Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Clearly, GMing that adventure after the ACG and Occult Adventures came out in the previous year, and I hadn't seen them yet, was a mistake. My point is that a warning on the product page of the adventure to let GMs know that this adventure requires more knowledge of the game than most would have prevented that mistake. I've said that on these forums in the past.
Yeah but the problem is that it really doesn't need it. You just do what everyone else has told me in that you fudge it. No one's going to notice unless they GM the scenario that it happened and even then you have to in some cases to even make the scenario work within the intended time period.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I already said earlier in the thread that I was talking about Between the Lines. And as I mentioned earlier:
To put this in context, I was GMing PFS for the first time in about a year, for a local group that I didn't know very well, since I'd only gone to that store once or twice before. Stopping the adventure in the middle of the game to admit that I had no clue what anybody's PCs were or how they worked didn't seem like a great way to instill confidence in my GMing skills for people who were mostly strangers. I was overwhelmedAs for making assumptions based on what people had been doing so far that game:
1. I knew the paladin was full BAB.
2. The kineticist kept blasting things, so I was assuming arcane caster (which was wrong).
3. The shaman was using hexes and casting spells that seemed closer to cleric/oracle than the normal arcane stuff. But I also know witches are arcane, and bards get a lot of buffs, too, so I wasn't sure if he was arcane or divine.
4. The investigator was mostly a skill monkey and useless in a fight, so he didn't seem to fit any of the categories given.
5. I knew the gunslinger was martial focused, but I didn't know the class well enough to know if they're full BAB. I treated him as such, so my assumption in that case was correct.
6. I don't remember what the 6th player was. I think it was another occult class, which isn't even taken into account in the adventure at all. But whatever I assumed at the time based on earlier behavior that session turned out to be wrong.
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it seems that all you'd need to do is this when you see that box.
"Hey party, who has full bab? Who casts and which type of spells? Can anyone do precision damage?" (the investigator does normally get precision damage at lv4)
And now you have all your answers regardless of which classes you are or aren't familiar with.
|
"Hey party, who has full bab? Who casts and which type of spells? Can anyone do precision damage?" (the investigator does normally get precision damage at lv4)And now you have all your answers regardless of which classes you are or aren't familiar with.
The problem is this:
When you ask questions like that of a table, they can immediately start questioning everything that the GM is doing, because it seems like they don't even know what the game is about.
I get where Fromper is coming from.
I've had that dread every time I've sat down to a table for PFS, and I probably know a few more of the classes than Fromper.
Part of that comes from folks who seek out those horrible 'niche' things that are not-quite-disruptive-but-in-the-right-circumstances...
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Think I'll jump back and weigh in a little on this thread:
First of all Fromper, I feel your pain bud. You're clearly an experienced GM and not just whining about something out of your control. You're trying to weigh in with a valid opinion that you view the game has become to big for the average GM to manage.
I would absolutely agree with you, if every GM was required to remember every rule and rule-subset out there. But, simply put.. To be clear: GMs are not required to learn every class option or even the basics of every class.
I know this seems funny from the guy who started this thread and is legitimately burned out from all the new class options. But, again I want to be clear: I'm burned out on a personal level. When I put my GM hat on..nothing is as important to me as how much fun the players are having..and can I be a fair and impartial judge/GM. If you can't find that balance without memorizing all the rules of the game..I fear your in for a lot of frustration GMing PFS going forward. To this I would advise stick with GMing CORE.
I'm going to point you to GM Hmm's remark and to a lesser extent GM's David Setty. Learn to trust the players more. Let your years of experience as a GM set off alarms if something seems "out of wack." If a player says I do my attacks against touch AC within' 20ft..(sound familiar?) it's unlikely they just made that up. If a player is determined to cheat he's probably going to fool you because he/she has all the advantages. Treat the game a little more like golf. (ie. if a player cheats he's mostly cheating him/her-self) My father (God rest his soul), was famous for using a foot wedge on the coarse. For years I called him out on it..until later in life..I just realized, That's how he enjoys the game. It wasn't cheating to him it's just the way he played.
Now I know since PFS is official Blah Blah..I'm going to get a little push back on the let cheating go attitude. But, that's really not what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to say you can't micro manage everything on a game this complex: so why try?
