Ultimate Wilderness - ETA to Legal for PFS Play


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Venture-Agent, Washington—Vancouver aka Krell44

Do we have any idea when Ultimate Wilderness (Shifter class) will be made PFS legal in the Additional Resources? Has there been a general timeline from previous books?

*

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's been variable and I hope it will be *quite a while* as in *after they fix the significant and glaring issues with it*.

...and yes, that's coming from someone who has the .pdf and the hardcover and even picked up a hardcover line subscription.

Better for everything to be fixed first than have 'allowed things' and then have to revise that list when the corrections have taken place.

...and it also merits noting that under 'normal' circumstances I'd be excitedly waiting for it to hit AR and CC.

Venture-Agent, Washington—Vancouver aka Krell44

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has there been any word from Paizo that they agree/think that there are significant and glaring issues with it?

Venture-Agent, Washington—Vancouver aka Krell44

Admittedly I was extremely excited for the class concept and bought the book eagerly. Then I read the class description and was a bit disappointed.

*

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If their silence is supposed to speak volumes as to the affirmation of the correctness of the material, there is significant disappointment from this corner, and many others.

EDIT: There currently are: a reasonably lengthy FAQ/Errata thread; a whole thread asking about how an Oozemorph actually *works* and a lengthy thread discussing the shortfalls of the Shifter class.

The Exchange ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Belafon

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not to mention there are quite a few changes in how animal companion and familiar archetypes work in the material reprinted from earlier softcovers. While it may not require additional errata, PFS needs to decide how to handle rebuilds/changes for affected players.

(Speaking as someone whose Irori-sent white tiger will apparently no longer be able to be the Totem Guide he was for levels 1-10.)

Scarab Sages *****

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

If their silence is supposed to speak volumes as to the affirmation of the correctness of the material, there is significant disappointment from this corner, and many others.

EDIT: There currently are: a reasonably lengthy FAQ/Errata thread; a whole thread asking about how an Oozemorph actually *works* and a lengthy thread discussing the shortfalls of the Shifter class.

Well considering last Tuesday they put up an FAQ answer for Ultimate Wilderness HERE I would think they are not being silent about there being issues with the class/book.

As for the oozemorph, probably best to leave that out of PFS for the foreseeable future.

Scarab Sages *****

My biggest complaints about Ultimate Wilderness are:

1) Either Ultimate Wilderness used the new item slot language from the Campaign Clarifications, or the Campaign Clarifications used the language getting ready to put into Ultimate Wilderness. Either way, after all the queries and questions about how the Campaign Clarifications actually worked (with many of them still not answered), Ultimate Wilderness did not correct or clarify any of those questions. This is just really poor in my mind, that a hardcover book got printed with the same glaring issues as the campaign clarification document.

2) This would have been a perfect book to rewrite the mounted combat rules. They did not do that.

*

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tallow wrote:

[

Well considering last Tuesday they put up an FAQ answer for Ultimate Wilderness HERE I would think they are not being silent about there being issues with the class/book.

As for the oozemorph, probably best to leave that out of PFS for the foreseeable future.

First Part: Mark came down on the product discussion thread before it even went live and said that particular FAQ question was 'in the pipe' before 'live day' because they discovered the copy that went to press missed that change.

Second Part: The Oozemorph actually hearkens back to a bunch of the structural issues of the Shifter, so if the one was corrected, it probably wouldn't be too hard to correct the Oozemorph.

Third Part: Likewise confused as to why they couldn't have used the opportunity to clean up mounted combat a bit.

Grand Lodge **

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

How does a new product being added to the AR interact with the, wonderfully named, Gm Blobs? I've got a completely unplayed character with enough chronicles for it to be 5th level; assuming it's still unplayed when Ultimate Wilderness goes live, can I create a 5th level shifter?

Grand Lodge ***** Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, GM credit doesn't have to be locked in until you actually play the character for the first time.

** Venture-Agent, Georgia—Atlanta

Kevin Willis wrote:

Not to mention there are quite a few changes in how animal companion and familiar archetypes work in the material reprinted from earlier softcovers. While it may not require additional errata, PFS needs to decide how to handle rebuilds/changes for affected players.

(Speaking as someone whose Irori-sent white tiger will apparently no longer be able to be the Totem Guide he was for levels 1-10.)

What's happened to Totem Guide? Looks the same to me or am I missing something?

*

Abraham Z. wrote:
Kevin Willis wrote:

Not to mention there are quite a few changes in how animal companion and familiar archetypes work in the material reprinted from earlier softcovers. While it may not require additional errata, PFS needs to decide how to handle rebuilds/changes for affected players.

(Speaking as someone whose Irori-sent white tiger will apparently no longer be able to be the Totem Guide he was for levels 1-10.)

