Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Ultimate Wilderness

Now strictly for house-ruling purposes, how would you deal with the missing info from the shifter's major forms (ie. owl has no flight speed, bear no natural attacks listed etc.)?
Seems the most logical thing is to fill in the gaps with the regular list for beast shape II.

Benjamin Medrano wrote:

As an aside, Isabelle? Do you mind if I ask if you were involved in writing the Skirmisher Fighter Archetype, or the Flamewarden or Stormwalker Ranger Archetypes? Because I have to say, of the character options to come out of this book they are my absolute favorites.

There are a ton of rules that I like, too, but those are standouts for me.

I wasn't, I'm afraid. ^_^ My only contributions were the cavalier archetypes (green knight and saurian champion) and the following feats:

** spoiler omitted **

I think the green knight is definitely one of the best things in the book, and definitely one of the coolest cavalier archetypes. Though I do wonder, couldn't Order of the Blossom fit well with the archetype as well?

Order of the blossom is from a Player Companion, so the green knight couldn't have referenced it directly. It might be appropriate, though - I'd have to take another look at its specific benefits.

It wasn't released when I was writing the green knight, so I didn't take it into account. Let this be a lesson to always consider ways in which you might futureproof your designs. ^_^

Now strictly for house-ruling purposes, how would you deal with the missing info from the shifter's major forms (ie. owl has no flight speed, bear no natural attacks listed etc.)?

Seems the most logical thing is to fill in the gaps with the regular list for beast shape II.

That's how the class was written, yes. You get all the natural abilities of the creature in question (claws for the bear for example) but none of abilities that Beast Shape would grant, like Grab, Darkvision, Pounce, or Trip. Those sorts of abilities have to be added in by the Major Aspect ability specifically.

And, on reading over it again, Owl doesn't have a fly speed. Special movement speeds and vision are considered part of the form abilities that the Shifter's Wild Shape explicitly doesn't grant. Owl, unlike every other aspect, is missing its special movement speed.

But yes, to fix it with homebrew the best answer would be to just stick on the Owl's fly speed.

So, do the Chimeric Aspect/Greater Chimeric Aspect/Final Aspect abilities count as improvements to Shifter Aspect? Or are they separate abilities?

Looking at the Exploration rules.. I really like them..

So much, I thought I might think about using them to create a set of house rules to manage an investigation type challenge.

Before I go too much further, I want to make sure something like doesn't exist already... still new to Pathfinder

Imagine a crime(s) of some sort...

It would get a CR Rating like a region would..

Players would choose between a set of actions daily:
Interview people (diplomacy, sense motive, intimidate, etc.)
Search for clues at X location (perception, disable traps, etc., depends on how the bad guys executed the crime)
Present the Evidence (peform, legal knowledge, etc.usually to local law but could be anybody)

Instead of way signs, you would have clues instead:
Simple: (they broke down the door but with a very unusual hammer, maybe a claw or footprint was found)
Moderate: (this hammer is only sold by Merchant Y)
Complex: (Merchant Y is missing! but if we find him..., a special spell component is found, used of course)

Instead of random encounters (which you could still do I guess), you get triggered responses by the bad guys and other players as your investigation proceeds:
When you learn something new, you could trigger some events:
Bad guys attack physically, set a trap for you, hire someone to assassinate you, discredit you, kidnap a key contact, steal/discredit your evidence, put a tail on you (I swear that cockroach just looked at me!), confess but they have a good reason (basically Nemeses stuff from Intrigue)
You hit a snag (maybe caused by a failed check), a key individual has left for some reason, rain washed away evidence, etc.
Vigilantes attack suspects (maybe they did it, maybe they didn't)
Law enforcement makes an arrest/issues a warrant, let's someone go
Bad guys bribe a key witness (or worse)
Bad Guys bribe a key official (or worse)
Bad guys bribe you!
Bad guys plant evidence, maybe on you
New crime committed
Bad guys run!

Now strictly for house-ruling purposes, how would you deal with the missing info from the shifter's major forms (ie. owl has no flight speed, bear no natural attacks listed etc.)?

Seems the most logical thing is to fill in the gaps with the regular list for beast shape II.

That's what I'd do personally, or at least give the specific abilities missing (owl was given Flyby Attack and Snatch so clearly the developers intended it to have a fly speed).

