Courageous increases the heroism bonus by 2.No it doesn't.
Ever since the whole SLA is then isn't caster level FAQs, I've treated them as RAI.
As in, if they counter RAW, then FAQs are merely suggested house rules.
The FAQ in question even admits my interpretation is the current RAW.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Courageous increases the heroism bonus by 2.No it doesn't.Ever since the whole SLA is then isn't caster level FAQs, I've treated them as RAI.
As in, if they counter RAW, then FAQs are merely suggested house rules.
The FAQ in question even admits my interpretation is the current RAW.
Which then proceeds to state an errata, making said FAQ no longer a "suggested houserule," but instead the new rule from now on.
I think we're starting to zero in on the reason why people are questioning your position if you think FAQs aren't official rulings.
As a rule of thumb, if I can't picture playing a class without UMD, it's bad.
Oozemorph can output +31/31/31/31 for 1d8+30, 1d6+30, 1d6+30 as a Rock Troll by herself without heroism or haste with an AC of 39 using fullplate and a shield (removes one claw attack)
Barbarians don't need UMD. Neither do gunslingers, slayers, swashbucklers, or Fighters. Even core fighters didn't need UMD to pump their numbers to acceptable levels.
Courageous increases the heroism bonus by 2.No it doesn't.Ever since the whole SLA is then isn't caster level FAQs, I've treated them as RAI.
As in, if they counter RAW, then FAQs are merely suggested house rules.
The FAQ in question even admits my interpretation is the current RAW.
Which then proceeds to state an errata, making said FAQ no longer a "suggested houserule," but instead the new rule from now on.
I think we're starting to zero in on the reason why people are questioning your position if you think FAQs aren't official rulings.
The errata is not in print or the prd. It hasn't been completely approved yet and is subject to change.
FAQs are also subject to change and do (see early prestige class access with SLAs). They may be what you use in PFS but they are not RAW nor are they official until the PRD is updated.
FAQs are only official rulings when they clarify the correct way to read RAW. Otherwise they are suggested houserules.
If Paizo wanted their FAQs to be trusted they shouldn't have ever applied errata to an FAQ. I don't care what the dev feels like the rules should have been on a given day. Especially when those feelings change.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Courageous increases the heroism bonus by 2.No it doesn't.Ever since the whole SLA is then isn't caster level FAQs, I've treated them as RAI.
As in, if they counter RAW, then FAQs are merely suggested house rules.
The FAQ in question even admits my interpretation is the current RAW.
FAQs are official, especially when they say they are official and are going to be errata. Now sure, feel free to feel how you want and play as you want. But if you're discussing stuff for the game at large you need to be going off the full official rules and not your rules.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The errata is not in print or the prd.
The PRD is limited to the print runs for errata. It regularly and consistently shows incorrect and contradictory information for material that is in multiple book. AS such, using the PRD for the basis for validity of rulings is suspect at best. The 3rd party web sites consistently have more accurate info that this site.
RAW > dev feelings
When it comes to discussing the game at large.
No one should be expected to ignore the rules as written because the devs mis-answered a question.
But that isn't the case here. This FAQ clarifies what they meant but also clarifies what the words actually said.
The errata is not in print or the prd.The PRD is limited to the print runs for errata. It regularly and consistently shows incorrect and contradictory information for material that is in multiple book. AS such, using the PRD for the basis for validity of rulings is suspect at best. The 3rd party web sites consistently have more accurate info that this site.
The PRD always takes priority over 3rd party sites when applicable for what the official rules are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The PRD always takes priority over 3rd party sites when applicable for what the official rules are.
The PRD is intentionally designed to be inconsistent and misleading because of being anchored to print runs. They purposely ignore fixing material that they know needs it because it isn't near it's print run. As such, the PRD is the LAST source you should look at for accuracy. Add to that the glacial rate of updating and I can't see why anyone would hold it up as THE place to find RAW as you're more likely to find known incorrect information if you don't know which book was updated last: this is opposed to the 3rd party sites that don't keep legacy material that's know to be incorrect and updates on a far more regular basis.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The boundary between FAQs and Errata has blurred somewhat. If a book is unlikely to receive a new printing in the near future (in which the new errata could be codified in text) they pretty much just use FAQs to change things in the way errata has done in the past.
It's not necessarily ideal, but it works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The boundary between FAQs and Errata has blurred somewhat.
