Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Wilderness

FAQs and errata don't really do the same thing, though. As far as I'm aware, FAQs are used to clarify vague or contradictory rules (more or less), and errata is used to correct typos and misprinted information.

An FAQ wouldn't be very appropriate for Shifter's Edge because as it stands, there is no vague-ness or clarification required - they just flat out printed the wrong text :)

That's my understanding of things, anyway. I could be wrong.

Due to Paizo's aforementioned policy of not publishing official errata until the book receives a re-print, they have frequently been known to use FAQs for the purpose you note as served by errata.

Whether that's technically correct terminology is quite debatable, but also sorta irrelevant, since they very much do 'errata' individual things via FAQ.

FAQs and errata don't really do the same thing, though. As far as I'm aware, FAQs are used to clarify vague or contradictory rules (more or less), and errata is used to correct typos and misprinted information.

An FAQ wouldn't be very appropriate for Shifter's Edge because as it stands, there is no vague-ness or clarification required - they just flat out printed the wrong text :)

That's my understanding of things, anyway. I could be wrong.

That's my understanding as well, mostly. With that said, there are some FAQs (like this one, or especially this one) that change things and have the text "this will be reflected in future errata." It's entirely possible that Paizo will initially issue FAQratta before the next printing.

FAQs and errata don't really do the same thing, though. As far as I'm aware, FAQs are used to clarify vague or contradictory rules (more or less), and errata is used to correct typos and misprinted information.

An FAQ wouldn't be very appropriate for Shifter's Edge because as it stands, there is no vague-ness or clarification required - they just flat out printed the wrong text :)

That's my understanding of things, anyway. I could be wrong.

We do occasionally give FAQs (that indicate they will be reflected in the next errata to call it out) to help with those kind of problems of flat out printing the wrong text because it's valuable to have a faster way to communicate those issues when they would otherwise be difficult to discern and especially when they're causing uncertainty or discussions in numerous games.

I stand corrected :D

But they can issue a FAQ any time. Maybe we will get the one for Shifter's Edge tomorrow?

All things considered I hope they don't....it's more useful with the higher damage.

Certainly better than the Pounce but Not Really feat.

Not to beat a dead horse here....but do we have any idea when this book will become PFS legal? I've had the PDF (through subscription) for over 3 weeks now.

This is going to sound backwards from someone who subscribed for a 'fully operational' Shifter, but I'm hoping they hold off on any official adoption until after the many glaring issues with the class and the Archetypes are corrected.

Not to beat a dead horse here....but do we have any idea when this book will become PFS legal? I've had the PDF (through subscription) for over 3 weeks now.

Since they just updated the Additional Resources, my guess would be in a few months.

I had a look through the book at the store on the weekend. I have to see, the disappointment in the book seems to be a little overwrought IMO. The Shifter is one piece of the book, but there was a tonne of other good content. Some is recycled, yes, but as someone who does not have a subscription, and who picks and chooses what he buys, these compilations are often a good way for me to get caught up on content that is within a particular theme.

shalandar wrote:

Not to beat a dead horse here....but do we have any idea when this book will become PFS legal? I've had the PDF (through subscription) for over 3 weeks now.

Since they just updated the Additional Resources, my guess would be in a few months.

The fact that UW was not included in the last AR update, despite hardcovers usually becoming avalable right after release, might be an indication that there's some considerable debate on wheter or not pouncing kittymen should be a thing in PFS.

And if pouncing kittymen won't be a thing in PFS the shifter discussion might be turn even more heated...

Kittymen and catgirls.

Because we know folks are going to want them as things are currently written.