If no one has, I'd also strongly recommend posting a question about the owl and the bear forms in the Rules Questions forum and hit the FAQ button on it so we can eventually get a proper developer ruling on the issue.

If I were to hazard a guess--mind this is entirely speculation--the wild shape was originally intended to work something along the lines of "as beast shape II except where the major form abilities granted differ; in this case use the major form ability described instead." This would explain why these features in the forms were missing--the forms were probably written presuming that beast shape II would cover the rest, even though the wild shape description contradicts that, and they were not corrected when the rule changed.

Perhaps in playtesting they deemed this too powerful, which would speak to how awkwardly worded the wild shape class feature is--it smacks very much of shoehorned-in text late in development, post normal editing phase (so a full editing pass did not occur after the changes were entered). I am suggesting this because on the rare occasions where I've encountered weird contradictions in text someone has eventually explained it as late development changes where the text wasn't fully adjusted to accommodate (off the top of my head, I'm thinking of the Plunder and Peril module where a monster's stats do not match at all the narrative description of the monster's actions, including casting spells it didn't have).

I like the shifter class (and personally, I generally am not interested in new classes, so that it attracts my attention says something), but the weird limitations of wild shape/major form do bother me. At my own table, I'd run it as I described it above and see how it worked out.

So, do the Chimeric Aspect/Greater Chimeric Aspect/Final Aspect abilities count as improvements to Shifter Aspect? Or are they separate abilities?

The rules in the book state:

Chimeric Aspect (Su): At 9th level, when a shifter uses her shifter aspect ability to take on a minor form, she can choose two aspects and assume the minor form of each aspect.

This is not an example of awkward or shoehorned rules text. The rules appear to be very intentional and clear that yes, chimeric aspect is part of/an improvement to shifter aspect. (The shifter aspect description also references how it works with chimeric aspect.)

Alchemaic wrote:

So, do the Chimeric Aspect/Greater Chimeric Aspect/Final Aspect abilities count as improvements to Shifter Aspect? Or are they separate abilities?

The rules in the book state:

Ultimate Wildness Page 28, emphasis mine wrote:

Chimeric Aspect (Su): At 9th level, when a shifter uses her shifter aspect ability to take on a minor form, she can choose two aspects and assume the minor form of each aspect.

This is not an example of awkward or shoehorned rules text. The rules appear to be very intentional and clear that yes, chimeric aspect is part of/an improvement to shifter aspect. (The shifter aspect description also references how it works with chimeric aspect.)

That's what I thought, but the book itself has exceptions. Fiendflesh has Fiendish Aspect replacing "wild shape, shifter aspect, and all improvements to shifter aspect", and Greater/Chimeric Fiend replaces "greater/chimeric aspect". Oozemorph replaces "chimeric form, greater chimeric form, wild shape, shifter aspect, and all improvements of shifter aspect". Rageshaper's Devastating Form replaces "wild shape, shifter aspect, and all improvements to shifter aspect" and Invulnerable Defenses replaces "defensive instinct, chimeric aspect, and greater chimeric aspect".

So, very clearly, the class was written assuming that they're linked abilities, but Chimeric Shape is not considered an "improvement of shifter aspect" as far as the rules are considered. Improvements in this case only refers to the new aspects gained while leveling.

Which means that the Weretouched only gets a single aspect, but retains Chimeric Shape, an ability it literally cannot use.

It could be an oversight, or it could be intentional. This also happened with the Alchemist Metamorph (I believe) retaining a core ability they could not use. It was either the author or developer that came forward to explain that they had left it so that the archetype would be compatible with another archetype they liked.

So futureproofing basically.

So also, in a way, a 'wasted' ability like some folks view the Vigilante's Dual Identity part?

So also, in a way, a 'wasted' ability like some folks view the Vigilante's Dual Identity part?

Not quite sure how they’re comparable.

I have seen quite a few comments that 'Dual Identity' is 'wasted space' and it's a thing that gets swapped out on a semi-regular basis for archetypes, or modified?

EDIT: Oh, dear lord Rysky, I just has a horribly painfully possible awesome idea. An Oozemorph Avenger!