Yep. For as long as I can remember, they've been using FAQ's in place of errata because of the self imposed limitations on actual errata: print runs.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ/errata chat here notwithstanding guys, this particular case actually was already included in the errata. My 2nd printing I'm using at work right now has the unambiguous text.
FAQ/errata chat here notwithstanding guys, this particular case actually was already included in the errata. My 2nd printing I'm using at work right now has the unambiguous text.
Fair enough
FAQ/errata chat here notwithstanding guys, this particular case actually was already included in the errata. My 2nd printing I'm using at work right now has the unambiguous text.
The text isn't ambiguous. "Any" means any. Let's not pretend that this errata is anything other than a nerf, like 90% of Paizo's erratas as of late.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Courageous increases the heroism bonus by 2.No it doesn't.Ever since the whole SLA is then isn't caster level FAQs, I've treated them as RAI.
As in, if they counter RAW, then FAQs are merely suggested house rules.
The FAQ in question even admits my interpretation is the current RAW.
Which then proceeds to state an errata, making said FAQ no longer a "suggested houserule," but instead the new rule from now on.
I think we're starting to zero in on the reason why people are questioning your position if you think FAQs aren't official rulings.
The errata is not in print or the prd. It hasn't been completely approved yet and is subject to change.
FAQs are also subject to change and do (see early prestige class access with SLAs). They may be what you use in PFS but they are not RAW nor are they official until the PRD is updated.
FAQs are only official rulings when they clarify the correct way to read RAW. Otherwise they are suggested houserules.
If Paizo wanted their FAQs to be trusted they shouldn't have ever applied errata to an FAQ. I don't care what the dev feels like the rules should have been on a given day. Especially when those feelings change.
The errata is, in fact, in print. The Ultimate Equipment product has an Errata PDF download that says the change of the FAQ, which is automatically applied to newly printed hardcovers.
Sure they are, but it's been over a year since this FAQ, and it hasn't been changed like, for example, the Haste FAQs were.
No, they are the utmost authority of official, compared to even Developers like Mark Seifter or James Nelson, who pop in occasionally to provide insight to their design philosophy behind certain options. (Thanks for the backup on the source by the way Mr. Seifter.)
That's more of a personal problem with how Paizo does cleanup on their products (which I can understand and sympathize with) and less of a "this is what the rule actually is" argument, and it is by and large irrelevant to how most everyone currently runs the weapon property now.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ/errata chat here notwithstanding guys, this particular case actually was already included in the errata. My 2nd printing I'm using at work right now has the unambiguous text.The text isn't ambiguous. "Any" means any. Let's not pretend that this errata is anything other than a nerf, like 90% of Paizo's erratas as of late.
I read it as most likely falling the way you and Rhedyn did, as did many players, GMs, and rules folks. Many others read it the other way, including many players, GMs, and rules folks. That's pretty much the definition of ambiguous.
At this point I've written enough rules and seen alternative interpretations of so many of them that I've come to realize that no matter how tight I think the wording might be, ambiguity is something I can only measure by seeing how the readers interpret it, rather than as an intrinsic quality of the text. The trickiest things time and again are anaphora reference and scoping (particularly splitting conjunctions), like "You get a +1 bonus on all checks against evil humanoids and monstrous humanoids" does it mean Evil (humanoids and monstrous humanoids) or (Evil humanoids) and monstrous humanoids. Scoping is almost certainly the culprit for the "any" case as well.
But this is a digression off a digression from the thread topic. Sorry everyone!
I do not believe oozemorphs qualify for multiattack since the attacks are temporary and I do not remember any abilities having the magic item 24 hour clause.
Now that logic is used for putting ranks in fly, but I'm not sure about this. Many others even question if PCs can take monster feats at all (I don't).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Add "does the Oozemorph qualify for Multiattack" to the ten million things I'd like to understand better about the Oozemorph.
I guess the question comes down to what you mean by "forming natural weapons". Like would balling a fist or unsheathing your claws also be "forming a natural weapon"? Do you need to have three or more natural weapon attacks at all times to qualify for multiattack (e.g. could a druid take it for use while wild-shaped even if they have no natural attacks in their base form) or is it something you can take and have it not function when you don't have the prerequisite.
Sometimes my inability to wrap my head around something which is ostensibly a "simple" or "entry-level" class just makes me feel sad about how little I understand the game compared to what I thought I did.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not believe oozemorphs qualify for multiattack since the attacks are temporary and I do not remember any abilities having the magic item 24 hour clause.