I liked a lot of the interesting new options for this book. The spells are nice. The idea of magic plants is definitely flavorful (in more ways than one :p ) and cool, and the in-depth description of weather phenomena are pretty neat. I like the fact that phytokineticists finally got a hardcover printing (shame void didn't make it in, here's hoping for their inclusion in Planar Adventures). I like some of the archetypes, with the Green Knight being particular cool (props for almost perfectly matching the flavor with mechanics of the original Sir Gawain work). I'm a bit disappointed in the Shifter, simply because I was expecting that they would get more diverse shapeshifting abilities than druids rather than more limited (albeit more potent) abilities. That having been said, that doesn't really strike me as a point against the book as a whole, and overall I think it's nothing I didn't expect from a pure combat class (which aren't my cup of tea to begin with). I'm mostly disappointed with the oozemorph, which can only be a functional PC for like an hour a day at early levels, although I do think it's absolutely hilarious that one of your party members spends a majority of their time as a literally semi-useless pile of goo :)

Love the new wild shape feats.

One question though: does Improved Natural Weapon apply to shifter claws? If so, how does it modify their final iteration of 1d10 damage. Actually, is there an FAQ or errata that details how much damage a hypothetical large shifter might do with shifter claws (I wanted to try my hand at making an ogre shifter NPC).

The FAQ for shifter's edge is up.
No fixes to the class though, so pretty moot.

Thanks for the heads-up Throne. I'm seeing it too now! Great, now that the FAQ page is up, we can add a few other UW questions to the FAQ queue (I'm looking at you oozemorph).

I'll admit, I was hoping for a full set to start us off, similar to OA (even if that one bit me in the butt while working on the Pageantry discipline).

I'll admit, I was hoping for a full set to start us off, similar to OA (even if that one bit me in the butt while working on the Pageantry discipline).

We only had the one available back when we kicked off the process (before the release date) as opposed to OA when we kicked off the process a while after release (necessarily because Gencon) so we had built up more. Now we've got more available and a FAQ page, so we'll see what we can do. In the Thanksgiving/Christmas period and with deadlines looming, we'll see what that can be!

The FAQ for shifter's edge is up.

Alright! One fix down, only dozens more to go! Paizo should really just give a handful of volunteers outside the company a preview copy so they can catch the errors a paid employee missed.

One question though: does Improved Natural Weapon apply to shifter claws? If so, how does it modify their final iteration of 1d10 damage. Actually, is there an FAQ or errata that details how much damage a hypothetical large shifter might do with shifter claws (I wanted to try my hand at making an ogre shifter NPC).

I haven’t completely absorbed the shifter, so I’ll let someone else answer about INA and shifter’s claws, but for the large shifter, you want the most FAQd FAQ that ever FAQd.

The short answer is 1d10 increases to 2d8.

Thanks for the heads-up Throne. I'm seeing it too now! Great, now that the FAQ page is up, we can add a few other UW questions to the FAQ queue (I'm looking at you oozemorph).

I sense a neeeerf~ XD

Mark Seifter wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up Throne. I'm seeing it too now! Great, now that the FAQ page is up, we can add a few other UW questions to the FAQ queue (I'm looking at you oozemorph).

I sense a neeeerf~ XD

Naw, the big questions for the ooze seem to center around what you can do in ooze form. Compared to some of the more conservative readings I've seen (can't move, can't see X_X), any answer is going to be a huge buff! :)

So there's no FAQ making all the Oozemoprh's (Ex) abilities into (Su)?

So there's no FAQ making all the Oozemoprh's (Ex) abilities into (Su)?

I won't know what the FAQs are until we work them through, but I doubt it. It will probably clarify the weirdness of the Su allowing you to be non-ooze with the not-as-explicit-as-it-could-be statement that ooze is your default (vis what happens if you lose that power like AMFs or any other reason, which the archetype tries to do, perhaps confusingly), since that's part of the whole "what are the defaults" thing, but I can't imagine there's a reason to change the Ex abilities into Su.

Ex-Oozemorphs stop turning into Oozes because Fluid Form is (Su) but keep everything else and can still use it.

I understand that interpretation, and without guidance on the default situation (losing to the code being "any other reason"), I can see exactly where it comes from, but there still shouldn't be any need to make an Ex ability be Su (actually, in addition to guidance on the defaults, oozemorph and fiendflesh losing the code is on the list of things to consider too, so that would be potentially two reasons it shouldn't need that).

The 'feel' I'm getting from what you're suggesting is that Oozemorph will be able to actually 'participate' in things unless they are hit with something that renders their cohesion inoperative outside of their use of form-shifting?