What's happened to Totem Guide? Looks the same to me or am I missing something?

They apparently added the sentence "Animal companions with more than one natural attack and only primary natural attacks can’t take a companion archetype that trades out Multiattack."

So anything with, for instance, claw/claw/bite (like a tiger) couldn't take an archetype that trades it out (basically anything but Racer.)

Considering the point of archetypes is trading away stuff that doesn't fit your character in exchange for stuff that does, this seems to me like a very ill-advised choice on Paizo's part. Also see my post here for questions regarding how this works with horses (and some other issues.) I'd rather not sidetrack this thread too with that discussion, though.

***** Venture-Captain, Ohio—Northern aka GinoA

BTW, I posted my summary of reprints (in chapters 3, 4 & 5) over here.

Scarab Sages *****

So the Gathlain is Fey in the PRD. The race pc sidebar doesn't mention they are fey. The reprint of the Gathlain in ultimate wilderness essentially is the same sidebar. The only mention of being Fey us in the description and background of the race. But the mechanical bits doesn't say this.

So if these become legal for PFS, we probably need an official declaration of creature type.

Sovereign Court *

I'm still curious about an ETA for this, too.
Would be nice if the process was a little more transparent.
Even just like "hey guys, we're working on it, have it up when we can". Anything.

**

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Wayne Bradbury wrote:

I'm still curious about an ETA for this, too.

Would be nice if the process was a little more transparent.
Even just like "hey guys, we're working on it, have it up when we can". Anything.

While I'd also love a more specific ETA, they have said what you're asking for already. They said UW didn't make the cut for the last update but that they were in the middle of reviewing it.

**

Any update?

**

Based on what I've seen on the boards they're probably holding off until the promised revisiting in the coming weeks.

Looks like they're sticking the shifter back in the oven so it'll actually be properly cooked?

**

Hmm where is that info from?

Dark Archive *

Gamerskum wrote:

Hmm where is that info from?

From this post by Jason Bulmahn.

Sovereign Court *****

1 person marked this as a favorite.

im content waiting, i like my thundercaller how it is. dont care for the nerf

**

I guess I'm glad I got a PDF rather then a hardcover that's apparently going to be severely out of date and incorrect.

**

Sarvei taeno wrote:
im content waiting, i like my thundercaller how it is. dont care for the nerf

Thundercaller is the same (as far as I can tell), not sure what nerf you're talking about?

*****

technarken wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
im content waiting, i like my thundercaller how it is. dont care for the nerf
Thundercaller is the same (as far as I can tell), not sure what nerf you're talking about?

The UW version makes clear that the thundercall ability is always a standard action.

The original version has it as a type of bardic performance and therefore arguably it benefits from the activation time reduction.

**

andreww wrote:
technarken wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
im content waiting, i like my thundercaller how it is. dont care for the nerf
Thundercaller is the same (as far as I can tell), not sure what nerf you're talking about?

The UW version makes clear that the thundercall ability is always a standard action.

The original version has it as a type of bardic performance and therefore arguably it benefits from the activation time reduction.

So the reprint's only "nerf" is that you can't spam more than one scaling damage/DC sound burst per round? Oh no. How will I ever survive this horrific loss. What a tragedy.

Sovereign Court *****

u cant cast spells or melee while using it, plus while i did feel it needed nerfed, imo snowball should have stayed a conjuration spell that ignored sr

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

Sarvei taeno wrote:
u cant cast spells or melee while using it, plus while i did feel it needed nerfed, imo snowball should have stayed a conjuration spell that ignored sr

The problem with ignoring SR is that it made it work against monsters intended to not be directly damaged with spells, like golems.

*

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
u cant cast spells or melee while using it, plus while i did feel it needed nerfed, imo snowball should have stayed a conjuration spell that ignored sr
The problem with ignoring SR is that it made it work against monsters intended to not be directly damaged with spells, like golems.

Like Acid Arrow? Or Acid Splash? Or Stone Discus?

No-SR damage spells definitely exist, and have since the beginning.

Sovereign Court **** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

3 people marked this as a favorite.
shaventalz wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
u cant cast spells or melee while using it, plus while i did feel it needed nerfed, imo snowball should have stayed a conjuration spell that ignored sr
The problem with ignoring SR is that it made it work against monsters intended to not be directly damaged with spells, like golems.

Like Acid Arrow? Or Acid Splash? Or Stone Discus?

No-SR damage spells definitely exist, and have since the beginning.

Acid Splash is locked to 1d3 damage, give or take a few minor bonuses. Acid Arrow takes a long time to deal damage. Stone Discus aims at normal AC and allows DR.

