| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Biggest thing I want is not a port of the PF1 shifter. That class suffered a lot from being a spell-less druid and existing in one of the most crowded thematic niches in PF1. That design space is less overloaded in PF2, but the class would still stand on its own much better if it existed in a wider design space.
The PF1 shifter also advertised itself as being highly customizable, being able to mix and match aspects from different animals. This ended up being mostly marketing hype that didn't do much in practice, but it could be another way to really differentiate the class from traditional shapeshifting by allowing you to gain bonuses and abilities outside the normal bounds of Form spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming that the shifter in question is using battle forms as-we-generally-understand-them, you could empower them to be able to get extra mileage out of the forms. Use different kinds of actions. Longer durations. Something like "sudden mutation" to get surprise reach on your bite or something.
As a full class, I could see shifters getting subclasses for: many forms, single form, humanoid-but-monsterous-features form.
Okay...? Is there a market for that? I mean, is there anyone out there looking at battle forms and thinking "Wow. Those are amazingly cool. I want my character to be completely based around *that*"?
I mean, I've certainly seen caster players who'd like to be able to play a full caster who could *also* tromp around in battle form and be awesome as melee, but for balance reasons, I think that the druid is about as good as you're going to get on that account. This would be a class that effectively had no spellcasting *other* than battle forms (and then had feats and the like that would let them bring their battle forms the rest of the way up to martial character standard effectiveness levels).
Does anyone really *want* that? I mean, for my partial shifter with a library of morphs to fit into slots idea, I'd personally wind up building one or two, and then possibly running one if I liked the feel of it and had a campaign that I thought it would fit well in. Is there anyone out there who'd really go for this other version of the idea?
I like battle forms, conceptually. If there is one, there are probably more. Don't get too caught up in thinking that your opinion or the ones represented on the forums/whatever personal circle you have are the only opinions.
Besides: I don't really care about speculating on new mechanics that might happen sometime in the future. That's what the homebrew forums are for. What we have are battle forms, for now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay...? Is there a market for that? I mean, is there anyone out there looking at battle forms and thinking "Wow. Those are amazingly cool. I want my character to be completely based around *that*"?
I mean, from my experience Wild is probably the most popular druid order and I've seen a lot of people talking about wanting to play shapeshifting wizards and sorcerers (with mixed opinions about the mechanics), so I'd say yes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Form spells are cool as heck and I would love to play a character who can jump between them without weighing the cost benefit of the spell slots and focus points every time, and not have to worry about attack bonuses and AC of each form too much.
A Shifter would have heavy overlap with existing subclasses (Animal Barb and Wild Druid)I'd honestly prefer if they didn't have a "heavy overlap"... There is a LOT more to shapechanging than a combat buff.
I meant thematic overlap. If gameplay is different but thematically it's very similar to existing things all the more reason to make it an archetype.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean the biggest reason not to make it an archetype is because it'd be extremely difficult to convey everything people want from this type of character in a couple of feats.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I meant thematic overlap. If gameplay is different but thematically it's very similar to existing things all the more reason to make it an archetype.A Shifter would have heavy overlap with existing subclasses (Animal Barb and Wild Druid)I'd honestly prefer if they didn't have a "heavy overlap"... There is a LOT more to shapechanging than a combat buff.
I understand, but my reply stays the same: there is a HUGE hole missing in the theme right now. Animal Barb and Wild Druid are your shapechange for sort term fighting theme. The focus ISN'T shapechanging but fighting. The barbarian is good at fighting: full stop. You actually get more shapechanging out of dragon, where you actually get some kind of utility transformation [like wings]. Pretty much the same with druid, who has a focus on casting and has a spell for a short term combat buff that just happens to transform you.
IMO, it's a completely different to shift the focus to shapechanging FIRST. For instance, a utility feat to grow a tail and prehensile feet for a climb speed or a feat to grow cold resistant fur or bat ears for echolocation. Sure, there would be combat feats but they'd involve shapechanging in some way so it's the fighting that's tacked on to the transformation. So instead of FIGHTING with a side of combat transformation [barbarian] for a theme or CASTING with a side of combat transformation [druid] you have a theme of TRANSFORMATION first: this means the only real overlap is in the combat and that, IMO, isn't "heavy" as there is a whole lot of theme left on the table unused.