A brawler is allowed to take feats that build off their temporary two weapon fighting feat, so I can't see any issue with morphic weapons and multiattack. Fly seems to be the standard for things like this, requiring you "possess a reliable means" of having the requirement every day and not having it for 24hr straight.
Even if you don't qualify for Multiattack, the secondary Morphic Weapons are at +26/+26/+26/+26, which still makes for 8 attacks per melee starting at lvl 16.I do not believe oozemorphs qualify for multiattack since the attacks are temporary and I do not remember any abilities having the magic item 24 hour clause.
Now that logic is used for putting ranks in fly, but I'm not sure about this. Many others even question if PCs can take monster feats at all (I don't).
True, but they would only do 1d8+17 damage per hit.
Since your weapon would be one-handed to make use of a shield, then your +5 keen scimitar hits +31/26/21/16 for 1d8+30 damage at a 15-20 crit range.
Rough math (4.5+30)*4 vs .75(4.5+17)*4 + (4.5+30)(1+.75+.50+.25)
Yes, your idea comes out ahead when not considering crits in a relative DPR situation.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
FAQ/errata chat here notwithstanding guys, this particular case actually was already included in the errata. My 2nd printing I'm using at work right now has the unambiguous text.The text isn't ambiguous. "Any" means any. Let's not pretend that this errata is anything other than a nerf, like 90% of Paizo's erratas as of late.I read it as most likely falling the way you and Rhedyn did, as did many players, GMs, and rules folks. Many others read it the other way, including many players, GMs, and rules folks. That's pretty much the definition of ambiguous.
At this point I've written enough rules and seen alternative interpretations of so many of them that I've come to realize that no matter how tight I think the wording might be, ambiguity is something I can only measure by seeing how the readers interpret it, rather than as an intrinsic quality of the text. The trickiest things time and again are anaphora reference and scoping (particularly splitting conjunctions), like "You get a +1 bonus on all checks against evil humanoids and monstrous humanoids" does it mean Evil (humanoids and monstrous humanoids) or (Evil humanoids) and monstrous humanoids. Scoping is almost certainly the culprit for the "any" case as well.
But this is a digression off a digression from the thread topic. Sorry everyone!
Let's be honest here, the only reason people read it in any other way is because they thought it was overpowered and tried to justify their bias. The FAQ itself alludes to this. To be fair, Paizo generally cultivates such a bias by continually nerfing options beloved by martial characters, hence the well known phrase, "Martials can't have nice things."
And while it may seem "off topic," this issue of Martial characters being continually hamstrung by Paizo is literally the same thing we are seeing here with the Shifter.
A Druid has spells, an animal companion, wildshape, and even a couple of immunities built directly into their class. The Shifter has no spells, no animal companion, no built in immunities, and their Wild Shape is limited to 5 choices chosen off of a list of 12. No Elemental Body, no Plant Shape; they can't even access higher levels of Beast Shape!
The rest of it's class features are a smattering of hand-me-downs from other classes, and each is generally filled to the brim with one restriction or another. So really this is just another in a long line of examples from Paizo that seem to say yet again, "Martials can't have nice things."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like oozemorphs more because they have unlimited* forms.
The whole aspect limited shifting suckkkkkkssssss
I do not believe oozemorphs qualify for multiattack since the attacks are temporary and I do not remember any abilities having the magic item 24 hour clause.
is there any requirement that you have to have the attacks permanently to qualify for the feat? It just says you have to have them.
Of course, the feat shuts off when they're not on but then its kind of irrelevant at that point...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are 3 things that specifically made me upset (not angry, just disappointed) when reading this class(that I was Really REAALLY Looking forward to). First was that the minor Aspects for what they are, weren't A) just passive effects and B) had Minutes per day time limits....
Second was that Chimeric Aspect doesn't affect the Major Shapes (I wanted to be an ACTUAL Chimera, not just a humanoid with different minor abilities)....
And Lastly that Wild Shape At-Will isn't given at 20th like with the Druid....
Another thing I am Just now realizing, why isn't there an ability between Final Aspect and Greater Chimeric Aspect(which would then be renamed to Improved) for Four Aspects at the same time.... This could even cause Chimeric and Greater Chimeric to be pushed down in level, perhaps. Like 8th, 12th, 16th, 20th. Though... that is if it is left at being Minor Aspects, if Major, I would have no care at all about this last thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a Shifter with a racial natural attack (e.g. a bite attack) can qualify for multiattack (because they can have two claws by spending a swift action they don't have a ton of use for) then so should an oozemorph once they're getting 3 attacks from morphic weaponry.
