It's finally dawned on me the problem with wild shape is not the wild shaping rules but the fact that its a class ability of the druids! druids by popular conception are tree huggin weather castin hippies. Not the Morphing Rage Machines I'd like them to be.
So simple give wild shape to someone who'll appreciate it, asking for a new class is pointless you get drowned out by the thousands of other voices asking for their perfect idea to be a base class. So I'm not asking for a base class I'm just going to ask for a class variant for one of the core classes with minimal changes.
Who do you ask ? well no caster for starters, casting is the biggest problem with wild shaping balance as casting is very powerful all by itself. SO no casters. Whats left ? Well Ranger seems like a good choice but requires too much editing he's fine as is same with the Paladin. Ok whos' left Rogue ? tempting but they have a very defined place one should not mess with the rogue hehehe. Barbarian and Monk , again seemingly a very good fit they multiclass well with a a druid and help wildshape forms but to insert wildshape into their class ? NOPE no good their classes are already brimming with abilites and one more would defintly put them over the top, tradeoffs would get very messy.
Who's left ...... ummm the Fighter ?
Hrmmm Good HP good BAB no casting very few class abilites .... PERFECT
Fighter Wild shaping Variant
Surprisingly he's almost good to go without many changes, ok so add in wild shape and take out all the fighter bonus feats.
Armor training now applies as Natural Armor bonus +1 and reduced any dex penalty from a shifted form by -1 to a minimum of 0
Weapon Training now applies to natural attacks as a +1 enchantment bonus
Armor Mastery DR5/- no change needed there
Weapon Mastery again pretty much as is apply to all natural weapons
anything else ?
Wildshape change.
Gained 1st level: Beast Shape I (fly swim etc not gained until 4th level as per normal wildshape) unlimited usage Fighter can always shift into a small or medium animal under the rules of Beast Shape I. all other form are limited by wildshapes/day
Further Progression: Advanced Wildshaping Feat
you can increase the spell form to the next stage i.e. Beast Shape III to Beast Shape IV. Or you can take a new Form (Form of the Dragon min 13th level or Giant Form min 15th level) and then further progress in those forms using your general feats.
And there we have my Fighter Class Varient the Wildshaper who does not need his own base class and uses the exisintg class abilites of the fighter just applied slightly differently.
One order of combat shifter to go, no waiting :)
As for RP Flavour there are so many ways your could go with the source of the wildshaping but I'll leave it up to your imagination ;)
Badass, that's kind of a cool idea. Hell, I'd rather they just buffed up wildshaping a little bit and made a shapeshifter class.
hey... don't pick on the Fighter...
he has Bravery too!
Hell, I'd rather they just buffed up wildshaping a little bit and made a shapeshifter class.
Heh I'm a realist, you say "MAKE ME A NEW CLASS" and developer roll their eyes, you say add maybe 2 paragraphs of text to an existing class and hey maybe someone will go "You know what ......"
This is completely in the realm of houseruls and/or optional/alternative rules, since PF wants to stick to 3e and its concepts, and 3e has a shapeshifting druid and a morphogenetically stable fighter. And a fighter is a fighter is a fighter. They don't have supernatural powers.
I'd actually go with either barbarian/berserker or ranger.
Let's talk some far-off stuff for a while. You know, things that might work as a concept but not in standard Pathfinder:
If I were to do a big overhaul, something like Pathfinder RPG 2nd edition, I might do this:
Diversify the cleric, putting greater emphasis on his domains/spheres (or however you want to call is special areas of expertise depending on his faith) and put the caster part of the druid in there.
Then I'd take the shapeshifting part, the wilderness stuff doing part, and the animal companion part, give all that to the ranger, and call him shapeshifter.
The Shapeshifter class would have wildshape from the very beginning. He'd have different sorts of shapes, with different powers and durations: a scouting shape that lasts hours and allows smaller and swifter forms and grants bonuses to dexterity and perception-based checks; and a combat form for bigger shapes with bonuses to strength and constitution and powerful natural attacks, but with shorter durations.
There'd also probably be a hybrid form, like a lycanthrope, where he can use manufactured weapons if he wants.
He'd have a decent attack bonus, especially in his combat shape. He'd also have enough skill points to be a good scout and tracker, and a trusty animal companion. And to seal the deal, he'd get special abilities like the druid and ranger has now: trackless step, woodland stride, camouflage, hide in plain sight - things like that (though some might only work in his normal shape and in scouting shape).
