| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possible lesson....for both sides....
As I read both MR.H and Kalindlara's comments....
They both seem to play off of "my friends feel this way"....
Which at least to me comes across as more dismissive efforts.
Does it come across that way to others as well ?
Regardless of which side of the argument is using it ?Is this one of those things we should maybe try to "check" ourselves from resorting too ?
I don't find it particularly dismissive, I think they're just reporting their experience. My group is on a Starfinder binge so we haven't really paid much attention to Pathfinder stuff lately but the one player I showed the Shifter to looked at it for 3 minutes, went "Huh, where's the shifting?", I agreed, and then we went back to trying to fit bigger guns on redesigning the Sunrise Maiden.
Great. Now I want cake.
Now imagine your friend heard that and said he did too and he's gonna go buy some, then call you and say they're on the way with cake, come into your living room holding a big bakery box, you grab it and feel the warmth radiating from inside it, then you open it - and inside is meat loaf. Not terrible meat loaf per se, but you're really in the mood for cake. How do you feel?
If those two pages had turned out to be a recipe for a red velvet cake shaped like a mantis then it doesn't matter how well written the rest of the material was, I would have been very disappointed in the book.Are you sure?
I'd love a faction dessert guide.
Aspis Angel Cake, Bellflower Babka, Bloodstone Banana cake, Eagle Knights éclairs... I can do this all day buddy. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, it is counting noses. It isn't particularly dismissive in my opinion, any more than stating why any of us like it or don't like it. Even if you have a dozen friends that hate it, that means as much or as little as the individual reader wants to make it mean. Maybe all your friends are having a bad day or just don't like trees?
Now imagine your friend heard that and said he did too and he's gonna go buy some, then call you and say they're on the way with cake, come into your living room holding a big bakery box, you grab it and feel the warmth radiating from inside it, then you open it - and inside is meat loaf. Not terrible meat loaf per se, but you're really in the mood for cake. How do you feel?
I'd ask what bakery they went to that serves meatloaf. Then we'd probably have some meatloaf and either buy or make a cake. Might as well have dinner before cake anyway. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd ask what bakery they went to that serves meatloaf.
This one! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd ask what bakery they went to that serves meatloaf.This one! :)
Wow. But no cake. My friend just wanted meatloaf, not cake. I KNEW I shouldn't trust them with important decisions.
We didn't even get a full page past the talk about toxicity and civility before we're back to people thumbing their nose at others for having the 'wrong' opinion.
I guess stuff like that only matters when it's convenient.
Depends, as I said in the OP...this is about learning how to police ourselves...
And by that I don't mean me policing you, and you policing me....but us possibly coming to understand how we can each police ourselves better.
If some conversation on the Shifter, illuminates some of the things we need to work on....it still serves the purpose of the original post ;)
I'd ask what bakery they went to that serves meatloaf.This one! :)
.....meatloaf by mail ?
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit 0.O| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. But no cake. My friend just wanted meatloaf, not cake. I KNEW I shouldn't trust them with important decisions.I'd ask what bakery they went to that serves meatloaf.This one! :)
See, this is what I think happened with the Shifter! People were really, really excited about cake - about getting a new and exciting class that really digged into the potential for awesomeness that Wildshape represents. Finally, here's a martial class that can leverage the full range of the polymorph school to adapt and overcome any situation! Imagine a class that can shapeshift as naturally as other people breathe! Think of the possibilities! Think of the cake!
Then they opened the cake box, and what they got was meatloaf. A dull but (most likely, I trust Mark to get the numbers right) numerically acceptable class that's designed to be easy to run, mildly effective and very newbie-friendly. The shifter, to me, is a wildshape-focused druid with training wheels attached and all the sharp edges sanded off. To me the class doesn't really belong in Ultimate Wilderness, but it would fit in great in the Beginner Box.
The Shifter is what happens when someone glances at a class feedback questionnaire for the druid but only notices the reply that reads "Wildshape is confusing, it gives me too many options". Maybe it is, but it's also what makes Wildshape fun. It might be possible to make Wildshape easier to use without destroying the flexibility of it and what makes it fun, but the Shifter sure didn't do it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might be possible to make Wildshape easier to use without destroying the flexibility of it, but the Shifter sure didn't do it.
I still feel like the best foundation we've had for a simpler wild shape is the Beastmorph alchemist. Instead of picking specific forms with certain traits, it selects abiliites right off the beast shape list. Cuts out most of the bookkeeping, removes the problem of 'trap' forms and mixing and matching to create weird hybrid abominations is fun.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Possible lesson....for both sides....
As I read both MR.H and Kalindlara's comments....
They both seem to play off of "my friends feel this way"....
Which at least to me comes across as more dismissive efforts.
Does it come across that way to others as well ?
Regardless of which side of the argument is using it ?Is this one of those things we should maybe try to "check" ourselves from resorting too ?
EDIT: Not trying to pick at either of you...just noticing trends in the conversation that may be how we so often end up degrading into toxic back and forths ;)
I'm dismissive of saying the shifter was just mismarketed and that the class is obviously fine.
But I'm curious as to why anyone likes it with all the better options available. Do people just not know of things like Beastkin Berserker, or do people actually see something I'm missing about this class that is unique/fun?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It might be possible to make Wildshape easier to use without destroying the flexibility of it, but the Shifter sure didn't do it.I still feel like the best foundation we've had for a simpler wild shape is the Beastmorph alchemist. Instead of picking specific forms with certain traits, it selects abilities right off the beast shape list. Cuts out most of the bookkeeping, removes the problem of 'trap' forms and mixing and matching to create weird hybrid abominations is fun.
The one possible upside of this for me has been I have learned to appreciate things like the Metamorph, Feral Hunter, and Beastmorph more now.
They may not hit my "ideal"....but the class I expected to do so, fell so far below them, that I'm less critical of them, and OK going foreword using them.
I'm dismissive of saying the shifter was just mismarketed and that the class is obviously fine.
But I'm curious as to why anyone likes it with all the better options available. Do people just not know of things like Beastkin Berserker, or do people actually see something I'm missing about this class that is unique/fun?
Agreed, there has been a lot of accusation of mismanaged expectations, as well as the excuse of it being a "beginners" class (that I don't recall ever hearing).
People have been very specific about their criticisms, paradoxical rules, lack of versatility, etc...etc...