Since qualifying for the feat shouldn't be about the difference between a swift and a move action to get your unlimited duration natural attacks.
Just for the sake of the ancient underlying math, full BAB carries a price that must be paid. And Shifter paid it like this.
It is also interwoven in just how unintuitive and clumsy polymorph rules are, or how natural attacks can't escape the fact that they are almost purely npc rules.
Shifter feels bad, because it was built on a foundation that was already compromised.
I'm curious if you could build a freeform shifter that would satisfy more people as an archetype or if you really have to tear stuff down.
Relatedly, a different ooze archetype using the new ooze form spells (which presumably were written by someone else and notes were not compared) with something like morphic weapons added could be cool too.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for the sake of the ancient underlying math, full BAB carries a price that must be paid. And Shifter paid it like this.
Essentially shifter was built with the premise that Full BAB is it's primary class feature...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just for the sake of the ancient underlying math, full BAB carries a price that must be paid. And Shifter paid it like this.
It is also interwoven in just how unintuitive and clumsy polymorph rules are, or how natural attacks can't escape the fact that they are almost purely npc rules.
Shifter feels bad, because it was built on a foundation that was already compromised.
I guess when most people did the maths they thought that if you removed 9th level spellcasting and an animal companion to get BAB you wouldn't have to further weaken the shape shifting aspect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah... It really need to be completly redone. unchained shifter!
I guess when most people did the maths they thought that if you removed 9th level spellcasting and an animal companion to get BAB you wouldn't have to further weaken the shape shifting aspect.
There is also question of theming. It is better for consistency Shifter doesn't have the power to turn into plant or fire elemental, the archetypes allows deeper exploration of those areas. Spellcasting and animal companion had to be cut obviously, otherwise Shifter would had resembled too much druid and ranger. Its class identity thusly is tied to the natural attacks and animal forms.
There is also question of theming.
I agree. You'd think that a class that's main theme is 'shifting' would actually be good at it and not lose out to other 'shifters'... It's even worse that they narrowed down its scope [removing plant/elementals] while also narrowing its power [beast shape II max].
SO bargain basement animal forms and natural weapons are the class ID instead of actual 'shifting': all because of full BAB and 2 forms pouncing at 4th...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two Forms Pouncing would make an awesome name for a shifter, yes.
Has anyone done an analysis of the damage potential of a, say, 12th level Shifter versus a Shifter with regular druid wildshape? Is there some huge damage explosion that occurs when compared against a druid that the designer was trying to avoid? All I can think of is it getting the same or similar damage as a druid with a little higher to hit bonus.
All I can think of is it getting the same or similar damage as a druid with a little higher to hit bonus.
With self buffs like bloody claws, strong jaw, magic fang, ect I doubt the druid will have less to hit or damage and natural attacks don't care about actual BAB so...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shifter questions, do you gain the Wildshape form speed and natural attacks?
If so, why do some base forms mention speed and attacks and others don't?
What is a medium owl? Can a shifter in that form fly?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I can think of is it getting the same or similar damage as a druid with a little higher to hit bonus.With self buffs like bloody claws, strong jaw, magic fang, ect I doubt the druid will have less to hit or damage and natural attacks don't care about actual BAB so...
That's what I figured. The more I think about the Shifter the more confused I am by why they didn't just straight up copy over Wild Shape.
Like everyone was saying, the nerfed version isn't any simpler and in fact introduces more books to check when trying to sort it out. The fact that it gets early pounce is frustrating because it makes the class's wonky power curve even starker and seems to be an issue of balance that might see banning in PFS. Since they don't have real Wild Shape its more confusing to tell what happens when multiclassing druid.
This class fails every possible design goal I could imagine:
It's not new player friendly AT ALL, requiring a high degree of system mastery to break even with other characters and it's loaded with irreversible trap options.
It's not a master shapeshifter, as we've all concluded, because other builds shift more often and to more forms (regardless of being more effective while doing it).
It's not a good archetype chassis for future builds because it has too few class features to swap out.
It's not a decent natural attacker outside of wild shape because it doesn't get as many feats or as much damage or attacks as it needs to be competitive.
It's not a "utility" character like core rogue since it's required to hoard uses of its wild shape for combat, and there are too few form options over the course of most play.