I think it's enough that you're willing to spend your time and energy; to sit down with a group of strangers and run them through a 4-5hr fantastic journey. Does every detail need to be perfect? At it's heart this is a collaborative story being told by everyone at the table. Does it really mater if I don't know if (my mob) gets a bonus on a save cause I don't know if it's a divine effect or arcane coming from the player? Don't hold your game up over details like this, make a decision and keep the story going. Cause when the story stops...that's when this game is truly dead.
|
|
For the scenario in question, lucklesshero, it apparently does, and significantly so make a difference in how the scenario runs.
Not helped by the fact that it was the -01 scenario for the season.
I've wanted to play it (and possibly GM it afterwards) but I've been unable to find anyone willing to run it and I won't force someone to GM something that I've heard disturbing rumors about.
I'm going to trust folks when they say that it has serious issues.
And if it's a barometer for future scenarios, the scenarios need to be much more flexible.
|
|
For the scenario in question, lucklesshero, it apparently does, and significantly so make a difference in how the scenario runs.Not helped by the fact that it was the -01 scenario for the season.
I've wanted to play it (and possibly GM it afterwards) but I've been unable to find anyone willing to run it and I won't force someone to GM something that I've heard disturbing rumors about.
I'm going to trust folks when they say that it has serious issues.
And if it's a barometer for future scenarios, the scenarios need to be much more flexible.
I appreciate some scenarios are most difficult to manage.
My over-all point is trying to encourage Fromper to trust his instincts. But, I'll not argue several scenarios are notoriously difficult to manage.
BTW what scenario is this that you refer to? You've piqued my curiosity..
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... One of the things I am getting known for locally is the GM Questionnaire. I will literally have a questionnaire for every game that I start now. This questionnaire will be full of a combination of questions of things that might matter for the scenario, and a few flavor items that don't. I'll call it different things. When we did Shores of Heaven, it was my "Passport Application for Planar Travel".
Still, I take note of the things that I am going to need to know for any given scenario, and then I ask them straight up front in the general questionnaire. Do I need to know if someone relies on precision damage? I'll ask it, along with the color of the outfit that they're wearing. (Amusingly, there have been scenarios where the color of the outfit matters, but there are far more where it doesn't.)
BTW, if you do a spiffy GM Questionnaire, no one assumes you're a noob. They assume that you are PREPARED.
Hmm
PS If we are talking about School of Spirits, I will totally run it for you, Wei Ji! It is an awesome scenario. One of my favorites!
|
|
"Hey party, who has full bab? Who casts and which type of spells? Can anyone do precision damage?" (the investigator does normally get precision damage at lv4)And now you have all your answers regardless of which classes you are or aren't familiar with.
The problem is this:
When you ask questions like that of a table, they can immediately start questioning everything that the GM is doing, because it seems like they don't even know what the game is about.
Between archetypes and multi-classing that is possible and how characters introduce it's a fine statement.
I have a character, barbarian 1 investigator 12 that I refer to as a barbarian. I have many bloodragers that I refer to as barbarian's since they don't get high enough in bloodrager to cast spells and the majority are multiclassed. I have a cavalier that took 1 level of cleric for cool domain stuff that I say is a cavalier.
So unless you asked if he's a divine caster you probably wouldn't have any idea that he was. I don't think people will be judging you or thinking worse of you if you ask about what their classes are.
|
|
Well I think it depends on the class.
This is my experience.
Honestly yes the kinescist I think is poorly organized in occult adventures with all the utility talents and where the blasts are. Although I think some of the kinecists can be a too much rock paper scissors. Yoon pregen in a whole module where half the fights have one monster vulnerable to fire was a bit overkill. And yoon lit the gazebo on fire at a wedding.
occultist and medium are a bit confusing but have not looked into them that much.
Physic is ok for one person who is a bit knew but does not seem overly broken.
Gming for the spirtualist is fun and I ended up playing in campign mode in strange aeons a death druid which gains the phantom.
Arcanist was fun while she was alive but the gm got a stupid number of crits in mists of mwangi and a tpk happened.