What specifically do fan's of the class like about it ?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
To me with Ultimate wilderness is sheer frustration. I had no real interest in the Shifter so that was not what the main reason I disliked the book. Poor quality archetypes and feats imo was what did it for me. We have asked in some begged them not to do what they usually do with feats and archetypes and the devs still keep doing the same thing over and over. Yes the devs are not perfect it's like they also just seem to be repeating the same errors over and over. Which again leads to frustration.
I did enjoy the other material in the book. So it was not a complete loss yet the majority of the archetypes and feats will never be used by myself or my gaming group.
As for the "well if your given something for free one cannot criticize it" yes one can imo. IF I'm given a free lunch and it taste terrible by it being given for free does not make it taste less terrible or immunity to criticism imo.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was happy with the shifter - it’s not right to suggest it’s not a professionally produced product. It may be very, very different from what you wanted. You might have read the prerelease hype and formed the wrong impression as a consequence.
The hobby is big though and Paizo try to please a large number of people’s disparate tastes. Aiming their product at a group that doesn’t include you isn’t a failure of design.
The hype was certainly part of the problem, it built up an expectation, amplified ten fold by the general enthusiasm for the concept itself.
However, and speaking only for myself, that's not where I sit with the class now.
Even if there had been zero hype, zero inflated enthusiasm, I would still find the existing class lack luster and not interesting enough to play.....which is a shame both because the concept is something just begging to be done well, and I know what kind of results Paizo usually produces. IMO...this falls very short of their normal efforts.
You're definitely not alone. There are many who don't like the shifter.
My only point was that not liking something doesn't mean it's "unprofessional" or poor on some objective level. It means you don't like it. There may have been quality controls (as per the ACG) or it may have been aiming for something different than what you were looking for (the best past example of this is Horror Adventures, in my mind - there were many who didn't like the corruption mechanic but I think it works really well for what it aims to do, just not for what they were looking for).
To turn it around - I really didn't like the APG. It's one of my least favorite PF Rulebooks. Yet it wouldn't be right of me to say it was "poor" or "shoddy" or anything else. It was aiming to please a different section of the fanbase than where I sit. Total miss for me, but that isn't some objective failure - that's just a necessity when considering expansions to a game with widespread appeal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What specifically do fan's of the class like about it ?
I doubt it's going to be fruitful because I evaluate classes very differently from you, I suspect. For me I like the fact I can play a martial character with a kind of "bestial taint" and not have to worry about spellcasting and so forth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. But no cake. My friend just wanted meatloaf, not cake. I KNEW I shouldn't trust them with important decisions.I'd ask what bakery they went to that serves meatloaf.This one! :)See, this is what I think happened with the Shifter! People were really, really excited about cake - about getting a new and exciting class that really digged into the potential for awesomeness that Wildshape represents. Finally, here's a martial class that can leverage the full range of the polymorph school to adapt and overcome any situation! Imagine a class that can shapeshift as naturally as other people breathe! Think of the possibilities! Think of the cake!
Then they opened the cake box, and what they got was meatloaf. A dull but (most likely, I trust Mark to get the numbers right) numerically acceptable class that's designed to be easy to run, mildly effective and very newbie-friendly. The shifter, to me, is a wildshape-focused druid with training wheels attached and all the sharp edges sanded off. To me the class doesn't really belong in Ultimate Wilderness, but it would fit in great in the Beginner Box.
The Shifter is what happens when someone glances at a class feedback questionnaire for the druid but only notices the reply that reads "Wildshape is confusing, it gives me too many options". Maybe it is, but it's also what makes Wildshape fun. It might be possible to make Wildshape easier to use without destroying the flexibility of it and what makes it fun, but the Shifter sure didn't do it.
But they didn't. They still got cake.
Paizo oversold or didn't fully describe the Shifter in a way that people could lock on to and they thought it was something that it wasn't. To continue belaboring the cake metaphor, people were expecting some elaborate cake from Charm City Cakes or the Cake Boss with multiple layers and exotic flavors and gold foil on top sculpted to look like their favorite shifter from movies/TV/comics/books/etc. Instead, they got (from what the reactions seem to be) a plain yellow cake with white frosting from a grocery store.
People still got cake. It wasn't exciting and as mouth wateringly delicious as they were hoping, and they are rightly disappointed. But the problem lies in the communication between the fans and the developers and managing expectations for both sides.
For me, cake is cake. I can always spruce it up if needs be, and I'm especially happy with all the extras that came along with the cake (that is, the rest of the book) that more than satisfied my cravings.
That isn't dismissive, as an aside. It is more of what my expectations were and how they were fulfilled. I recognize that others weren't as happy and are hoping for a fix, a retraction, an apology, or at the very least an explanation of where things deviated between expectations and reality.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Steve
I think the point of contention is that many of us have looked at the shifter as logically as we can and have determined that the shifter IS poorly designed.
Many of us are curious as why anyone likes it.
Saying our dislike is not proof of poor design does not mean you have proven that it wasn't poorly designed or even be explained properly why you like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We didn't even get a full page past the talk about toxicity and civility before we're back to people thumbing their nose at others for having the 'wrong' opinion.
I guess stuff like that only matters when it's convenient.
You quoted me after that, so I'm not sure if that was in reference to me or if you were making two separate points in the one post.
Just in case: I am not passing judgement on anyone else's opinion. My whole point is that there isn't any such thing as a wrong opinion. I definitely think people should feel free to post criticisms of the class if they don't like it. I just think we should all bear in mind that the market for Pathfinder is much broader than our circle of friends.
If nobody we know likes something in a PF book that doesn't actually mean it has no place there. Only Paizo are really in any position to judge whether something is a hit or a miss overall - all we can do is pass on what works for us and what doesn't.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
.....um.....I paid for the book ?
No free lunch here :P
What specifically do fan's of the class like about it ?I doubt it's going to be fruitful because I evaluate classes very differently from you, I suspect. For me I like the fact I can play a martial character with a kind of "bestial taint" and not have to worry about spellcasting and so forth.
Have you read the Beastkin Berserker?
Why would you play the shifter over this archetype?
@Steve
I think the point of contention is that many of us have looked at the shifter as logically as we can and have determined that the shifter IS poorly designed.
Many of us are curious as why anyone likes it.
Saying our dislike is not proof of poor design does not mean you have proven that it wasn't poorly designed or even be explained properly why you like it.