Okay. I can see the *conceptual* space for a single-form shifter - someone who's learned how to adjust their body, and who is tweaking and refining it as they go, as their path to power. The question is, what's the tactical space? If you've only got one form, and you can stay in it as long as you like, then the shapeshifting itself isn't really part of your tactics, since you're always in the same shape as far as combat is concerned - it's just that that shape is "battle form" rather than the "ancestry form" that most other folks use. The investigator gets the whole "devise a strategem"/"pursue a lead"/"strategic strike" thing, plus a focus on out-of-combat utility and some interesting stuff about recalling knowledge. Rogue gets sneak attack, a bunch of ways to make someone flat-footed, and a big pile of proficiencies. The swashbuckler gets panache and finishers. What does the shifter get, if it's not the shifting?
I think you can get a lot even from a single form, if you want it. Let's say you turn into a blue dragon. You get some baseline stuff like dragon's breath and later on flying. A feat or two for some more abilities like create water at will plus desert thirst. That is already a lot compared to other classes. And dragons do not really have all that many special abilities until later on.
But I agree that just simply copying a creature could lack some spice, especially for the simpler monsters. But you do not necessarily need a completely new form or body part to have what I think should be the shifter's signature tactical ability - quick, short-term adaptiveness. As a template, I would like to bring the level 5 fleshwarp ancestry feat "mutate weapon" up again. For an action cost - this could even be a variable action cost for different effects - you for example make your arms longer to give yourself more reach for a short time. Focus spells or a completely different system to extent the duration or allow for more simultaneous changes.
To be honest, this is largely just semantics. Whether you use a completely different form/body part or make the body part itself change is cosmetic and could therefore fall under the same mechanics. Which is exactly what I think will happen, if the existing content is any indication. But I would like it to be a choice, because I do not want to end up with a chimera if I don't want to.
---
Assuming that the shifter in question is using battle forms as-we-generally-understand-them, you could empower them to be able to get extra mileage out of the forms. Use different kinds of actions. Longer durations. Something like "sudden mutation" to get surprise reach on your bite or something.
As a full class, I could see shifters getting subclasses for: many forms, single form, humanoid-but-monsterous-features form.
The whole battle form concept exists to balance spells anyone can potentially get and is therefore very limited. I completely agree with Sanityfaerie that making a new class around that just fundamentally doesn't work very well. That's just a wild order druid without actual spellcasting. And I get the impression that is exactly why the 1E shifter was so problematic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 1e Shifter was problematic because it DIDN'T get access to Wild Shape like a Druid does. A 1e Shifter could only access 1 alternate form every 5 lvls. That means a 15th lvl Shifter could only turn into 4 animals! Meanwhile, a Druid at that lvl has 8th lvl spells, and can turn into pretty much any Animal, Plant, or Elemental form.
My GM lifted the form restriction as a house rule and let me shift into any of the available aspects, and my Shifter is a BEAST. Quite a simple fix, I'm surprised Paizo didn't think of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We might also want to look into splitting up the different shifting possibilities into different actions. If only to solve the polymorph vs polymorph vs morph problem. It might not be the best idea to make everything a different action, but two that each have a pool of possibilities seems reasonable. Feats and features could then modify these actions and/or increase the pool of possibilities. The summoner's eidolon evolution options seem like a good frame of reference here.
As an example:
---
Partial Shift [one action or two actions]
[concentrate] [morph] [tradition tag] [transmutation]
"You shift parts of your body into new or different forms. The effects last until the start of your next turn.
[one action] Choose one of the following effects.
[two actions] Choose two of the following effects. You cannot choose the same effect twice.
Effects: e.g. weapon traits, +1 to X rolls and so on"
---
Full Shift (one action)
[concentrate] [polymorph] [tradition tag] [transmutation]
"You shift your entire form into one granted to you by your shifter aspect (placeholder name for class path) or your humanoid form."
Any further details on what else this does would probably have to be spelled out in the respective aspect, as those are far too different to bring under one umbrella without this being 2 pages long.