Brawler as an expirenced player I love martial flexibility I don't think this class is really broken. Well with the brawler I had the gm not quite know how slings work but knew the brawler mechanics.
Hunter a bit of companion fun but I actually do not like the way handle animal is written.
INvestigator somewhat just a great almost broken skill monkey but all I have seen have been archtype to get either pysic or bard spells with archtypes.
Shaman do not have many memories of people playing one.
Warpriest I think was way too optimized with all the swift actions confusing.
Swashbuckler I don't like how it is oh you have to use piercing damage.
Parry and reposte can get a bit annoying and trying to play monsters in character.
Slayer have not seen in play.
Vigilante ruleswise not a problem but more leads to shenanigans at the table and long games often with those.
OF the old classes pathfinder has added pre advance class guide.
Actually I hated the apg summoner because building an eidilon was a headache. I really do not like trying to explain a magus to a new player. I think some people forget how hard things were to get at first but now that you understand them.
I want more classes that make me enjoy gming.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to be clear on the bad experience I'm talking about, when I GMed Between the Lines: I guessed, improvised, and moved on. The players never knew anything was amiss, and they seemed to have a good time, even though I didn't get the rules exactly perfect. The problem was that I felt overwhelmed at the time it happened.
I haven't GMed School of Spirits, but I've heard the same thing with that one. Yes, one of the PCs has an occult class, so GMs who like to be prepared will need to learn that class. But if they don't know the class and have to improvise a little, it won't really matter. That NPC isn't doing much that requires knowing the technical specifics of the class. But that didn't stop my two friends from taking one look at that adventure and abandoning Paizo forever.
When it comes to stuff like that, it's more a matter of perception than anything else. But some GMs like to be really prepared, while others are more comfortable winging it when they aren't sure of something. And stuff like this can overwhelm those of us who feel like we need to be very prepared.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GM Starson makes some excellent points. I am thinking that what we really need is a discussion in here called, "I have WHAT at my table? How to GM for Crazy Character Builds." I do think there is an art for GMing for new classes, or for builds that may use feats you have not seen before.
Huh. Maybe I'll start that later today!
Hmm
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still, I take note of the things that I am going to need to know for any given scenario, and then I ask them straight up front in the general questionnaire. Do I need to know if someone relies on precision damage? I'll ask it, along with the color of the outfit that they're wearing. (Amusingly, there have been scenarios where the color of the outfit matters, but there are far more where it doesn't.)
Three hours into the scenario;
GM: Wait, you (the group face) have COLOUR REDACTED tattoos?Me: Ya, half his face, across his chest, down his arm. Real orc-tribal like. Just like on the mini *beams with pride*. Does it change anything?
GM: ....Yes....
|
|
I haven't GMed School of Spirits, but I've heard the same thing with that one. Yes, one of the PCs has an occult class, so GMs who like to be prepared will need to learn that class. But if they don't know the class and have to improvise a little, it won't really matter. That NPC isn't doing much that requires knowing the technical specifics of the class. But that didn't stop my two friends from taking one look at that adventure and abandoning Paizo forever.
I felt rather similarly when I picked up School of Spirits - "You want me to basically GM PC a class I've never read and don't care to?" Fortunately, the rest of the scenario was worth it in that case. But then, I stopped caring about new classes after the Core rulebook came out, and haven't found one yet that was worth the hassle of all the rule complications.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
For the scenario in question, lucklesshero, it apparently does, and significantly so make a difference in how the scenario runs.Not helped by the fact that it was the -01 scenario for the season.
I've wanted to play it (and possibly GM it afterwards) but I've been unable to find anyone willing to run it and I won't force someone to GM something that I've heard disturbing rumors about.
I'm going to trust folks when they say that it has serious issues.
And if it's a barometer for future scenarios, the scenarios need to be much more flexible.
I feel like you're thinking of 7-2 which is one of a few scenarios to be rewritten because of how bad it was. 7-1 is fine.
|
|
Actually, I conflated 7-01 and 7-03.
I played 7-02 and there's a reason I call it
It's been sort of weird, in retrospective.
It feels like the first two or three scenarios in any given season are just... all over the place, like a car with worn wheels on an icy road in the middle of a driving windstorm, and then they sort of 'mellow out' as the season progresses.
