhelming. If we were to properly explain everything in the Pathfinder books in detail to make the class as easy to understand as possible for every possible combination under 'wild shape' there would be no room for anything else.

Ultimate Wilderness would really be Ultimate Shifter. The devs knew what they were doing when they made the shifter. The shifter is designed for the ENTRY LEVEL shifter. Not the advanced shifter. Maybe an archetype is needed here shortly to make it a bit more complex for people who wanted a more complex shifting option.

1 to 50 of 705 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>