---
Movement Adaptation [class feat]
"You adapt your body to move in different ways. When selecting this feat choose one of the following: burrow, climb, swim. At level X, you can also choose fly. This selection cannot be changed later. When using Partial Shift as a two-action activity, instead of selecting from any effects, gain that movement type equal to your land speed for 10 minutes.
You can select this feat multiple times, choosing a different movement type each time."
---
The different aspects would specialise in one or the other action, but every shifter should have both. Shifters more focused on a single or limited number of forms (depending on how far we draw the circle for each aspect) would get more out of Full Shift but have more limited options when doing Partial Shift. Chimera shifters (placeholder name for shifters that take on aspects of multiple creatures simultaneously) get advantages for Partial Shift, but any Full Shift is only a lesser imitation. Specialist vs generalist seems applicable here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 1e Shifter was problematic because it DIDN'T get access to Wild Shape like a Druid does. A 1e Shifter could only access 1 alternate form every 5 lvls. That means a 15th lvl Shifter could only turn into 4 animals! Meanwhile, a Druid at that lvl has 8th lvl spells, and can turn into pretty much any Animal, Plant, or Elemental form.
My GM lifted the form restriction as a house rule and let me shift into any of the available aspects, and my Shifter is a BEAST. Quite a simple fix, I'm surprised Paizo didn't think of it.
Is this more of a "this is pretty good in 1e" situations or do you think the class or at least aspects of it have conversion potential?
My knowledge of 1e is too limited to go beyond "this generally doesn't seem to be what I want", aso I'd like to hear the thoughts of someone who actually has hands-on experience ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 1e Shifter was problematic because it DIDN'T get access to Wild Shape like a Druid does. A 1e Shifter could only access 1 alternate form every 5 lvls. That means a 15th lvl Shifter could only turn into 4 animals! Meanwhile, a Druid at that lvl has 8th lvl spells, and can turn into pretty much any Animal, Plant, or Elemental form.
My GM lifted the form restriction as a house rule and let me shift into any of the available aspects, and my Shifter is a BEAST. Quite a simple fix, I'm surprised Paizo didn't think of it.
Is this more of a "this is pretty good in 1e" situations or do you think the class or at least aspects of it have conversion potential?
My knowledge of 1e is too limited to go beyond "this generally doesn't seem to be what I want", aso I'd like to hear the thoughts of someone who actually has hands-on experience ^^
For myself, the PF1 shifter was problematic because it accessed wildshape not that it had a different progression. Going wildshape and aspects was a whole lot of... meh IMO. I really didn't want a mish-mash of some abilities from column [hunter] and some from column [druid] mixed up and spat out as a class that for some reason couldn't wear metal armor, must be neutral and spoke druidic even when the concept and/or archetype didn't need any such entanglement: for instance, why would a Weretouched, a hereditary or supernaturally imposed lycanthrope, have any need to be neutral, care about non-silver metallic armor or want to learn druidic?
It'd be nice to see a shifter built from the ground up without shamelessly borrowing abilities from other classes: think about all the work put into the Inventor for new and interesting mechanical based abilities but instead for shapechange based abilities vs cross out druid and write shifter on those abilities/feats.
I haven't seen it explicitly mentioned in thread yet, but the adaptive shifter archetype in pf1 is a lot like what a lot of posters here seem to want. Myself included, a morph class/archetype would be really cool.
One thing I don't know much about concerning the shifter is the thematic identity of it. Mechanically, I get it, but other than that... It's just a different sort of druid? Doesn't seem very unique, lore wise.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a full transformation class is hard to do - it would be competing with wild shape druids.
This only true if "dude what changes form to puppo" is a niche that needs to be protected. I don't personally think it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a full transformation class is hard to do - it would be competing with wild shape druids.
The main downsides of the wild shape druid, as I see them:
1) Your main trick isn't really active until level 3
2) A lot of later forms are big, which can be an issue in some places (A feat for taking the shape but staying Medium would be very helpful...)
3) Can't cast while transformed (which, meh - you can nova and then shift, etc)But on the other hand, they're very durable with all that temp HP, bonus resists, etc. They get free resists, all the movement types, and are still full spellcasters.
So that's what any such option is going to be compared to.
For a thematic difference, I think Shifter would need to focus on partial transformations. An extreme specialist in transmutation magic, as it were. So your initial option would pretty much look like Wild Morph - gain natural weapon attack(s). Then you'd be building on that (You'd want the innate magic weapon/metal effects out of Monk possiblY?) with improvements.