Back to topic at hand: I will stop caring about new classes even more if the most recent one doesn't get some significant structural revision. It feels sadly like half a class.
...which is sad, because it was the one I was most excited about.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
In terms of not completely understanding how classes work when GMing for them, here is another helpful example and how I ran it:
In Crypt, there is a room with goodies where you are supposed to have a little bag or pile of items for each PC based on their class. The adventure, because it was written when only the CRB was out, only lists the stuff for core classes. Just before the PCs entered that room, I asked each of the players with a newer class where it was not completely obvious which core class they would like to be treated as for some goodies. If I remember correctly, a scald said to give him the bard stuff, and it worked. The hard one was the kineticist. I think I had to make something up for him, generalizing from the listed options.
I don't feel like I have to know every class at my table, but that may partly be because I run play by post games, and there I have time to look things up if anything seems odd. I've also tried to train my players to include a link for the more unusual stuff.
|
|
Okay, done!GM Starson makes some excellent points. I am thinking that what we really need is a discussion in here called, "I have WHAT at my table? How to GM for Crazy Character Builds." I do think there is an art for GMing for new classes, or for builds that may use feats you have not seen before.
Huh. Maybe I'll start that later today!
Hmm
Haha! I love it! *Gives a Hmm a High Tentacle*
Speaking as a player who has a nasty habit of coming up with weird corner case play-styles and has local players who can get into even more silly stuff, trusting we know what we're doing, and just double checking when things don't seem to add up is really where we need to put ourselves. (My favorite example is the HORSE OF DOOM! build someone made, where literally the character's horse could do a whole mission by themselves. It was hilarious.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
Wild classes (Ultimate Wilderness) (Rating Deferred)Shifter: Have yet to see this -- will have to rate it later.
{. . .}
Update:
Wild classes (Ultimate Wilderness) (0/1 = 0%)
Shifter: Cool idea, but the execution puts you behind a Druid in every aspect of shifting, and your only advantage is better Base Attack Bonus -- certainly not enough to make up for going from 9/9 spellcasting to no spellcasting at all. A miss. And the Oozemorph archetype acts as lubrication to the miss . . . .
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: I like the new classes, but by 'new' I mean something not yet tried. The APG introduced a mage specialized in conjuration, but felt new because of the eidolon feature. It introduced another mage focused on potions, but again felt new because of bombs and infusions.
The APC felt like multi-classing guidelines more than a new class. This isn't to say I dislike the ACP, I just felt that multi-classing already existed. There is plenty of new stuff in there that true multi-classing couldn't accomplish such as tying together hexes & mysteries or raging & inspire song into the same mechanics. These did not feel as 'new' as the magus's spell combat ability, which describes itself as 'like two weapon fighting.'
The APC also had a lot of archetypes that simply added one class's mechanic to an existing class. The hunter's animal aspect seems like you can get it in every class (and animal aspect felt like an updated totemic transformation ability).
The Psychic feels just like a caster and not very new. However the Kineticist feels like one of the most original classes in a long time. In part it might be simply that it is based on Constitution. It feels part-jedi, part air-bender, part elemental fist and still feels like its own class.
|
I still like looking at new stuff so I don't consider myself burned out.
When I gm I hate anyone who uses Herolab but doesn't understand their class. If I know it then I can explain their abilities to them but for the newer stuff I'm not familiar with the game can drag. I trust a player if they tell me they know it, Herolab users , in my experience admit they don't.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Romari, please be careful when making such broad statements. Herolab users are a diverse group. There’s a lot of different reasons people use Herolab. Some like the convenience of being to level quickly. Sure... they can do all those calculations on paper, but it’s a lot of picky details. Instead of spending hours pencilling in a sheet, they can update in minutes and spend more time gaming.
I use Herolab not because of lack of system mastery but because I am terrible at in game math. I don’t know why, but when under pressure all ability to compute numbers goes completely away. I often call out everything that I am adding up at the gaming table because my fellow gamers will add it up faster than I will.
HeroLab allows me to keep track of all the weird buffs and debuffs by calculating the math for me. It allows me to game in a math-heavy environment. It allows me to be just another normal player and not slow down the game for everyone else.