I can't quite parse the last paragraph. For me though I like it because I can play a 'semi-magical' martial character without having to fuss about spellcasting (or archetypes which I find an annoyingly complicated way of doing things).
What specifically do fan's of the class like about it ?I doubt it's going to be fruitful because I evaluate classes very differently from you, I suspect. For me I like the fact I can play a martial character with a kind of "bestial taint" and not have to worry about spellcasting and so forth.Have you read the Beastkin Berserker?
Why would you play the shifter over this archetype?
I don't really like barbarians - I find the concept of gaining powers via rage a bit silly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Steve
I think the point of contention is that many of us have looked at the shifter as logically as we can and have determined that the shifter IS poorly designed.
Don't get me wrong - I think analysis that has been provided (when divorced from the emotive language) is probably very useful and valuable. I just find that a lot of analysis of game design misses the mark in my case because it assumes a whole bunch of things which aren't of much value to me. Consequently, some things which receive the community tick of "good design" leave me cold whilst others which are pilloried (the mythic rules being one example alongside the corruption rules from Horror Adventures) are right up my alley.
Without being in the meetings at Paizo, it's difficult to decide whether something is good design or not - you need to know what they were aiming for before you judge whether they succeeded.
(Inter-class balance is one thing I don't particularly care about, to give one example of what I mean. When people criticise a gaming system because the martial characters are less powerful than the casters that's a plus for me - I'm much more likely to enjoy that game, even though they will probably decry it as "bad design". It's good design if you're trying to get me to play it).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was happy with the shifter - it’s not right to suggest it’s not a professionally produced product. It may be very, very different from what you wanted. You might have read the prerelease hype and formed the wrong impression as a consequence.
The hobby is big though and Paizo try to please a large number of people’s disparate tastes. Aiming their product at a group that doesn’t include you isn’t a failure of design.
The hype was certainly part of the problem, it built up an expectation, amplified ten fold by the general enthusiasm for the concept itself.
However, and speaking only for myself, that's not where I sit with the class now.
Even if there had been zero hype, zero inflated enthusiasm, I would still find the existing class lack luster and not interesting enough to play.....which is a shame both because the concept is something just begging to be done well, and I know what kind of results Paizo usually produces. IMO...this falls very short of their normal efforts.
You're definitely not alone. There are many who don't like the shifter.
My only point was that not liking something doesn't mean it's "unprofessional" or poor on some objective level. It means you don't like it. There may have been quality controls (as per the ACG) or it may have been aiming for something different than what you were looking for (the best past example of this is Horror Adventures, in my mind - there were many who didn't like the corruption mechanic but I think it works really well for what it aims to do, just not for what they were looking for).
To turn it around - I really didn't like the APG. It's one of my least favorite PF Rulebooks. Yet it wouldn't be right of me to say it was "poor" or "shoddy" or anything else. It was aiming to please a different section of the fanbase than where I sit. Total miss for me, but that isn't some objective failure - that's just a necessity when considering expansions to a game with widespread appeal.
I hear what your saying....but I don't think it's the same distinction. There are many concept's I don't care for...or don't like the direction they took the mechanics....but have no problem with the execution. Gunslinger, Paladin, Starfinder, all in one way or another....fall into that category.
This (at least to my mind) is different. The concept is of great interest....but the execution is (again IMO) really flat and lifeless. That has seldom been the case for me since switching to Pathfinder.
I suppose I could just shut up and write it off to not being designed to appeal to me....but again, that just comes across as a "please shut up and don't express disappointment"....
If you like the class, that's great.
Maybe share what you like about it and how you plan to build different character concepts from it.
But don't try to dismiss those that are disappointed. That's been almost as much of a source of vitriol as the initial disappointment ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you like the class, that's great.
Maybe share what you like about it and how you plan to build different character concepts from it.But don't try to dismiss those that are disappointed.
Can I ask if I've ever made a post you think has tried to dismiss those that are disappointed? (PM is fine if you prefer not to derail this thread with something just about me, but I'd really like an example of a specific post you think is dismissive).
I've posted a contrary view of course, but my only point has been that it's not as universal as some have portrayed it. I've tried hard to always affirm people's right to post criticism (even if I've asked them not to get heated and personal in attacking the staff).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Steve
I think the point of contention is that many of us have looked at the shifter as logically as we can and have determined that the shifter IS poorly designed.
Many of us are curious as why anyone likes it.
Saying our dislike is not proof of poor design does not mean you have proven that it wasn't poorly designed or even be explained properly why you like it.
Your singing to the choir there friend ;)
What specifically do fan's of the class like about it ?I doubt it's going to be fruitful because I evaluate classes very differently from you, I suspect. For me I like the fact I can play a martial character with a kind of "bestial taint" and not have to worry about spellcasting and so forth.
OK, that's a starting point.
So Skinwalker/Fighter....how does the Shifter do this better ?
Design Manager
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I'm curious as to why anyone likes it with all the better options available. Do people just not know of things like Beastkin Berserker, or do people actually see something I'm missing about this class that is unique/fun?
"Better" is a very subjective term. Can I make a druid or hunter that deals more damage than a shifter and has better utility? Yes, I can. Could someone who's less experienced with the game than I am, or someone who doesn't like surfing the forums for guides? Maybe, maybe not. They definitely couldn't do it without needing at least a couple books. You can't even play a druid and use wildshape without having access to a Bestiary or knowing how to navigate the reference sites online. As someone who GMs and plays in multiple games that include all kinds of players, from first day newbies to multi-decade veterans, I can tell you that there are people out there who never have and likely never will play a druid. They don't want to have to research a class for it to be good, or sift through spell lists, or cross-reference every type of animal in the Bestiary to figure out what the best ones are. They just want to spend 15 minutes making a character and play.
When you make magic easy for a player, the chance of them using it goes up. This was something I noticed very distinctly when my groups started using Spheres of Power. SoP goes away from Vancian-style slot-based mechanics and lets players build magic the same way you build a feat tree, and spend a simple pool of points to cast your spells. Players who had steadfastly refused to play wizards, druids, or clerics suddenly had an interest in expanding beyond their normal fighter, barbarian, rogue, monk, or occasional slayer and looking at characters that cast spells, because they found a version of spellcasting that was much more accessible for them. This is the same group that's going to be drawn to the shifter. It's also a group that's currently feeding into the 5E fan base.