I wish people who like the class would actually tell the rest of us what they find compelling about it because I'm at a loss.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the shifter has an interesting 9 levels of abilities that was stretched across 20 levels for some reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I bought the book via the subscription.
I am not adverse to having a 30 page Fixratta document (like was done for ACG) if it actually *fixes* the class (and archetypes) to reasonable playable status.
Some would argue it's there now. Strongly beg to differ.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like someone candidly addressing these complaints and answering our confusion would be pretty great right now.
I showed my brother the class today, a fiercely loyal Paizo fan. He read the class looked a bit confused, said “is that it” read it again and then said he thought it was the worst class in the game.
I was expecting him to contrive a defence but no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if some of the Shifter being underwhelming is because Ultimate Wilderness is about games or campaigns where things like Track, Trackless Step, Wild Empathy, and Woodland Stride are really useful. Since in a "you're in the wilderness exclusively" those things are pretty good; but that's not a normal sort of campaign, since those tend to split time between cities, wilderness, dungeons, etc. But you can't really put a "this is great in cities" thing in a wilderness book.
But perhaps things in later books will bring the Shifter more in line with a normal campaign, much like how a number of options for vigilantes that make them viable in non-Intrigue campaigns are found outside of Ultimate Intrigue.
But I would really like to hear from some more passionate advocates for the class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is simply not a good class and any additional printed material, either archetypes or feats, that supports the current Shifter is going to be wasted space. Design decisions for future material are going to be constrained by the class as is. If some archetype comes out that turns a shifter into something good I guarantee it'll be incompatible with other cool but broken due to class chasis archetypes. This class is bad, the type of bad that's going to require a complete rework and I fear we won't see that for awhile.
I regret getting the hardcover and I dread any future paizo material because of the shifter cause I know I'm going to see something cool and have it be completely unfun to play because of the shifter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the shifter has an interesting 9 levels of abilities that was stretched across 20 levels for some reason.
Funny, that made me wonder if the shifter would make a better 10 level prestige class with all its features crammed into those 10 levels. My first impression is that it would still be a hard sell. Can you imagine any other class having their entire 20 levels of class features compressed into a 10 level prestige class and still being unattractive?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are missing the fundamental reason the shifter is bad. It is not modular.
The shifter does not have CHOICES to make during its creation. They all use the same weapon style (natural), cannot choose their forms freely, and have no choices to make throughout their levels.
Pathfinder is at its best when you can make choices throughout your career that differentiate you from another build. The shifter just does not have enough of that.
Give it something like Rage Powers, Rogue Talents, Magus Arcana, and etc...and that will be a fun class. Otherwise its a dumpster fire that will get homebrewed into efficiency (my current project).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You are missing the fundamental reason the shifter is bad. It is not modular.
The shifter does not have CHOICES to make during its creation. They all use the same weapon style (natural), cannot choose their forms freely, and have no choices to make throughout their levels.
Pathfinder is at its best when you can make choices throughout your career that differentiate you from another build. The shifter just does not have enough of that.
Give it something like Rage Powers, Rogue Talents, Magus Arcana, and etc...and that will be a fun class. Otherwise its a dumpster fire that will get homebrewed into efficiency (my current project).
Exactly. There's a reason that you don't see many Swashbucklers, and that's because Deeds are completely static. Every Swashbuckler is the same, and it's boring for people who like making a class their own. (You see a bit more Gunslingers, but that's because people like guns.)
For Shifter, people have been saying "Well, you gotta pick Tiger first so you can be decent in combat when you finally get your Wild Shape." Nobody is talking about picking Lizard or Stag or Frog. They're choices that aren't actually choices, like the Zen Archer's bonus feats. "Huh, should I get Rapid Shot or Manyshot, feats that don't work with my primary combat mechanic? Choices, choices..."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sort of wonder if somewhere along the line someone read "entry level" as "makes very few choices" since aside from "what spells to prepare" and feats (no bonuses) a cleric pretty much 3 choices total- deity, and two domains and that's it. Take away the spellcasting, and the Shifter is like this: the only choices you make are your feats (no bonuses!) and four aspects (really three, since "choices made at 15th level" may never happen.)
On some level "you don't have to make a lot of choices" is appropriate for entry-level classes, since choice paralysis is real for a lot of people, but that only works if the rest of the chassis is sufficiently strong to work without a lot of tuning and customization.