Meanwhile Snowball is easily escalated with Intensify Spell/Magical Lineage and touch-range destroys supposedly magic immune things. It's clearly much more powerful; it gets used a great deal while the other spells are niche.

Basically, it breaks the main rule for designing new spells, that it shouldn't be much better than the CRB spells.

It's also a case of Conjuration once again being better at evocation than Evocation.

*

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
shaventalz wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
u cant cast spells or melee while using it, plus while i did feel it needed nerfed, imo snowball should have stayed a conjuration spell that ignored sr
The problem with ignoring SR is that it made it work against monsters intended to not be directly damaged with spells, like golems.

Like Acid Arrow? Or Acid Splash? Or Stone Discus?

No-SR damage spells definitely exist, and have since the beginning.

Acid Splash is locked to 1d3 damage, give or take a few minor bonuses. Acid Arrow takes a long time to deal damage. Stone Discus aims at normal AC and allows DR.

Meanwhile Snowball is easily escalated with Intensify Spell/Magical Lineage and touch-range destroys supposedly magic immune things. It's clearly much more powerful; it gets used a great deal while the other spells are niche.

Basically, it breaks the main rule for designing new spells, that it shouldn't be much better than the CRB spells.

It's also a case of Conjuration once again being better at evocation than Evocation.

I'm not saying the spell as a whole was particularly well-balanced. I wouldn't expect full damage AND debuff on the same spell at that level, for instance. There are arguments against the originally-published version. However, "it works against Spell Immunity" shouldn't be one.

***** ⦵⦵

technarken wrote:
andreww wrote:
technarken wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
im content waiting, i like my thundercaller how it is. dont care for the nerf
Thundercaller is the same (as far as I can tell), not sure what nerf you're talking about?

The UW version makes clear that the thundercall ability is always a standard action.

The original version has it as a type of bardic performance and therefore arguably it benefits from the activation time reduction.

So the reprint's only "nerf" is that you can't spam more than one scaling damage/DC sound burst per round? Oh no. How will I ever survive this horrific loss. What a tragedy.

I wouldn't call this a nerf I would call it a clarification that the original author never intended it be used more than once a round. I saw a player at 12th level with this build shooting off 3 Sound Bursts a round under a blurry description of how it worked as a Bard song. He interrupted the rules as saying that it was instantaneous effect and hence stopped the Bard song instantaneously and thus he could use his standard, move, and immediate actions to create 3 different Sound Bursts a round. He had 48 rounds of bard song a day. It was the most broken thing I have ever seen. Taking the threat out of every encounter on his initiative. It took the fun out of the game for all other players at the table. The archetype was way overpowered and breaking encounters.

I rate this clarification as awesome, well overdue.

Dark Archive **

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

It's been variable and I hope it will be *quite a while* as in *after they fix the significant and glaring issues with it*.

...and yes, that's coming from someone who has the .pdf and the hardcover and even picked up a hardcover line subscription.

Better for everything to be fixed first than have 'allowed things' and then have to revise that list when the corrections have taken place.

...and it also merits noting that under 'normal' circumstances I'd be excitedly waiting for it to hit AR and CC.

if only the PFS crew got access to the books early so they could evaluate and determine what is legal BEFORE the book comes out so people can decide whether they want to buy the book before it comes out. I guess those PDF's are just too hard to email to the PFS people that make those decisions.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber

Or going through each and every option in a 200+ page book and determining the ramifications each indiviual one might have in an organized play campaign and if changes/clarifications are needed for which allowed options in said campaign takes time.

Scarab Sages *****

3 people marked this as a favorite.

People are reviewing these books well ahead of the street date. Typically the Venture-Officer review team gets the books in PDF form as soon as they are finished up (not sure if that's when it goes to the printer, or when they come back from the printer but a month or so prior to the street date.) But suffice it to say, the review team gets it 2 weeks to 2 months prior to the street date.

The reports the review team compiles to the Organized Play Team is pretty comprehensive and helpful, but the organized play team still has to go through the books themselves. This takes time. And on top of all their other duties, they don't have time to make sure every book is ready for inclusion into the campaign upon the street date.

However, what I find discouraging has nothing to do with the organized play team's timeliness on releasing the book. What I find discouraging is that the pathfinder development team has found significant issues with the book, and its essentially going back into development. Its discouraging that a hard cover book would be published in such a state.

Dark Archive **

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
shaventalz wrote:
Lau Bannenberg wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
u cant cast spells or melee while using it, plus while i did feel it needed nerfed, imo snowball should have stayed a conjuration spell that ignored sr
The problem with ignoring SR is that it made it work against monsters intended to not be directly damaged with spells, like golems.

Like Acid Arrow? Or Acid Splash? Or Stone Discus?