5E is on the rise right now in a big way. I don't know how big that surge is exactly, but I can tell you that of the 13 FLGSs within driving distance of my house, all of them featured Pathfinder Society games 3 years ago and less than a handful were running 5E games. Now, 11 of those stores are running 5E organized play and only 3 of them have regular Pathfinder tables. Again, I can't speak to what that means for the larger world, but based on what I see and hear from conventions around the country and publishers in Pathfinder's 3pp community, that's a nationwide, probably worldwide trend. Pathfinder had a lot of time to take advantage of WotC's stumbling and growing pains, but now that 5E has a formula and marketing scheme that work, D&D is pushing back into that market space with a vengeance.
Pathfinder has one major weakness compared to 5E- accessibility. If you want to know how magic works in Pathfinder, you've got 40 pages of reading in the CRB supplemented by additional rules in other books. If you want to know how magic works in 5E, you need about 4 pages of reading, and half of the last page has already moved on to describing spells. Because 5E is so much simpler, it instantly has better market penetration amongst new players and players who aren't as fond of Pathfinder's depth and complexity.
Paizo, for about the last 5 years, has been slowly positioning themselves to be more attractive to that market so they can stay competitive. Just think about it- the arcanist is a training wheels caster. Best of sorcerer and wizard casting plus lots of effective class features? Easy pick for someone who wants to play a wizard but doesn't have the time to research the best way to do so. Slayer gives you a pre-optimized combat chassis that's still good at skills and isn't reliant on buffing spells to make it work. Vigilante has its social and combat abilities split up so it's always a balanced character capable of being effective in and out of combat regardless of your choices, and it takes all the "best" feat trees for the class and combines them into scaling talents. Even the occult classes are, by and large, about the same strength as their core equivalents but much more accessible and much harder to screw up. That's what the Shifter is- a class that's pretty equivalent to core classes like the barbarian or fighter, but harder to screw up. While you're wildshaped, you're probably swinging above most other martials. When you're not wildshaped, you still have some options that are close to baseline (though it might have been nice if every shifter past 6th level didn't have to go the scimitar/claw route or wield armor spikes and/or boot blades if they want to compete with optimized damage numbers). You don't need a copy of the Bestiary or an online reference guide to play a shifter, you can build one in about 10 minutes, and the options that are more technical, like the Bat aspect, call themselves out as such.
I honestly don't think a playtest would have done Paizo much good here. What they were building, and the market they were trying to reach, isn't consistent with what people who were displeased with the shifter wanted. Full wildshape requires a player to have access to multiple rules sources, and there's some room to debate how well a full BAB class with true wildshape would balance out, especially in venues like PFS or amongst newer or less system-mastery focused players. Shifter is already very strong at the entry levels; their claw damage is competitive (actually a bit better than) two-weapon fighting, and 2 levels before the switch happens and traditional full attacks start taking back the lead, the shifter gets wildshape with options like flight and pounce, which are huge game-changers. While wildshaped, it never really falls behind its core counterparts and for a significant stretch of the game stays very competitive or even has an edge. It's biggest problem is when it's compared to legacy material like the druid, which is far and away one of the strongest classes in the game, but also one of the more complex.
The changes that I think we could have maybe realistically hoped for from a playtest, like having the class offer gore and bite options in addition to the claws, increasing the number of wildshape uses the shifter gets, and/or helping their natural attacks when out of wildshape scale more effectively alongside iterative attacks without just being an extra attack you tag on at the end, might have come up in the playtest, but historically speaking it's just as likely that they would have been drowned out by a limited but vocal number of posters who would have fixated on the shifter not getting the druid's wildshape, which was likely never on the table in the first place.
Related, there was a question at the beginning of the thread related to what we can do as a community to better police ourselves and make the forums less hostile so the Paizo staff is more open to taking input and interacting with the community. As a start, reading and following the community guidelines goes a long way, and it used to be very simply summed up in one phrase- "Don't be a jerk." That's something the internet in general is not very good at, and something I've screwed up on in the past. When you give feedback, focus on true constructive criticism- saying things like "this archetype is garbage" (which I've done) or directly attacking the individual who wrote something you didn't like isn't just not helpful, it's also just being an a~*~#~~. If you have criticism, make it informed and specific- "I wish this class had wildshape like the druid, because the combination of limited forms and limited uses on a class that doesn't have spellcasting to stretch out or supplement its resources shouldn't be tied to such a small number of options", for example. Once you've presented your criticism, understand that it's a criticism from a fan/customer to a professional; there are undoubtedly things they have to take into account that you aren't aware of. Maybe they have overwhelming evidence that druid wildshape isn't something the majority of their audience wants, or market trends are indicating that complex options or options reliant on multiple books to get the full use out of them aren't selling well. Be willing to understand that just because you gave your opinion, doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be able to act on it. That doesn't mean they're ignoring you, it means your input simply wasn't significant enough to change their mind based on the goals and metrics they have set for the project.
What specifically do fan's of the class like about it ?I doubt it's going to be fruitful because I evaluate classes very differently from you, I suspect. For me I like the fact I can play a martial character with a kind of "bestial taint" and not have to worry about spellcasting and so forth.OK, that's a starting point.
So Skinwalker/Fighter....how does the Shifter do this better ?
I don't know what that is, but if it's an archetype it won't cross my mind.
To provide some context, when I create a character I roll six stats in order (usually 4d6 drop the lowest but sometimes the DM has lower or higher standards than that). I'll occasionally switch two of them, but generally I take them as is. Then I mull over what kind of character is suggested to me and I'll often flick through rulebooks looking at classes to help decide - when we play pathfinder, I nearly always just flick through the CRB and one of them jumps out at me - however, when there's been some controversy on the forums I do sometimes look further afield. We're playing starfinder at the moment, but if we were rolling up characters shifter would definitely be on the list of potentials, given the recent discussions.
That's the limit of my research in terms of classes - I don't hunt through looking for the best way to fulfill some pre-determined character concept. I start with the stats and let the character build from there. Generally I go stats-class-culture since I nearly always play human, although occasionally the culture choice will be some non-human race.
Skinwalker/Fighter just wouldn't crop up as a possibility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you like the class, that's great.
Maybe share what you like about it and how you plan to build different character concepts from it.But don't try to dismiss those that are disappointed.