It could be an oversight, or it could be intentional. This also happened with the Alchemist Metamorph (I believe) retaining a core ability they could not use. It was either the author or developer that came forward to explain that they had left it so that the archetype would be compatible with another archetype they liked.

So futureproofing basically.

Metamorph still has the issue that its only compatible archetype is Blazing Torchbearer, an NPC archetype that trades out Brew Potion for the ability to cast a cantrip and have everburning torches. That's not even an exaggeration, Blazing Torchbearer is literally an archetype meant for NPCs you gain from the Torchbearer feat. Even then, Brew Potion is a fairly minor part of the class, and is still technically usable if the character decides to multiclass or take a prestige class with spells. It makes it actually future-proofed to an extent, it's just not done very well.

Weretouched, on the other hand, has no use for the Chimeric Aspects, which make up the entirety of its later abilities. There is no class that they can multiclass into to make use of them, and even if there was it would negate the point of Weretouched which is "pick one aspect and be good at it." If they release a future archetype that happens to only trade out the Chimeric abilities then hey, that's great, but why didn't they just add those in when they first printed the class instead of leaving the most interesting archetype half-baked?

I'm not saying this was done intentionally or maliciously, but I'm saying that the archetype is very poorly written as-is and could have been fixed if one person had looked at it and thought "Hm, where's Chimeric Aspect?". Such as, for example, in a playtest.

Even if we had an open playtest I can almost gurantee we wouldn’t have seen any of the archetypes.

Paizo never playtested arcehtypes. It's sad we'll probably see more 'quality' like this now because there are no more playtests. What a cycle its in, eh?

Even if we had an open playtest I can almost gurantee we wouldn’t have seen any of the archetypes.

Fair enough. Still, more editing passes couldn't have hurt.

Rysky wrote:

Even if we had an open playtest I can almost gurantee we wouldn’t have seen any of the archetypes.

Fair enough. Still, more editing passes couldn't have hurt.

That applies to absolutely everything ever put out by any company. Deadlines put a cap on that amount though, sadly.

Deadlines could be pushed back, but I get where you're coming from. Time constraints can suck, but I'm not sure(just an opinion) that's what happened to UW. I don't know what happened, honestly, but if this is the new standard...

tried but not reading 1000 posts. broke down and got pdf of this and wanted to say
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FEY FORM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and druid can cast it. now if only some errata to give them other poly spells

EDIT: Oh, dear lord Rysky, I just has a horribly painfully possible awesome idea. An Oozemorph Avenger!

"Form of... an all-consuming formless blob!"

"Justice oozes by night!"

Paizo never playtested arcehtypes. It's sad we'll probably see more 'quality' like this now because there are no more playtests. What a cycle its in, eh?

Why doesn't Paizo do playtests anymore? I wholly believe past classes have been great and would have been horrible were it not for the playtests.

Does Paizo intend to purposefully let Pathfinder degrade in quality? Maybe to have some "legitimate" reason to usher in a 2.0?

It's mind boggling to me. Was there some sort of management change?

"BLRRRBLLL BLRB BR BRBLL!"

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Paizo never playtested arcehtypes. It's sad we'll probably see more 'quality' like this now because there are no more playtests. What a cycle its in, eh?

Why doesn't Paizo do playtests anymore? I wholly believe past classes have been great and would have been horrible were it not for the playtests.

Does Paizo intend to purposefully let Pathfinder degrade in quality? Maybe to have some "legitimate" reason to usher in a 2.0?

It's mind boggling to me. Was there some sort of management change?

Unfortunately, playtests only seemed to work well for Paizo when they had a smaller number of fans. Now that there are more people on the forums, the noise from troublemakers is too much for them to deal with during playtests. That's my best guess.

.......I'm not sure that it's reasonable to assume lack of playtesting caused any of the problems.

Paizo put out many high quality classes before they even tried the playtest thing.

Realistically they are the only ones who will know what factors contributed to the problems in this book. We can make wild guesses till the cow's come home but it's nothing more than speculation.

There are ways around that though, like having P&P version of closed beta. That said, its sad fact that nowadays when you get popular with large enough audience you can't avoid jerks so you'll have to learn how to deal with jerks somehow, but its still really depressing and disheartening :/ I at least hope jerks won't ruin everything for rest of people

Just went back to delete the last two paragraphs....as that probably fall's into the "community behaviour realm" more than specifics of this book....but I missed my window.