No-SR damage spells definitely exist, and have since the beginning.

Acid Splash is locked to 1d3 damage, give or take a few minor bonuses. Acid Arrow takes a long time to deal damage. Stone Discus aims at normal AC and allows DR.

Meanwhile Snowball is easily escalated with Intensify Spell/Magical Lineage and touch-range destroys supposedly magic immune things. It's clearly much more powerful; it gets used a great deal while the other spells are niche.

Basically, it breaks the main rule for designing new spells, that it shouldn't be much better than the CRB spells.

It's also a case of Conjuration once again being better at evocation than Evocation.

evil villian monologue . bwahahaha you cant defeat me i am immune to all magic. Smack gets hit by a hard ball of snow.

Sovereign Court *

Two months since UW was released.
Anybody want to take bets on how much longer it'll be?

Shadow Lodge *****

10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather do something productive.

* Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well we still haven't had the DEVs announcement talk or whatever about the shifter that we're promised. So I'd guess within 3 weeks for that. Then it's if PFS has an inside scoop on that and legalizes it same day or if they then need to review it after the talk for legality in which case likely 2 weeks to approve and then maybe right then or wait till next mid-month release.


I just want to play a leshy!!!

**

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It would be helpful if, while we're waiting, leadership could signal if the reprinted options in this book will likely supersede their older versions (e.g. Lore Warden from Adventurer's Guide) or whether it will be pick the source you use (e.g. Skinwalker stats). As it is, I'm hesitant to use options reprinted until I know which version will be used.

Alternatively, if the Shifter is the thing holding everything up (which I'm not sure is the case, but that's what everyone speculates), then maybe moving forward with the rest of the book and doing shifter at a later date might be a better move? There's a lot of content in this book that isn't Shifter related at all. I'd really love a Suture Vine or Ravenous Tumbleweed familiar!

I don't mind the delay, necessarily, but having some sense of intent so we can plan around it would be helpful.

*

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If fixing/clarifying Shifter addresses concerns with archetypes, then it would be time-efficient to address it first.

Grand Lodge ***** ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

2 people marked this as a favorite.
MrBear wrote:
I just want to play a leshy!!!

You can play a leshy now! It just has to have a leshy warden druid friend that you also cart around. Just ask Oak Sprout about that. I loved that character.

Seriously, I have seen other people who have played the familiar as the main PC. Why not you?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society, Tales Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
MrBear wrote:
I just want to play a leshy!!!

You can play a leshy now! It just has to have a leshy warden druid friend that you also cart around. Just ask Oak Sprout about that. I loved that character.

Seriously, I have seen other people who have played the familiar as the main PC. Why not you?

I've done this (also with Animal Companions).

* Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

cavernshark wrote:

It would be helpful if, while we're waiting, leadership could signal if the reprinted options in this book will likely supersede their older versions (e.g. Lore Warden from Adventurer's Guide) or whether it will be pick the source you use (e.g. Skinwalker stats). As it is, I'm hesitant to use options reprinted until I know which version will be used.

Alternatively, if the Shifter is the thing holding everything up (which I'm not sure is the case, but that's what everyone speculates), then maybe moving forward with the rest of the book and doing shifter at a later date might be a better move? There's a lot of content in this book that isn't Shifter related at all. I'd really love a Suture Vine or Ravenous Tumbleweed familiar!

I don't mind the delay, necessarily, but having some sense of intent so we can plan around it would be helpful.

My guess is anything that might be considered a nerf in the new print will be the only legal version and that there's likely not any that won't use the updated version. Basing off of how they did the last instances of this situation.

Silver Crusade ***

I am looking forward to being able to use this book in PFS. I have a dino druid that I want to be able to play.

The Exchange ***** ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, North Carolina—Charlotte aka eddv

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sir Leshington, currently the partner of the druid Thornberry, is one of my favorite characters as well. He's just not ehhhh...fleshed out too well yet.

***** Venture-Agent, Texas—Dallas & Ft. Worth aka Azothath

I don't really expect corporate comment on this.

Nobody wants to create false expectations. With problems comes a more complex process that takes more time. Rework is a loss of time from a production cycle...


Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
MrBear wrote:
I just want to play a leshy!!!

You can play a leshy now! It just has to have a leshy warden druid friend that you also cart around. Just ask Oak Sprout about that. I loved that character.

Seriously, I have seen other people who have played the familiar as the main PC. Why not you?

My much beloved Leshy Warden is a grippli, and I very much love my froggy friend. I love his sidekick Twiggy, too.

But I'd really love to play a Leshykineticist. That seems like it would be amazing fun.

1 to 50 of 112 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Ultimate Wilderness - ETA to Legal for PFS Play All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.