If that is the case, that would remove a significant amount of the concern about the archetype...

The 'feel' I'm getting from what you're suggesting is that Oozemorph will be able to actually 'participate' in things unless they are hit with something that renders their cohesion inoperative outside of their use of form-shifting?

If that is the case, that would remove a significant amount of the concern about the archetype...

I don't want to put any sort of cart before the horse before we even have our FAQ question file in order for a discussion (or have even hit the topic in the FAQ queue), but assuming we hit this one on the FAQ queue, I'd be surprised if we didn't provide enough guidance to make sure you wouldn't have table variation where a player or GM thinks the ooze form can't move or see, for instance.

Fair enough and thank you for the prompt response!

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

The 'feel' I'm getting from what you're suggesting is that Oozemorph will be able to actually 'participate' in things unless they are hit with something that renders their cohesion inoperative outside of their use of form-shifting?

If that is the case, that would remove a significant amount of the concern about the archetype...

I don't want to put any sort of cart before the horse before we even have our FAQ question file in order for a discussion (or have even hit the topic in the FAQ queue), but assuming we hit this one on the FAQ queue, I'd be surprised if we didn't provide enough guidance to make sure you wouldn't have table variation where a player or GM thinks the ooze form can't move or see, for instance.

Did somebody post something about me? I wish I could see.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Thanks for the heads-up Throne. I'm seeing it too now! Great, now that the FAQ page is up, we can add a few other UW questions to the FAQ queue (I'm looking at you oozemorph).

I sense a neeeerf~ XD

(actually, in addition to guidance on the defaults, oozemorph and fiendflesh losing the code is on the list of things to consider too, so that would be potentially two reasons it shouldn't need that).

Hehe, knew it. Can Fiendflesh being any alignmentat be considered while you guys are at it? :)

I understand that interpretation, and without guidance on the default situation (losing to the code being "any other reason"), I can see exactly where it comes from, but there still shouldn't be any need to make an Ex ability be Su (actually, in addition to guidance on the defaults, oozemorph and fiendflesh losing the code is on the list of things to consider too, so that would be potentially two reasons it shouldn't need that).

I do hope that the hypothetical code removal also edits the oozemorph's DR to remove the clause about nonmetal armour.

I have a question in regards to the Mutated Shape feat (think that is the name, don't have my book in front of me atm)... namely, can it only be taken once, or can it be taken several times to grow a different option each time? Also, Mark (I believe it was you), in another FAQ or in answer to a question in the Kineticist threads made a Statement about Gathlain Favored class bonus for Kineticist being something to do with lessening burn, but in UW there is nothing referencing that, was this intentional, or accidental? In other words, was this Favored Class Bonus decided to be dropped? Thank you for you time and patience.

RIP Magical Child, just noticed they killed the alternate familiar archetypes.

RIP Magical Child, just noticed they killed the alternate familiar archetypes.

?

MC's Familiar can still take the archetypes, unless I misread your comment.

Xenocrat wrote:

RIP Magical Child, just noticed they killed the alternate familiar archetypes.

?

MC's Familiar can still take the archetypes, unless I misread your comment.

Yeah, I'm not sure what this is about either...

???

I have been delving into the vast realm of other RPGs of late, trying out more obscure titles like Mythras and The One Ring, as well as playing in a 5E campaign, thus I haven't played Pathfinder in quite a while (nor have I been on these forums in a while either), but I had heard of this warrior shapeshifter class through the grapevine a little while back and the prospect of it made me a bit excited, I thought to myself "that sounds fun, it might be time to fire back up some Pathfinder again".

The book comes out and I happen to be at my FLGS one day, so I pull it off the shelf to peruse (as I always do before a purchase), and flip straight to the Shifter, excited to delve into this new class, this new possibility. And then I read it, and the excitement leaves me, replaced by a sense of apathy, apathy not just for the class, but for any thought of reigniting Pathfinder in my RPG life. I put the book back on the shelf and leave the store with it unpurchased.