Can I ask if I've ever made a post you think has tried to dismiss those that are disappointed? (PM is fine if you prefer not to derail this thread with something just about me, but I'd really like an example of a specific post you think is dismissive).
I've posted a contrary view of course, but my only point has been that it's not as universal as some have portrayed it. I've tried hard to always affirm people's right to post criticism (even if I've asked them not to get heated and personal in attacking the staff).
I don't think many people "try" to dismiss peoples points of views.
I think it comes naturally to most people...without consciouse planning or thought.In some way's, that's the point of the OP....;)
And for the record, I think you always try to be careful and respectful in your comments and replies....which I both respect and appreciate ;)
And in all fairness, the majority of the critics of the class have not in any way, shape, or form, Implied that their perceptions are universal (and please don't disappoint me by trying to find some fool that did). The crux of the matter is, if someone posts a criticism, either clarify why their specific perception may be in error.....or step back and allow them their disappointment ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Steve
I think the point of contention is that many of us have looked at the shifter as logically as we can and have determined that the shifter IS poorly designed.
Don't get me wrong - I think analysis that has been provided (when divorced from the emotive language) is probably very useful and valuable. I just find that a lot of analysis of game design misses the mark in my case because it assumes a whole bunch of things which aren't of much value to me. Consequently, some things which receive the community tick of "good design" leave me cold whilst others which are pilloried (the mythic rules being one example alongside the corruption rules from Horror Adventures) are right up my alley.
Without being in the meetings at Paizo, it's difficult to decide whether something is good design or not - you need to know what they were aiming for before you judge whether they succeeded.
(Inter-class balance is one thing I don't particularly care about, to give one example of what I mean. When people criticise a gaming system because the martial characters are less powerful than the casters that's a plus for me - I'm much more likely to enjoy that game, even though they will probably decry it as "bad design". It's good design if you're trying to get me to play it).
Mechanically, I don't weigh the shifter's class abilities more useful than the weapon and armor profs of the NPC class warrior.
I doubt their design goal was "an NPC class" but that's what they delivered.
I find CRB rogue, CRB monk, and CRB only fighter to be far better classes.
I find the shifter to be an objectively terrible adventuring partner and I've personally seen how little fun playing characters with terrible mechanics can be.
I don't believe the problems with the shifter are merely personal preference. I believe this is the worse class mechanically in Pathfinder except for expert and commoner. I believe the class's worth next to warrior is, at best, debatable.
I don't know what that is, but if it's an archetype it won't cross my mind.
To provide some context, when I create a character I roll six stats in order (usually 4d6 drop the lowest but sometimes the DM has lower or higher standards than that). I'll occasionally switch two of them, but generally I take them as is. Then I mull over what kind of character is suggested to me and I'll often flick through rulebooks looking at classes to help decide - when we play pathfinder, I nearly always just flick through the CRB and one of them jumps out at me - however, when there's been some controversy on the forums I do sometimes look further afield. We're playing starfinder at the moment, but if we were rolling up characters shifter would definitely be on the list of potentials, given the recent discussions.
That's the limit of my research in terms of classes - I don't hunt through looking for the best way to fulfill some pre-determined character concept. I start with the stats and let the character build from there. Generally I go stats-class-culture since I nearly always play human, although occasionally the culture choice will be some non-human race.
Skinwalker/Fighter just wouldn't crop up as a possibility.
Skinwalker is one of the playable races....you have 2 1D4 claw attacks, and can shapeshift into bestial aspects prior to even taking a class. Fighter gives you full BA....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And in all fairness, the majority of the critics of the class have not in any way, shape, or form, Implied that their perceptions are universal (and please don't disappoint me by trying to find some fool that did).
Maybe it's a cultural thing (I'm not an American and I'm pretty old) but it seems to me that a lot of the criticism has been phrased in terms of "It's not just that I don't like it, it's genuinely poor" or similar.
That does seem to me like some claim of objectivity to the critique, but I'm happy to put it down to me misreading it, if you think there's an implied "in my opinion" at the end of it.
Skinwalker is one of the playable races....you have 2 1D4 claw attacks, and can shapeshift into bestial aspects prior to even taking a class. Fighter gives you full BA....I don't know what that is, but if it's an archetype it won't cross my mind.
To provide some context, when I create a character I roll six stats in order (usually 4d6 drop the lowest but sometimes the DM has lower or higher standards than that). I'll occasionally switch two of them, but generally I take them as is. Then I mull over what kind of character is suggested to me and I'll often flick through rulebooks looking at classes to help decide - when we play pathfinder, I nearly always just flick through the CRB and one of them jumps out at me - however, when there's been some controversy on the forums I do sometimes look further afield. We're playing starfinder at the moment, but if we were rolling up characters shifter would definitely be on the list of potentials, given the recent discussions.
That's the limit of my research in terms of classes - I don't hunt through looking for the best way to fulfill some pre-determined character concept. I start with the stats and let the character build from there. Generally I go stats-class-culture since I nearly always play human, although occasionally the culture choice will be some non-human race.
Skinwalker/Fighter just wouldn't crop up as a possibility.
Oh yeah, if it's a race I wouldn't use anything except for human, half-elf, half-orc or elf.
I don't have an objection in principle to the Skinwalker/Fighter - I just wouldn't think of it.
But they didn't. They still got cake. (...)
Well, some of them did.
To continue torturing the cake metaphor, some people wanted what the shifter is today, some people think the class is perfectly fine. For them the class is a delicious cake.
Some people wanted roughly what the shifter is, but think that for various reasons the class doesn't really work out very well. For them the shifter is still a cake - it's bland, slightly burnt, maybe frozen on the inside, but still cake.
Finally, some people wanted a shifter that's fundamentally different from what the end result was - for them the class fails completely and doesn't even remotely encompass what "shifter" means. For them, the class isn't cake, it's meat loaf. The two are superficially similar (both are baked, both deal with shapeshifting) but as soon as you take a bite, you realize this is not even remotely close what you thought you ordered.
I'm not going to speculate on what the ratio is between the three groups, but I can say I consider myself in the last group. The idea that a level 20 shifter can't shapeshift into a fraction of the forms that a level 4 druid can is baffling to me. The fact that a level 20 shifter can only shapeshift 8 times a day is... Well, disappointing, to say the least.