Although my poor math skills are legendary locally, no one questions my system mastery. I research every class that I use thoroughly, and understand my feats, spells and equipment.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm sounds like you fall squarely in the group I have no problem with. I think the clear character sheet and maths worked out is great. Really works for lots of pople.
My issue is those who choose to play a class they haven't really read or understood but use Herolab to create a character but then don't understand it. If your system is, choose class you've never read or played before use Herolab to create it and then come sit at my table. This I have an issue with.I have no problem, in fact activity like those who know the Class and then use Herolab to make life easier for them.
My experience is more of the ones who use it to avoid reading and understanding rules then those that don't. If they do so with a core class I am fine, same as any new starter, I can help them because I'm really familiar with cosre stuff. Start going into the more recent classes and the game stops when I ask the player to explain their ability and recieve a blank stare.
|
|
In terms of not completely understanding how classes work when GMing for them, here is another helpful example and how I ran it:
** spoiler omitted **
I don't feel like I have to know every class at my table, but that may partly be because I run play by post games, and there I have time to look things up if anything seems odd. I've also tried to train my players to include a link for the more unusual stuff.
agreed my gm had that problem too.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Am I late? I'm probably late. Oh well.
I am a huge fan of new classes, options, races, and abilities. In my opinion, the further we get from core, the better. Our elven wizards and dwarven fighters will still be there for those who want it, but I'll take the alchemical monstrosity and the living conduit to raw aestheric power any day. My passion to see new and stranger things is what keeps my interest in upcoming content. Making builds and theory crafting and putting it to test is the main reason I like Pathfinder, and actually putting in the work and roleplaying my quirky creation is what turns a good feeling into a great one.
I feel for GMs who are frustrated by new content, which is why I try to think up a nice micro briefing for each of my characters and their general powerset to help clarify things. Also, because I tend to toe the line when it comes to darker characters (that still perform the Three C's of Pathfinders).
Oh, and because it's a thing to do in the thread...
Core Classes: 3.5 Ultimate Hyper Fighting Edition
Barbarian: I don't know what's more fun, playing as a Barbarian or being around the people that play them.
Bard: The most interesting, viable, helpful, utilitarian, and powerful class that I just can't bring myself to want to play.
Cleric: Inner Sea Gods makes this class explode with flavor, distracting me from the baffling fact that some people still say this 9th level caster gets "no interesting features."
Druid: You are a 9th level caster who can turn into a pouncing tiger and summon more pouncing tigers while your tiger companion pounces the boss but hey let's nerf another martial exploit.
Fighter: The fact that Weapon Master's Handbook exists means Fighter is no longer in the "Advanced NPC Class" bracket.
Monk: With archetypes bringing the class up to par, I would say it was "Unchained" before the idea was even a thing.
Paladin: A great class that isn't as RP-restrictive as people make it out to be, but it still gets a demerit for reminding me of the most annoying video I've ever watched.
Ranger: Fighting Style is the most interesting fight-man mechanics I've seen in core, but no one will play it because Harsk was their first impression of the class.
Rogue: I've heard that this class is made obsolete by future books, but then I remembered that Bards have been around since day 1.
Sorcerer: At least ONE of their ancestors was a complete degenerate so I can appreciate this class on that level, even if vancian casting clashes with the feel of magic coming "natural" to them.
Wizard: The cause of, and solution to, all of our problems.
Advanced Player's Guide: It isn't Pathfinder without this book, fite me irl bruh
Alchemist: When your character needs a Disguise check just to go out in public, you know you're doing it right.
Cavalier: The PFS Cavalier Experience, summarized in one image.
Inquisitor: Clerics suck at skills, Rogues can't into magic, That One Monty Python Joke hasn't been funny for over a decade, and Pathfinder was overdue for this class.
Oracle: They won't stop until "Charisma" is written on literally every box and line on their character sheet.
Summoner: My friends, it has often been said that I like Summoners.
Witch: I felt bad about taking the same 3 or 4 hexes that everyone else takes until I saw that my alternatives included "Scent, but it only detects children" and "Diplomacy, but with way more downsides."