Xenocrat is referring to this passage from the familiar section:

Shapechanging Familiars: Familiars that can take various forms, such as the magical child’s animal guide, imps, and quasits, must have the same archetype for each form, and it must be legal for all of those forms (meaning if any form is an improved familiar, it can’t take archetypes that don’t stack with improved familiar).

So, no more diverse familiars off the Magical Child vigilante. Which is a bit sad, really, it gave it a niche.

I have been delving into the vast realm of other RPGs of late, trying out more obscure titles like Mythras and The One Ring, as well as playing in a 5E campaign, thus I haven't played Pathfinder in quite a while (nor have I been on these forums in a while either), but I had heard of this warrior shapeshifter class through the grapevine a little while back and the prospect of it made me a bit excited, I thought to myself "that sounds fun, it might be time to fire back up some Pathfinder again".

The book comes out and I happen to be at my FLGS one day, so I pull it off the shelf to peruse (as I always do before a purchase), and flip straight to the Shifter, excited to delve into this new class, this new possibility. And then I read it, and the excitement leaves me, replaced by a sense of apathy, apathy not just for the class, but for any thought of reigniting Pathfinder in my RPG life. I put the book back on the shelf and leave the store with it unpurchased.

Was there melancholy music playing and a Ravenous Tumbleweed rolling behind you as you walked away?

Xenocrat is referring to this passage from the familiar section:

Ultimate Wilderness, p. 210 wrote:

Shapechanging Familiars: Familiars that can take various forms, such as the magical child’s animal guide, imps, and quasits, must have the same archetype for each form, and it must be legal for all of those forms (meaning if any form is an improved familiar, it can’t take archetypes that don’t stack with improved familiar).

So, no more diverse familiars off the Magical Child vigilante. Which is a bit sad, really, it gave it a niche.

?

Sorry, I'm not understanding.

Xenocrat is referring to this passage from the familiar section:

Ultimate Wilderness, p. 210 wrote:

Shapechanging Familiars: Familiars that can take various forms, such as the magical child’s animal guide, imps, and quasits, must have the same archetype for each form, and it must be legal for all of those forms (meaning if any form is an improved familiar, it can’t take archetypes that don’t stack with improved familiar).

So, no more diverse familiars off the Magical Child vigilante. Which is a bit sad, really, it gave it a niche.

Ah. Thanks Pounce, that clarified things.

Pounce wrote:

Xenocrat is referring to this passage from the familiar section:

Ultimate Wilderness, p. 210 wrote:

Shapechanging Familiars: Familiars that can take various forms, such as the magical child’s animal guide, imps, and quasits, must have the same archetype for each form, and it must be legal for all of those forms (meaning if any form is an improved familiar, it can’t take archetypes that don’t stack with improved familiar).

So, no more diverse familiars off the Magical Child vigilante. Which is a bit sad, really, it gave it a niche.

?

Sorry, I'm not understanding.

There was no firm rule in place so any archetype could be applied to vary up the familiar for MC. Those archetypes just didn't apply when in "Improved Familiar" mode. With this rule now in print, the choices for archetype on the MC's familiar became very limited.

Gambit wrote:

I have been delving into the vast realm of other RPGs of late, trying out more obscure titles like Mythras and The One Ring, as well as playing in a 5E campaign, thus I haven't played Pathfinder in quite a while (nor have I been on these forums in a while either), but I had heard of this warrior shapeshifter class through the grapevine a little while back and the prospect of it made me a bit excited, I thought to myself "that sounds fun, it might be time to fire back up some Pathfinder again".

The book comes out and I happen to be at my FLGS one day, so I pull it off the shelf to peruse (as I always do before a purchase), and flip straight to the Shifter, excited to delve into this new class, this new possibility. And then I read it, and the excitement leaves me, replaced by a sense of apathy, apathy not just for the class, but for any thought of reigniting Pathfinder in my RPG life. I put the book back on the shelf and leave the store with it unpurchased.

Was there melancholy music playing and a Ravenous Tumbleweed rolling behind you as you walked away?