Again, if the Shifter had been released as part of an "unchained druid" where they break the druid into multiple classes (wildshape druid (~shifter), animal companion druid (~hunter) and caster druid (~nature oracle)), a simplified druid for the second edition Beginner Box or even part of the Strategy Guide I would have been fine with it. When it's presented as a viable alternative to the druid and myriad of existing shapeshifting options already available, I find it grossly lacking.
That isn't dismissive, as an aside. It is more of what my expectations were and how they were fulfilled. I recognize that others weren't as happy and are hoping for a fix, a retraction, an apology, or at the very least an explanation of where things deviated between expectations and reality.
Don't worry, I didn't find it dismissive in the slightest. :)
And in all fairness, the majority of the critics of the class have not in any way, shape, or form, Implied that their perceptions are universal (and please don't disappoint me by trying to find some fool that did).Maybe it's a cultural thing (I'm not an American and I'm pretty old) but it seems to me that a lot of the criticism has been phrased in terms of "It's not just that I don't like it, it's genuinely poor" or similar.
That does seem to me like some claim of objectivity to the critique, but I'm happy to put it down to me misreading it, if you think there's an implied "in my opinion" at the end of it.
OP....AGE CHALLENGE.....53 :P
I'm also an immigrant....LIVING in America (Scots/Irish.....that should speak volumes)
@Steve
I think the point of contention is that many of us have looked at the shifter as logically as we can and have determined that the shifter IS poorly designed.
Don't get me wrong - I think analysis that has been provided (when divorced from the emotive language) is probably very useful and valuable. I just find that a lot of analysis of game design misses the mark in my case because it assumes a whole bunch of things which aren't of much value to me. Consequently, some things which receive the community tick of "good design" leave me cold whilst others which are pilloried (the mythic rules being one example alongside the corruption rules from Horror Adventures) are right up my alley.
Without being in the meetings at Paizo, it's difficult to decide whether something is good design or not - you need to know what they were aiming for before you judge whether they succeeded.
(Inter-class balance is one thing I don't particularly care about, to give one example of what I mean. When people criticise a gaming system because the martial characters are less powerful than the casters that's a plus for me - I'm much more likely to enjoy that game, even though they will probably decry it as "bad design". It's good design if you're trying to get me to play it).
Mechanically, I don't weigh the shifter's class abilities more useful than the weapon and armor profs of the NPC class warrior.
I doubt their design goal was "an NPC class" but that's what they delivered.
I find CRB rogue, CRB monk, and CRB only fighter to be far better classes.
I find the shifter to be an objectively terrible adventuring partner and I've personally seen how little fun playing characters with terrible mechanics can be.
I don't believe the problems with the shifter are merely personal preference. I believe this is the worse class mechanically in Pathfinder except for expert and commoner. I believe the classes worth next to warrior is, at best, debatable.
Like I say - I'm sure analysis like that is useful. It's just not relevant to me. I doubt Paizo were aiming for a PC class at an equivalent level to an NPC class (although in fairness, I've seen that claim disputed by other people who know the mechanics well, I'm just not equipped to argue the point).
When you say "I don't believe the problems with the shifter are merely personal preference" what I'm suggesting is that whether one class being weaker than others is a problem is itself a personal preference - not whether that's actually the case with the shifter.
And in all fairness, the majority of the critics of the class have not in any way, shape, or form, Implied that their perceptions are universal (and please don't disappoint me by trying to find some fool that did).Maybe it's a cultural thing (I'm not an American and I'm pretty old) but it seems to me that a lot of the criticism has been phrased in terms of "It's not just that I don't like it, it's genuinely poor" or similar.
That does seem to me like some claim of objectivity to the critique, but I'm happy to put it down to me misreading it, if you think there's an implied "in my opinion" at the end of it.
OP....AGE CHALLENGE.....53 :P
I'm also an immigrant....LIVING in America (Scots/Irish.....that should speak volumes)
Okay - maybe the problem is I'm too young. :p
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skinwalker is one of the playable races....you have 2 1D4 claw attacks, and can shapeshift into bestial aspects prior to even taking a class. Fighter gives you full BA....I don't know what that is, but if it's an archetype it won't cross my mind.
To provide some context, when I create a character I roll six stats in order (usually 4d6 drop the lowest but sometimes the DM has lower or higher standards than that). I'll occasionally switch two of them, but generally I take them as is. Then I mull over what kind of character is suggested to me and I'll often flick through rulebooks looking at classes to help decide - when we play pathfinder, I nearly always just flick through the CRB and one of them jumps out at me - however, when there's been some controversy on the forums I do sometimes look further afield. We're playing starfinder at the moment, but if we were rolling up characters shifter would definitely be on the list of potentials, given the recent discussions.
That's the limit of my research in terms of classes - I don't hunt through looking for the best way to fulfill some pre-determined character concept. I start with the stats and let the character build from there. Generally I go stats-class-culture since I nearly always play human, although occasionally the culture choice will be some non-human race.
Skinwalker/Fighter just wouldn't crop up as a possibility.
Oh yeah, if it's a race I wouldn't use anything except for human, half-elf, half-orc or elf.
I don't have an objection in principle to the Skinwalker/Fighter - I just wouldn't think of it.
Well then that would DEFINITELY impact your view of the class. If your only aware of limited options, your expectation is going to be very different than mine. As I have said a couple of times...I have fallen into a habit of just buying everything Paizo does site unseen....except the Kobold book....I don't care for Kobolds....
Okay - maybe the problem is I'm too young. :pAnd in all fairness, the majority of the critics of the class have not in any way, shape, or form, Implied that their perceptions are universal (and please don't disappoint me by trying to find some fool that did).Maybe it's a cultural thing (I'm not an American and I'm pretty old) but it seems to me that a lot of the criticism has been phrased in terms of "It's not just that I don't like it, it's genuinely poor" or similar.
That does seem to me like some claim of objectivity to the critique, but I'm happy to put it down to me misreading it, if you think there's an implied "in my opinion" at the end of it.
OP....AGE CHALLENGE.....53 :P
I'm also an immigrant....LIVING in America (Scots/Irish.....that should speak volumes)
OH no you don't....now I need to know what you judge as old :P
EDIT: Keeping in mind that as a non-American, I can invoke respect for Elders :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Better" is a very subjective term. <snip>
The thing is, many of the issues people have with the shifter have nothing to do with it being simple or accessible or not. Constantly referencing the Shifter as being an 'easy' class as if that forgives all of its shortcomings almost feels like a misrepresentation at this point.
