Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Wilderness

3.00/5 (based on 59 ratings)
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Wilderness

Add Print Edition $44.99

Add PDF $9.99

Facebook Twitter Email

Answer the Call

Wild, untamed lands hold a wealth of mystery and danger, providing the perfect backdrop for heroic adventure. Whether adventurers are climbing mountains in search of a dragon's lair, carving their way through the jungle, or seeking a long-lost holy city covered by desert sands, Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Wilderness gives them the tools to survive the wilds. A new 20-level base class, the shifter, puts animalistic powers into the hands—or claws—of player characters and villains alike, with new class features derived from animalistic attributes. Overviews of druidic sects and rituals, as well as new archetypes, character options, spells, and more, round out the latest contribution to the Pathfinder RPG rules!

Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Wilderness is an invaluable hardcover companion to the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook. This imaginative tabletop game builds upon more than 10 years of system development and an open playtest featuring more than 50,000 gamers to create a cutting-edge RPG experience that brings the all-time best-selling set of fantasy rules into a new era.

Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Wilderness includes:

  • The shifter, a new character class that harnesses untamed forces to change shape and bring a heightened level of savagery to the battlefield!
  • Archetypes for alchemists, barbarians, bards, druids, hunters, investigators, kineticists, paladins, rangers, rogues, slayers, witches, and more!
  • Feats and magic items for characters of all sorts granting mastery over the perils of nature and enabling them to harvest natural power by cultivating magical plants.
  • Dozens of spells to channel, protect, or thwart the powers of natural environs.
  • New and expanded rules to push your animal companions, familiars, and mounts to wild new heights.
  • A section on the First World with advice, spells, and other features to integrate the fey realm into your campaign.
  • Systems for exploring new lands and challenging characters with natural hazards and strange terrain both mundane and feytouched.
  • ... and much, much more!

ISBN-13: 978-1-60125-986-8

Note: This product is part of the Pathfinder Rulebook Subscription.

Product Availability

Print Edition:

Available now

Ships from our warehouse in 1 to 5 business days.

PDF:

Fulfilled immediately.

Are there errors or omissions in this product information? Got corrections? Let us know at store@paizo.com.

PZO1140


See Also:

1 to 5 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Average product rating:

3.00/5 (based on 59 ratings)

Sign in to create or edit a product review.

Another Great Hardback Update Collection!

5/5

Ultimate Wilderness is a much better book than some reviewers might lead you to believe. You get the new shifter class - which has had some basic errata since release - along with great archetypes for most of the other classes to help them fit into a wilderness-based campaign.

It's a great book to help players prepping to play something like Kingmaker or Ironfang Invasion. You get new spells, feats and a new exploration mode.

The book itself maintains the high quality of work that most Paizo products exhibit. The art in this book is some of my favorite in any of the hardback collections. There are a few updated spells that needed errata, such as snowball.

As a fan, I really like that several of the archetypes convert the flavor of many Game of Thrones characters into Pathfinder mechanics. What more could you ask for?


Lots of ptential, but none of it really sticks

2/5

I was extremely excited for this publication, so it's rather depressing how disappointing the books contents turned out to be.

The shifter class was an interesting idea, but when put down on paper is just druidic wild shape with hunter focus, in the form of aspects. It, unfortunately, never surpasses the druid in the wild shape department, and is, in fact, rather limited, and the temporary nature of all the aspects means that the shifter isn't terribly impressive in that regard either. The archetypes, both for the shifter and other classes, are interesting, but several suffer from massive drawbacks, for little to no gain. Like taking on druidic weapon/armor proficiencies and restrictions, including losing abilities for wearing metal, but don't gain any significant power to mkae up for it.

The new rules expansions are, for the most part, only thrown off by some conflicting skill applications (survival to harvest poison, but heal to take internal organ trophies?) but these are easy to ignore, or fix by homebrew. So these chapters are the most stable and useful of the lot.

One of the most exciting discoveries was the Cultivate Magic Plants feat, allowing you to grow plants that copy spell effects, but the price tag attached to them, especially when attached to something with the considerable disadvantages of being an immobile magical item, makes it entirely useless next to the crafting cost of regular magical items, especially if you have a GM that's willing to allow players to use the rules on creating new magical items. Just for an example, a goodberry bush can fully feed 2 people per day forever... for 4000 GP to craft. While you could make an item to infinitely cast goodberry for 2000 gp if you have to wear it, or better yet create food and water (for about 30000).

In conclusion, the book has a lot of cool stuff in it, but only for GMs. Players won't be able to make good use of many of the archetypes and feats as they revolve too much around staying in a single environment or working with nonsensical restrictions. While many of the feats are just too focused (or expensive) to be useful except to an NPC. GMs, grab it, it's got good stuff, but players will (and should) probably stick to what they've already got.


Everything I wanted from Ultimate Wilderness

4/5

Great race write ups, a fun new class (that doesn't require a ton of source books to play) and tons of information and systems to run a wilderness adventure or spice up the wilderness sections of any game. Definitely happy to add this one to my bookshelf.


Reprinted material, lack of clarity

1/5

First off, I'm a huge fan of Pathfinder. But I'm not a fan of "Ultimate Wilderness." There are a number of issues with the content in the book, mostly the clarity of language. A lot of the rules seem unclear and not straightforward. The shifter is the biggest example of this.
To be honest I was looking forward to the shifter, being far more robust than it actually is. And I understand that this is my issue with what I expected from them, but what built up my anticipation of the shifter was the quality of past classes released by Paizo: summoner, alchemist, witch, bloodrager, investigator, brawler, spiritualist, medium (even if it isn't harrowed), magus, ninja, hunter and so on and so forth.
Past that, I'm not a big fan of the reprinted material because I buy the smaller books. If I'm buying the smaller books why would I want to buy them again with a hardcover?
That being said, I'm still a big Pathfinder fan, but I'd like for future releases to take a different developmental cycle than what "Ultimate Wilderness" received. This book seems like it lacked editing and playtesting.


4/5


1 to 5 of 59 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
3,051 to 3,100 of 3,550 << first < prev | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
NewXToa wrote:

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.


NewXToa wrote:

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
NewXToa wrote:

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.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

I stand corrected :D


David knott 242 wrote:

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.

Shadow Lodge

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stop flogging me! wrote:
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...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Kittymen and catgirls.

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

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.

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).

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Isabelle Lee wrote:
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!


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.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Drunken Dragon wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

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

Paizo Employee Designer

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
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! :)

Shadow Lodge

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

Paizo Employee Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

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

Paizo Employee Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

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).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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...

Paizo Employee Designer

3 people marked this as a favorite.
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.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Fair enough and thank you for the prompt response!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonborn3 wrote:
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
Mark Seifter wrote:
(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? :)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mark Seifter wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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...

???


2 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

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.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.

Ah. Thanks Pounce, that clarified things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
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.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Feros wrote:
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.


Feros wrote:
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...

???

UW page 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).

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.

Silver Crusade

sigh

Shadow Lodge

Kristal Moonhand wrote:
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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
sunderedhero wrote:
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.

...


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Wow, sounds a lot like a playtest...

3,051 to 3,100 of 3,550 << first < prev | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Product Discussion / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Wilderness All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.