There would be no spellcasting at all.
Alternately, you could turn the barbarian into the berserker (In fact, if not for the whole backwards compatibility thing, That one would probably already have beenin the Alpha), and grant him some (purely combat based) shapeshifting abilities (there is ample precedence in both D&D and real world myth for this)
a fighter is a fighter is a fighter. They don't have supernatural powers.
As far as 3e dogma goes, I agree. And yes Ranger and Barb both have a better flavour fit with wildshape , however from a purely mechanical point of view the Fighter wins hands downs as the easiest to modify without having to tweak this here and that there to make it balanced
The beauty of using the fighter is that you work of the principal that it IS a fighter who uses fangs instead of swords. Then balancing is easy as a quick 1 for 1 level power check Attk/Dmg/AC vs Attk/dmg/AC.
The other nice part is that it fills the fighter roll in the group albiet with more flavour hehehe but it dosent intrude on anyone else turf any more than your average fighter could.
Are Pazio going to make this change to the Fighter , about as likely as a shapeshifter base class ;) but hey I can dream
and you must admit it fits pretty good and is quite a neat little package ;)
|
Are you saying you'd prefer to see the current druid to be split up to two different classes? Say, Shaman and druid... shaman being the spellslinger sort with herbs and stuff, the druid being more on the morphing/transforming frenzy.
I do, in fact, like this idea. The current druid is a mashup of all kinds of abilities, making it resemble more of a chaos beast. :P
And a fighter is a fighter is a fighter. They don't have nice things.
I fixed it for you.
With that said, remove Wild Shape from the Druid. Give it to the Ranger. Switch animal companion progressions around so the Ranger gets a full animal companion, and the Druid gets half. Druids still kick ass because they still have spells. Rangers? Well with an animal companion that doesn't get OHKOed by anything, and some shifting they don't suck either. Currently they do, so it helps a lot.
And a fighter is a fighter is a fighter. They don't have nice things.I fixed it for you.
If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.
What are you talking about?
Because you need 'supernatural' abilities to be relevant beyond level 5. Period. Denying them what they need to function is ensuring they do not get nice things.
What are you talking about?
Because you need 'supernatural' abilities to be relevant beyond level 5. Period. Denying them what they need to function is ensuring they do not get nice things.
I am going to disagree with you there. I have run enough games to know that a straight fighter can hold his own at high level. It is not always easy, but on a few occasions, having a high BAB means being able to hit when the mages are dealing with SR and the cleric is playing keep the "party alive."
The endgame boss in my planescape game is a prime example. The spellcasters were dealing with his magical support and grunts while the melee combatants delt with him. The casters could not get past his SR or his high AC/touch AC.
At lower levels, a globe of invulnerability can shut down any spellcaster of less than 9th level (including many spell-like abilities), but will not hinder a fighter.
Giving magic powers to all classes just because some think that they need it - no, I don't like that. That way lies Foree.
What are you talking about?
Because you need 'supernatural' abilities to be relevant beyond level 5. Period. Denying them what they need to function is ensuring they do not get nice things.
I am going to disagree with you there. I have run enough games to know that a straight fighter can hold his own at high level. It is not always easy, but on a few occasions, having a high BAB means being able to hit when the mages are dealing with SR and the cleric is playing keep the "party alive."
The endgame boss in my planescape game is a prime example. The spellcasters were dealing with his magical support and grunts while the melee combatants delt with him. The casters could not get past his SR or his high AC/touch AC.
At lower levels, a globe of invulnerability can shut down any spellcaster of less than 9th level (including many spell-like abilities), but will not hinder a fighter.
An 11th level Wizard against an 8th level or lower party. Of course the mage wins. He also neatly negates the Fighter with a much lower level spell. At least it takes one of his best to shut off the casters.
High BAB means jack crap. We are talking about a 3.5 base right? And yes, PF is a 3.5 base. 3.51 perhaps, but all the relevant details are still intact. Because in a 3.5 base, high BAB is near worthless and most of the issues with the system stemmed from the false belief it meant something. Just look at Cleric vs Paladin. Lose nearly all your magic and one of your good saves to gain 1 HP a level and a few points of BAB. How about no. Druid vs Ranger is another good one. Lose nearly all your magic, your animal companion (yes, Rangers get one, but it's so far behind noone cares), and your wild shape for... a few points of BAB, and a few random feats for suboptimal combat styles. To be more precise the issues stem from a false belief that full BAB means something, and that it means as much as all this other stuff that anyone with a brain can immediately see is superior.