If the moderators want to delete the post feel free....and I will repost my question as to what P&P version of closed beta means.

Just went back to delete the last two paragraphs....as that probably fall's into the "community behaviour realm" more than specifics of this book....but I missed my window.

If the moderators want to delete the post feel free....and I will repost my question as to what P&P version of closed beta means.

Print and Play but only sending the playtesting material to a selected set of external playtesters rather than the fully pulic open playtesting Paizo uses to use. Some boardgame companies use a similar approach.

Print and Play but only sending the playtesting material to a selected set of external playtesters rather than the fully pulic open playtesting Paizo uses to use. Some boardgame companies use a similar approach.

So would the "survey" format I mentioned fit into that realm ? or is it more of s select handful of people ?

Probably a selected set of people, quite possibly drawn from people they've worked with previously. They probably wouldn't publicize it at all... in fact, it's not impossible that a private playtest actually happened.

With closed beta, I essentially meant private playtest, though not just in house developers.

Technically this is the first class they didn't have a public play test.

It's not like a public play test is foolproof when it comes to errors or terrible rules making it into the books imo. Fans and play testers repeatedly told them not to print the gun rules as written. In the end they ignored the play testers and printed them as they were. Making a ranged weapon in the game unnecessarily powerful. The devs ignoring play tester has happened more than once to the detriment of the rpg line as a whole imo. Already guns for some fans guns don't belong in Fantasy. Having one that will almost never miss especially against large+ creatures has them being banned. I cannot and will not blame the DMs that do ban the class because being one myself it's easy to understand why.

If play tester feedback is ignored why bother having them. It leads to resent on the part of some fans and play testers and makes the whole process look like a sham to begin with.

Mod team is probably out for Christmas, so let’s be nice to them and stick to discussing the book’s contents rather than playtest policies.

I’m pretty happy that Druids now have some more polymorph spell options to supplement Form of the Exotic Dragon. Grab Shapeshifter Sorcerer bloodline VMC, and you’re pretty free to trade out Wild Shape now.

Paizo put out many high quality classes before they even tried the playtest thing.

Not for Pathfinder. Every base class except Shifter has been in a playtest.

This seems like the best place to ask- can a Menhir Guardian Monk's claws benefit from 'Shifter's Edge'? I've got a feeling the answer is no, but it'd be a nice way to use Shifter's Edge

nighttree wrote:

Paizo put out many high quality classes before they even tried the playtest thing.

Not for Pathfinder. Every base class except Shifter has been in a playtest.

Then I must have somehow missed the core class's being playtested...

I am old....so senility is certainly a consideration :P

If the first classes were an import from 3.5, they may not have been viewed as 'in need of playtesting'?

EDIT: Back onto the UW track: I am sorely disappointed at the very sexist Aspect 'Bull'.

No Cows may apply, apparently?

Then I must have somehow missed the core class's being playtested...

Still got the soft cover.

Gotta admit, I had forgotten the APG/UC/UM playtests.

I wasn't around back then, but Paizo did indeed have an extensive playtest for Pathfinder! There's even an article about it on the Pathfinder wiki. :)

...does anyone know if the Animal Aspects could be used for say, a Moo-Cursed Barbarian?

...does anyone know if the Animal Aspects could be used for say, a Moo-Cursed Barbarian?

And would the only way to permanently kill a Moo-Cursed Barbarian be to drive a steak through their heart?

I'll show myself out.

Oh, there's no need. It may sound udderly ridiculous that it might work that way, but expect dairy variation?

Oh, there's no need. It may sound udderly ridiculous that it might work that way, but expect dairy variation?

Call me a coward, but I’m just going to steer clear of this thread...

Oh, there's no need. It may sound udderly ridiculous that it might work that way, but expect dairy variation?

This is your last warning about the cow jokes, sir!

I just started a thread on a topic I didn't feel was appropriate here....but as it keeps bleeding over to this thread, thought it was possibly worth discussing.

I have no idea if I can actually follow the instructions and link it....but I'm going to try :P

Join the conversation here

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Oh, there's no need. It may sound udderly ridiculous that it might work that way, but expect dairy variation?

Call me a coward, but I’m just going to steer clear of this thread...

You guys are really milking this for all it's worth.