Being forced to stay shifted all day at low levels or risk losing out on one of your main class features has nothing to do with simplicity (and in fact trying to judge how to best mitigate that can be very complicated).
Having forms that vary wildly in power with certain options being orders of magnitude better than others in combat is not an issue of simplicity.
Not being able to effectively leverage those more utility options by being heavily constrained on daily uses is not an issue of simplicity.
Having the class run out of new things to give the player at a comparatively low level is not an issue of simplicity.
Low build diversity arguably can be a matter of simplicity, but it certainly doesn't have to.
And so on and so forth.
Your own examples of the Arcanist and Vigilante seem to undermine your position even, given that you describe both of those classes as accessible and yet they still both managed to be nuanced and involved enough to not discourage other players in the way the Shifter does.
That clearly shows you can create an accessible class without creating one with an overtly narrow focus or hamstrung progression. It's not a zero sum game.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Inter-class balance is one thing I don't particularly care about, to give one example of what I mean. When people criticise a gaming system because the martial characters are less powerful than the casters that's a plus for me - I'm much more likely to enjoy that game, even though they will probably decry it as "bad design". It's good design if you're trying to get me to play it).
That I can fully agree with (at least within reason).
I expect a caster to outstrip a fighter, at higher levels.
I'm not a member of the "why can't maritials have fun things" squad.
That said...the Shifter was specifically, and repeatedly billed as being "to the Druid, what the Paladin is to the Cleric".
And in my opinion....that is not even arguably what we got.
The Paladin has reduced spellcasting, and greatly increased melee capability.
The Shifter has zero spell casting, and reduced melee capability.
Sure they have full BA....extremely hard to use when iterative attacks are not an option. Their wildshaping has a slight bump (beast shape 2 instead of 1), but is locked into a much smaller range of forms. And at the limited duration is a small portion of your adventuring day.
For most of an adventuring day....you are someone with claws. Which can be done with any number of races, prior to choosing a class.
Sure the claws scale over time....and you can bypass DR like a monk...but at a slower rate than a Monks unarmed strikes damage...and still no iterative attacks...so the increased BA is meaningless for the most part.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of really good stuff that's way too comprehensive for me to repeat in a quote.
If the main goal was for the Shifter to be a new user-friendly but much less powerful class than a druid, I'd say the marketing and the way the product is represented is only part of the problem. The difference between the shifter and the other classes you mentioned is that while the arcanist, the slayer and the vigilante are all roughly equal to other classes with a similar schtick, the Shifter is objectively much worse at its class-defining feature than the competition.
It may be a good fit for a newbie playing Pathfinder for the first time, but if someone hands him a pregen sheet at PFS and he's seated next to someone playing a druid he's still going to have a bad time. "Oh, you have a bear companion? That's cool, but I can turn into a bear!"
"Wait, you can shapeshift into a bear AND a shark? But I'm playing a shifter! Why can't I do that?"
"You can summon bears too?!?"
"Wait, there are seven bear tokens on the map now, which one am I again?"
"...Okay, so now you're a bear riding a bear into battle while summoning more bears? Well, that's cool. You know what, I think I'm going to go look at the comics..."
You may be right about the playtest, but I definitely think the end result would have been better than what we had. If Paizo had been clear by explaining their reasoning and outlining design goals for the class from the start, they could still have gathered some useful feedback. Kick it off with something like: : "We want to make the shifter feel awesome and fun while keeping it less complicated than wildshape, since our feedback over the years indicate that new players find druids off-putting. How can we make this master of shapeshifting feel distinct and enjoyable, without making it feel too complex?"
As a quick and dirty example, change the baseline limits on shift/day wouldn't dramatically impact the power of the class but would make it feel very different from a wildshape druid and a million times more fun to play. Instead of limiting players to 1 shift/day (hope we don't have to climb any ladders again today, my stag friend!) let them shift for 10/20/30 min/level (or whatever amount feels appropriate after playtesting it) and let them shift back and forth between their aspects as they choose. IE Druids have a huge list of options to shift into, but the shifter can shift back and forth whenever it's convenient. Massive quality of life improvement, and something not easily replicated by another class.
Heck, maybe allow mid-level shifters to switch between major aspects as a swift action. How cool would it be to fly over a wall of fire as a falcon and then shapeshift in mid-air to land as a bear and proceed to eat your opponent, all in the same round? I've always wanted to do an actual RAWRBomb in-game.
Making Pathfinder more approachable for new players is a worthy goal, but Paizo needs to go about doing it the right way. Chasing new customers while ignoring the frustration of your existing customer base is a great way to see your game go down the drain. I've seen it happen in the past with PC games (SWG New Game Experience anyone?) and I'd hate to see Pathfinder turn down the same way. :(
|
Design Manager
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Better" is a very subjective term. <snip>The thing is, many of the issues people have with the shifter have nothing to do with it being simple or accessible or not. Constantly referencing the Shifter as being an 'easy' class as if that forgives all of its shortcomings almost feels like a misrepresentation at this point.
[...]
That clearly shows you can create an accessible class without creating one with an overtly narrow focus or hamstrung progression. It's not a zero sum game.
Except neither arcanist nor vigilante were particularly well received. The Pathfinder Facebook community is stuffed with people who think the vigilante is terrible and "arcanist broken" gets you pages of hits.
And how terrible the shifter actually is compared to its intended counterparts like the fighter and barbarian is still a matter of some debate. Do I think it could have used twice as many uses of wildshape? Absolutely. Would I have given it something other than just claws as a natural attack option? Yeah, if for no other reason than that I'm sure there are some stag and frog shifters who are very confused about why they have wolverine claws.
But when you look at specific complaints, one of the major ones is that it doesn't have druid wildshape, which as I mentioned would be incompatible with the goal of a simple class, and the only other one that seems to be specific enough to address is that their claws don't scale with iteratives; I mentioned that I would do that differently too, but there are ways to work with that within the existing framework.
How big an issue low build diversity actually is... Well, I disagree that some forms being better at combat than others is an issue. Having two native natural attacks is equivalent to/better than two-weapon fighting for the entire stretch until the shifter gets an extra form. Two options is enough for a combat form and a utility form, and they get that in a timely fashion. It is definitely an issue that they don't have more uses of wildshape so they can actually leverage their multiple forms, but that's the kind of thing that could quickly and easily be fixed in an errata if the information were presented in a convincing and polite manner.