If the mages are 'dealing with SR' (implying they cannot bypass it) they are Doing It Wrong. If the cleric is a healbot, he is also Doing It Wrong. Apparently this planescape boss had a crapload of high level spells to negate mages, but no singular low level spells to negate your grunts. Um, lol what?
Giving magic powers to all classes just because some think that they need it - no, I don't like that. That way lies Foree.
I still have no idea what you are talking about, but in that case make those classes NPC only and/or max level 5, because you are personally ensuring they will never be worthwhile beyond that.
Why do you hate non casters anyways?
An 11th level Wizard against an 8th level or lower party. Of course the mage wins. He also neatly negates the Fighter with a much lower level spell. At least it takes one of his best to shut off the casters.
High BAB means jack crap. We are talking about a 3.5 base right? And yes, PF is a 3.5 base. 3.51 perhaps, but all the relevant details are still intact. Because in a 3.5 base, high BAB is near worthless and most of the issues with the system stemmed from the false belief it meant something. Just look at Cleric vs Paladin. Lose nearly all your magic and one of your good saves to gain 1 HP a level and a few points of BAB. How about no. Druid vs Ranger is another good one. Lose nearly all your magic, your animal companion (yes, Rangers get one, but it's so far behind noone cares), and your wild shape for... a few points of BAB, and a few random feats for suboptimal combat styles. To be more precise the issues stem from a false belief that full BAB means something, and that it means as much as all this other stuff that anyone with a brain can immediately...
The spell is available as a scroll at much lower level so it does not need to be 1th level against an 8th level party. And yes I am talking 3.5 base. Fighters do have weaknesses, but I have yet to see them fail completely as some claim they do. I don't know, maybe it is because my group have been playing from back in 1e where where the fighter got nothing and had to play tactically. With the 3e feats there are so many options to screw with casters. Using just base, Trip works wonderfully. Wizards suck when it comes to AoO. Put a caster on the ground and he provokes an AoO when he gets up. If he stays on the ground, then it is even easier to hit him. With Improved Trip you get an attack after you put the wizard on the ground (of course, Pathfinder nerfed this).
As for the Ranger, I know a bunch of people that will take an archer ranger over a druid. With the original, manyshot (and not the nuked Pathfinder version) they could move and fire multiple shots.
Really, It comes down to play style and personal experience. From my experience as a player and a DM, warrior characters are not as weak as many claim. They may not dish out the same amout of damage, but that does not mean they are weak.
Whats left ? Well Ranger seems like a good choice . . .
In fact, this has been done. :D Paizo even uses class variants from this list in some of their products, so there's a chance we could actually see this class at some point.
Maybe I should clarify
This Idea is so I can play a Melee Shapeshifting Fighter, it not about who to improve, balance or modify existing classes , this is purely a OPTIONAL variant. Key word optional ;)
For exmaple in the PHB2 there is an "Optional" class variant for the Druid called Shapeshifting which replaces wildshape.
This is not different except that its a Variant for the Fighter chosen at first level and substitutes the afore mentioned changes to aquire the ability to shapeshift.
Should the base Fighter class be changed ? NO
Should the Base Druid class be changed ? NO
Should they add a Fighter Shapeshifting Optional Variant ? Well I sure would like one :)
An 11th level Wizard against an 8th level or lower party. Of course the mage wins. He also neatly negates the Fighter with a much lower level spell. At least it takes one of his best to shut off the casters.
High BAB means jack crap. We are talking about a 3.5 base right? And yes, PF is a 3.5 base. 3.51 perhaps, but all the relevant details are still intact. Because in a 3.5 base, high BAB is near worthless and most of the issues with the system stemmed from the false belief it meant something. Just look at Cleric vs Paladin. Lose nearly all your magic and one of your good saves to gain 1 HP a level and a few points of BAB. How about no. Druid vs Ranger is another good one. Lose nearly all your magic, your animal companion (yes, Rangers get one, but it's so far behind noone cares), and your wild shape for... a few points of BAB, and a few random feats for suboptimal combat styles. To be more precise the issues stem from a false belief that full BAB means something, and that it means as much as all this other stuff that anyone with a brain can immediately...