Heh, negative, but I would have loved the symbolism of such an occurrence. I only mentioned it because something random brought me to the site today (I googled something regarding the Card Game), clicked on this thread, read a bit of the feedback, saw someone say something to the effect of "if you dont voice your opinion, you are irrelevant", not a viewpoint I agree with, but figured I would share my experience on the matter nonetheless.

Rysky wrote:

Pounce wrote:

Xenocrat is referring to this passage from the familiar section:

Ultimate Wilderness, p. 210 wrote:

Shapechanging Familiars: Familiars that can take various forms, such as the magical child’s animal guide, imps, and quasits, must have the same archetype for each form, and it must be legal for all of those forms (meaning if any form is an improved familiar, it can’t take archetypes that don’t stack with improved familiar).

So, no more diverse familiars off the Magical Child vigilante. Which is a bit sad, really, it gave it a niche.

?

Sorry, I'm not understanding.

There was no firm rule in place so any archetype could be applied to vary up the familiar for MC. Those archetypes just didn't apply when in "Improved Familiar" mode. With this rule now in print, the choices for archetype on the MC's familiar became very limited.

Ah, gotcha, that’s what I was starting to suspect but I wasn’t for sure.

Rysky wrote:

Xenocrat wrote:

RIP Magical Child, just noticed they killed the alternate familiar archetypes.

?

MC's Familiar can still take the archetypes, unless I misread your comment.

Yeah, I'm not sure what this is about either...

???

Shapechanging Familiars: Familiars that can take various forms, such as the magical child’s animal guide, imps, and quasits, must have the same archetype for each form, and it must be legal for all of those forms (meaning if any form is an improved familiar, it can’t take archetypes that don’t stack with improved familiar).

No more different archetypes for different familiar forms, the only remaining reason to play this archetype now that Blood of the Beast has provided a social talent to get transformation sequence as long as you have spell casting or SLA from any source.

While I am here anyway:

My main motivations for buying this, beyond wanting to support Paizo, was a mix of a desire to see a martial class with options (there's a reason why my favourite class, from an ability perspective, is the Druid, so the thought of a spell-less, but more flexible shapeshifter was very appealing to me - it'd finally give me a reason to not play a caster), as well as me being curious about the new Animal Companions / Animal Companion archetypes.

I really like the AnC archetypes, actually. The Deathtouched AnC makes me want to build a Cleric of Horus with the Death domain, and variant channel rulership negative energy for days. (sorry not sorry). Similarly, the Verdant AnC archetype has simply grown on me, making me want to make a sort of flowery camel knight - I might just try to reskin it into being some sort of Ivysaur or something, turning the hump into a flower. I love options - the main reason why I even got into PF in the first place, and I'm really excited about how this makes your animal buddy more customisable.

... as for the other part, I'm simply going to say that the Shifter didn't match my expectations, both regarding the modular and the creative aspect of the class. However, I'll leave it at that, trying to respect what we've been asked to discuss earlier. After all, it has not escaped me that this has come up before.

Seriously though, the AnC archetypes! Shout-outs to whoever worked on those! :)

Oh great, that means no more Mauler familiars for Magical Child. It really shows the power of words, doesn't it? You can break an entire archetype with just a couple of them.

sigh

Oh great, that means no more Mauler familiars for Magical Child. It really shows the power of words, doesn't it? You can break an entire archetype with just a couple of them.

Yeah, it was pretty cool they could have Mauler I proved Familiars because it was the Feat I proved Familiar that made Mauler incompatible, but Magical Child didn't get the feat. Now I have two reasons to ignore the archetype, this and the terrible spell list that isn't thematic at all.

Throne wrote:

The FAQ for shifter's edge is up.

Alright! One fix down, only dozens more to go! Paizo should really just give a handful of volunteers outside the company a preview copy so they can catch the errors a paid employee missed.

Then they would need to get another handful of volunteers to find the mistakes the first handful of volunteers added. Then, a separate handful of volunteers to project manage both sets of volunteers. Oh, and of course another handful of volunteers in reserve to handle missed deadlines. Also, we cannot forget the handful of volunteers that will be needed to offer legal advice when one of the other handfuls violates their NDA.

...

Wow, sounds a lot like a playtest...