Ultimate Magic: Known, paradoxically, for introducing a great combat class.
Magus: This class has an extremely narrow scope for builds, but that's at least partly due to them being backed into a corner by nerfs to previously viable options and a lack of desirable low level touch spells.
Ultimate Combat: Offloading the "Not in MY fantasy!" classes all at once.
Ninja: It's sad to see a class go from The First Unchained Rogue to The Second Core Rogue, but they're still pretty good if you can tolerate relying on Sneak Attack.
Samurai: Imagine the Horses Prohibited sign, but in Japanese.
Gunslinger: It functions well enough for being a strange, 5-level Prestige Class with no prerequisites.
Advanced Class Guide: Fu-sion-Hah!
Arcanist: The fact that people argue whether or not this beats the Wizard is the biggest complement this class can get.
Bloodrager: The fact that people consider its "Gets Barbarian Rage Powers" archetype to be superior is the biggest insult this class can get.
Brawler: Martial Flexibility's power and versatility is almost fulfilling as Paizo quietly acknowledging that Combat Expertise is the most obnoxious feat in the game.
Hunter: Oh look, a balanced version of the Druid. Neat.
Investigator: "Oh, you want to play a Rogue, well do I ever have the class for you!"
Shaman: A victim of being a literal fusion between its parent classes with nothing else to offer, but you could do a hell of a lot worse than 9th level casting and a few hand-me-downs.
Skald: What's this? ARCHETYPE is evolving... ARCHETYPE has evolved into FULL CLASS!
Slayer: "Oh, you want to play a Rogue, well do I ever have the class for you!"
Swashbuckler: The pirate that gets seasick, the Dex/Cha class that needs a ton of Con/Wis, the exemplar dex-to-damage class who couldn't do it out of their own book, this is a class that I've gone from strongly disliking to loving with an affectionate irony.
Warpriest: I feel like this class is a dated relic, and not because of its gameplay, but because of it being the only 2+Int "I don't get to have skills and that is somehow okay" class outside of Core.
Pathfinder Unchained: I do not think it means what you think it means
Unchained Barbarian: In this optional class, some of the most frightening exploits have been carved out, but it made room for a greater variety of play styles and powers.
Unchained Monk: In this optional class, the monk has been elevated from "Underpowered unless you use an Overpowered archetype" to a functional class with Paizo's modern design.
Unchained Rogue: In this optional class, we get a straight-up buffed rogue and my favorite counterpoint when someone argues that Core Only is somehow better for balance.
Unchained Summoner: In this not-at-all-optional class, eidolons have been nerfed hard, your flavor is somewhat dictated for you, the powerful summon monster spam is strangely untouched, the new evolution system has almost no comparability with future content, and no I'm not mad why are you asking stop asking so many questions.
Occult Adventures: Over 260 pages of new content and still not as thick as the Kineticist Playtest thread.
Kineticist: Burn is my favorite resource mechanic in the game and any class that lets you do -this- is fantastic in my book.
Medium: Better than you thought, not as good as you had hoped.
Mesmerist: I have my reservations about a 6th level casting class with an Save DC Enchantment focused list, bu- "WAIT, YOU'VE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD!"
Occultist: I think this class actually pulls off the "do whatever you want" shtick better than the Medium.
Psychic: I asked her if it meant her class, her spellcasting type, or her profession, and she simply said "Yes."
Spiritualist: Phantoms are upstaged by Eidolons and Animal Companions but they will never get a buff because we pay so much attention to that one little scouting trick they can do.
Ultimate Intrigue: But who will Murder the Murder Hobos?
Vigilante: The base version allows you to play a fight-man with actual skills or an interesting Rogue alternative, but the Archetypes try to copy other classes and I'm getting some Medium flashbacks here.
Ultimate Wilderness: Yo Shifter, I’m really happy for you, Imma let you finish but, Druid had one of the best classes of all time…one of the best classes of all time!
Shifter: Never mind how it feels like a druid with half of the features carved off, never mind the theory that it's full BAB makes weapon wielders more powerful, never mind the fact that half of its archetpyes are borderline unplayable, if Paizo lets us play as Oozemorphs I will call this entire endeavor a smashing success.