The spell is available as a scroll at much lower level so it does not need to be 1th level against an 8th level party. And yes I am talking 3.5 base. Fighters do have weaknesses, but I have yet to see them fail completely as some claim they do. I don't know, maybe it is because my group have been playing from back in 1e where where the fighter got nothing and had to play tactically. With the 3e feats there are so many options to screw with casters. Using just base, Trip works wonderfully. Wizards suck when it comes to AoO. Put a caster on the ground and he provokes an AoO when he gets up. If he stays on the ground, then it is even easier to hit him. With Improved Trip you get an attack after you put the wizard on the ground (of course, Pathfinder nerfed this).
As for the Ranger, I know a bunch of people that will take an archer ranger over a druid. With the original, manyshot (and not the nuked Pathfinder version)...
All you have to do is shut down their one relevant trick, then take a smoke break while they flail ineffectually. If they don't have a one relevant trick, skip to step 2.
In 1st edition all he had is auto attack, but there wasn't a whole lot in terms of enemy defenses that would shut them down. About the only main one is flight, except his auto attack with a bow is about as good as auto attack with a sword so that doesn't stop him. He also was full attacking as a standard action, getting plenty of chances to disrupt spells as they were being cast, and otherwise is able to function. Now, enemies shrug off his attacks if he isn't specialized in then, laugh them off if they are not, and require him to be hyperspecialized just to be relevant so that wings negate melee and low level magic negates ranged and that's it. One button negation.
You yourself admit Pathfinder has further nerfed what few good things they had (you can do fairly nasty things as a Swift Hunter provided that you are fighting your favored enemies and can therefore ignore immunity to most of your damage, but messing with Manyshot and presumably its Greater version would also negate that).
A ranger archer (as in, without Swift Hunter) is not so great though. Not enough damage. He's certainly nowhere near a Druid's level, even if the player of said Druid is completely incompetent and the Ranger's player is very skilled at optimizing.
Also, Force and Seeking are mandatory for any archer. The former means you are no longer cockblocked by a 3rd level spell. The latter is because even Improved Precise Shot doesn't negate everything, but this does. Namely, Entropic Deflection and the ring thereof. +4 weapon for basic competence. Hmmm...
On the plus side my DM likes the idea and will prob let me try it out when we start our next Campaign playing the official Pathfinder
I'd actually think that the Barbarian has the best precedent in mythology for getting a wildshape ability.
LOTs of berseker rages were described as shape shifting. You've got Beorn in the hobbit too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe shifting into a bear is actually the etymology of "berserk".
Could make an excellent rage power for higher level barbarians, or a feat.
|
I'd actually think that the Barbarian has the best precedent in mythology for getting a wildshape ability.
LOTs of berseker rages were described as shape shifting. You've got Beorn in the hobbit too. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe shifting into a bear is actually the etymology of "berserk".
Could make an excellent rage power for higher level barbarians, or a feat.
exactly right, imo.
|
|
I just have to say this as someone who has played both fighters and spellcasters. I would love something like a prestige class for the fighter or Barbarian to allow them some wildshaping ability.
That said I also know having played both non-casters and casters as my characters both have their strong points and both have their weakness. I have only once had my fighter taken out of combat and that was sheer chance due to a lucky roll by the DM. Otherwise I never lost a single Fighter in a battle.
See Bear Warrior.
Flamehawke: Level range?
gotta say i never liked the prestige class system , just a concept that dosen't sit well with me.
Well, not being one to wait around for someone else to do it, I've gone ahead and made my Own new class. : ) I'll be the first to admit that there are others who have already played around with variants of the Druid class and it's shapeshifting ability (winks to Phasics ;-) but I've gone ahead and combined several existing ideas with several of my own and made up a whole new complete class I call the Wild Druid. You can check out one of the discussion threads HERE. (Jason Bulmahn had something to say)
Or can take a gander at the two working characters I have of that class Ali[/url or [url=http://paizo.com/people/Gal4zxhj]Gal (note: in the game Gal is in the first page was mostly taken up as a discussion thread but the game gets going on the second page)
I know this is not exactly what you had in mind Phasics but it does answer some of the concerns you had I think. Plus I’m finding it’s just a really fun class to play on it’s own. And with the level progression class abilities, a Prestige class isn’t really necessary.
Some have been of the mind that the Summon Animals ability is overpowered but I have accordingly toned it down and we are now playtesting it to see if it fits in or not.
I’m welcome to all ideas, opinions or criticisms.
And thanks again Phasics, a few of your ideas spring-boarded several of my own