There are tons of posts out there where even the politest isn't at all useful to a designer. For example, just above here-
Mechanically, I don't weigh the shifter's class abilities more useful than the weapon and armor profs of the NPC class warrior.
I doubt their design goal was "an NPC class" but that's what they delivered.
I find CRB rogue, CRB monk, and CRB only fighter to be far better classes.
I find the shifter to be an objectively terrible adventuring partner and I've personally seen how little fun playing characters with terrible mechanics can be.
I don't believe the problems with the shifter are merely personal preference. I believe this is the worse class mechanically in Pathfinder except for expert and commoner. I believe the class's worth next to warrior is, at best, debatable.
Nice post, right? Explains that the individual has issues with the class and thinks it's weak, presented without impugning the dignity or intelligence of the writer. What that post doesn't do is provide anything actionable. That post does nothing for a designer other than let them know that someone didn't like their class. It doesn't touch on a single reason why the poster thinks the shifter isn't as good as a CRB fighter, monk, or rogue, doesn't explain a single issue they have with the class. And that post is actually amongst the more reasonable and thoughtful criticisms I've seen since the class came out. If a post that provides absolutely no insight into how the poster came to their opinion is one of the better posts on the subject, how are the designers even supposed to get the chance to see any relevant and actionable feedback?
I have nothing to base the following statement off of other than my experience with the people at Paizo, but I strongly suspect that if, when the shifter came out, there had been less hate-spamming and more focus on realistic positive tweaks to the existing class, we wouldn't have to try very hard to push for them to bump up the uses of wild shape. A few concise posts consisting of actionable feedback like-
"Hello! I just picked up my copy of Ultimate Wilderness and I have some concerns about the shifter. The class seems very reliant on its wild shape for both offense and utility, but it gets so few uses of wild shape that it's almost like I have to pick whether I want to be helpful as a scout or in combat on any given day" might have actually made a difference. Same thing with the natural attacks- "Hey Paizo devs, I notice that the shifter only ever gets two claw attacks outside of wild shape for his entire lifespan. That's great at low levels, but I'm in an 11th level game right now and the only time I'm competitive in combat is when I'm wildshaped, which I can't do very often. How did you expect shifter players to keep up their damage?"
There might have even actually been posts like that, but I suspect most of them got missed as the Paizo team was scrambling to figure out how to mitigate the campaign of hate reviews and keep this reaction from putting their business and employees at risk. Sifting through all of that feedback would be all but impossible, and incredibly emotionally draining for anyone who had to do it. I guarantee you no one at Paizo was sitting behind their desk cackling about how badly they were going to screw their fans over this time. They had to believe that they were putting out something that was going to appeal to the people they wanted it to appeal to, and which met their standards. That means that either they missed something, or the fans did, or maybe a combination of the two, and reaching a satisfying conclusion means bridging that gap. That requires data, even if it's just anecdotal, and a willingness to understand that even if the end result isn't something you absolutely wanted, it's still worthwhile, just different.
Okay - maybe the problem is I'm too young. :pAnd in all fairness, the majority of the critics of the class have not in any way, shape, or form, Implied that their perceptions are universal (and please don't disappoint me by trying to find some fool that did).Maybe it's a cultural thing (I'm not an American and I'm pretty old) but it seems to me that a lot of the criticism has been phrased in terms of "It's not just that I don't like it, it's genuinely poor" or similar.
That does seem to me like some claim of objectivity to the critique, but I'm happy to put it down to me misreading it, if you think there's an implied "in my opinion" at the end of it.
OP....AGE CHALLENGE.....53 :P
I'm also an immigrant....LIVING in America (Scots/Irish.....that should speak volumes)
OH no you don't....now I need to know what you judge as old :P
EDIT: Keeping in mind that as a non-American, I can invoke respect for Elders :P
I'm 47. To me over forty is old, under thirty is kid.
Well then that would DEFINITELY impact your view of the class. If your only aware of limited options, your expectation is going to be very different than mine. As I have said a couple of times...I have fallen into a habit of just buying everything Paizo does site unseen....except the Kobold book....I don't care for Kobolds....Skinwalker is one of the playable races....you have 2 1D4 claw attacks, and can shapeshift into bestial aspects prior to even taking a class. Fighter gives you full BA....I don't know what that is, but if it's an archetype it won't cross my mind.
To provide some context, when I create a character I roll six stats in order (usually 4d6 drop the lowest but sometimes the DM has lower or higher standards than that). I'll occasionally switch two of them, but generally I take them as is. Then I mull over what kind of character is suggested to me and I'll often flick through rulebooks looking at classes to help decide - when we play pathfinder, I nearly always just flick through the CRB and one of them jumps out at me - however, when there's been some controversy on the forums I do sometimes look further afield. We're playing starfinder at the moment, but if we were rolling up characters shifter would definitely be on the list of potentials, given the recent discussions.
That's the limit of my research in terms of classes - I don't hunt through looking for the best way to fulfill some pre-determined character concept. I start with the stats and let the character build from there. Generally I go stats-class-culture since I nearly always play human, although occasionally the culture choice will be some non-human race.
Skinwalker/Fighter just wouldn't crop up as a possibility.
Oh yeah, if it's a race I wouldn't use anything except for human, half-elf, half-orc or elf.
I don't have an objection in principle to the Skinwalker/Fighter - I just wouldn't think of it.
I'm kind of aware of them (I also have everything paizo has produced and multiple copies of many of them) - it's just that I buy books mainly for world-lore and for my players.
Non-CRB options don't generally get considered when rolling up a character unless there's been some chatter on the forums that catches my eye.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guarantee you no one at Paizo was sitting behind their desk cackling about how badly they were going to screw their fans over this time.
Well, not cackling, but the designer of the Oozemorph has said they made it bad on purpose to make you want to not be an Ooze, so...
Mitigating the "campaign of hate" is actually the easy part....and at the same time the part that requires the most finesse.
The problem for many people is that the end result is not worthwhile.
I can put aside that it's not what I wanted, or expected.
But the end result is actually more like the 3.5 Sorcerer...
Something you dip into until you qualify for a PrC, or multiclass out of as soon as possible.
That's the problem.