Shapeshifting Class?


Rules Discussion


Basically what it says on the tin.

I really want a focussed shapeshifting class, I know other classes have flavours of it, but nothing 100%.

I'm imagining the 'shifts' for certain abilities (such as growing claws/pseudopods or turning into a swarm) functioning as stances, with the addition of other monster abilities like the earth elementals reaction of collapsing into the earth.
Like the Shifter in 1e combined with the non-animal companion Hunter but with more.

You can have different origins too; blood, cursed, alchemical, freak accident, divine.

I just think there's too much in the idea to have it relegated to a subfeature of different other classes is all


Most of the 40 classes of 1E will show up at some point, one way or another. Some may not be actual full classes, some are likely to be fused, but we'll get them.
Shifter is not one of the four for next year.
But I'd expect it'll appear down the line. Probably not in the second or even third batch though.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I would bet money that a martial focused shifter class is going to come along eventually.

I would love it if they took another swing at the Shifter from 1e.


You can already do some of this with druids wild morph, animal barbarians rage, and sorcerer.


There is the Magic Warrior multiclass archetype, available to all classes, which allows shape shifting after taking 2 feats in it.


Nyerkh wrote:

Most of the 40 classes of 1E will show up at some point, one way or another. Some may not be actual full classes, some are likely to be fused, but we'll get them.

Shifter is not one of the four for next year.
But I'd expect it'll appear down the line. Probably not in the second or even third batch though.

Sorry for the tangent, but do we know all 4 classes in the APG? I know of witch but not the others.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BellyBeard wrote:
Nyerkh wrote:

Most of the 40 classes of 1E will show up at some point, one way or another. Some may not be actual full classes, some are likely to be fused, but we'll get them.

Shifter is not one of the four for next year.
But I'd expect it'll appear down the line. Probably not in the second or even third batch though.
Sorry for the tangent, but do we know all 4 classes in the APG? I know of witch but not the others.

Witch, Swashbuckler, Oracle, Investigator iirc


The animal instinct barbarin is already most of the way there, relying solely on shape shifted unarmed attacks and natural armor, plus eventually turning into animals full stop. If you multiclass to pick up focus spells you can probably spend every class feat on something shape shifting related.


That's a good point I should have emphasized more : Animal Barbarian is very much the best approximation we have so far.
I do hope we get a more flexible, versatile shifting martial at some point, but I quite enjoy the barbarian for now.


Captain Morgan wrote:
The animal instinct barbarin is already most of the way there, relying solely on shape shifted unarmed attacks and natural armor, plus eventually turning into animals full stop. If you multiclass to pick up focus spells you can probably spend every class feat on something shape shifting related.

So basically just need an archtype to replace spell casting with a bit more combat effectiveness and we are their. However if it was it's own class it would be easier to make the niche shape shifters.


The concept of totem warrior is too popular to fall in the oblivion but I suggest the name "nagual"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagual

Don't worry, if it not published by Paizo, then it will be by a 3rd party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For what it is worth, for me PF1 struggled to provide this even given ten years. It was was generally the one class I most wanted - and spent most time looking for.

Synthesist was possibly the best in terms of catering to options from level one, even though it had spell casting. Some of the archetypes were ok, but most were very disappointing, and none were amazing/exactly what I was looking for - even if given a lot of rope.

Edit: Actually Oozemancer was hilarious and as a result qualified as amazing in my book.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:

For what it is worth, for me PF1 struggled to provide this even given ten years.

Synthesist was possibly the best in terms of catering to options from level one, even though it had spell casting. Some of the archetypes were ok, but most were very disappointing, and none were amazing/exactly what I was looking for - even if given a lot of rope.

Edit: Actually Oozemancer was hilarious and as a result qualified as amazing in my book.

I loved the concept for it but it was borderline unplayable at low level.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:

For what it is worth, for me PF1 struggled to provide this even given ten years.

Synthesist was possibly the best in terms of catering to options from level one, even though it had spell casting. Some of the archetypes were ok, but most were very disappointing, and none were amazing/exactly what I was looking for - even if given a lot of rope.

Edit: Actually Oozemancer was hilarious and as a result qualified as amazing in my book.

I loved the concept for it but it was borderline unplayable at low level.

Oh, definitely. Better to use in a campaign not starting at level one.

The stupidity at level one did contribute to the hilarity, but in a way that wasn’t productive in practice.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / Shapeshifting Class? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.