I'm thinking the progression is letting you buy morph options similar to how eidolons get evolutions, and when you activate your shifting you get a natural weapon plus X options, with X increasing with the level of the spell (some options would be automatic, but many from feats). So at higher levels you'd shift to gain a tail (reach weapon), wings (fly speed), and a web attack, or poison, or something. At level 20 in combat you're some horrifying chimaera of doom.
Some other thoughts for shifts - quadruped (+speed), maybe have some shifts give bonuses on certain saves or skills (like going quadruped is a +1 status to fort, grabbing tentacles might be a weaker attack but it's got +athletics).
I think the much harder thing will be the comparison to the summoner's eidolon, specifically the evolution feats. Yes, the shifter will need some differences from wild shape/form spells, but I think their limitations are underestimated when it comes to how much they overlap. In addition to the things you listed, there are several more and those are much more significant - well, apart from the size issue, which is extremely important.
(1) - The time limit of 1 minute for combat-capable forms. Meanwhile there is no reason a shifter shouldn't be able to do a full transformation at level 1. Sure, it wouldn't be as powerful as the imitated monster, but still. That already sets you apart - the guy over there has to use magic to turn into what you can do like this *snaps fingers*.
(2) - Battle forms have more limitations than just the inability to cast. You can't speak or use most manipulate actions. All of that has the potential to not be the case for a shifter.
(3) - Scaling. Its not terrible, but rather jumpy and limited in many cases. Just take dragon form - starts at level 11 and stops hightening after you get to level 15. That would definitely not be an issue for the shifter.
(4) - What can you turn into? Wild shape only turns you into animals, dragons and elementals. Yes, there will be more form spells, but a druid won't have native access to them.
(5) - Action economy. All inherent polymorph "change shape" actions we know are one action compared to the spell variant costing two actions.
(6)- In my eyes this one is the most important. Form spells only give very limited access to a creature's abilities. Basically you get attacks (usually only some of them) movement speeds, vision and one special ability. That is not too bad, but there is so much more there, especially on higher-level monsters. Think of this - monstrosity form might turn you into a purple worm. But a worm shifter might have access to its swallow whole ability or even thrash on top of that. Those are two very different things.
All of those things and more are in my eyes enough to make a difference even without seriously looking at partial transformations. Those are the cream on top, not necessarily the only thing to make it different. You are a natural while the guy over there is using a magical crutch to do less than you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 1e Shifter was problematic because it DIDN'T get access to Wild Shape like a Druid does. A 1e Shifter could only access 1 alternate form every 5 lvls. That means a 15th lvl Shifter could only turn into 4 animals! Meanwhile, a Druid at that lvl has 8th lvl spells, and can turn into pretty much any Animal, Plant, or Elemental form.
My GM lifted the form restriction as a house rule and let me shift into any of the available aspects, and my Shifter is a BEAST. Quite a simple fix, I'm surprised Paizo didn't think of it.
Is this more of a "this is pretty good in 1e" situations or do you think the class or at least aspects of it have conversion potential?
My knowledge of 1e is too limited to go beyond "this generally doesn't seem to be what I want", aso I'd like to hear the thoughts of someone who actually has hands-on experience ^^
Good question. I think there's design space for a Shifter class in 2e, but as several ppl mentioned, the forms/shapes they can shift into should be different from the forms Druids can do. They should be more Chimeric, taking aspects from different creatures at the same time while keeping their Humanoid shape. I think that would make the Shifter a distinctive class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand, but my reply stays the same: there is a HUGE hole missing in the theme right now. Animal Barb and Wild Druid are your shapechange for sort term fighting theme. The focus ISN'T shapechanging but fighting. The barbarian is good at fighting: full stop. You actually get more shapechanging out of dragon, where you actually get some kind of utility transformation [like wings]. Pretty much the same with druid, who has a focus on casting and has a spell for a short term combat buff that just happens to transform you.
IMO, it's a completely different to shift the focus to shapechanging FIRST. For instance, a utility feat to grow a tail and prehensile feet for a climb speed or a feat to grow cold resistant fur or bat ears for echolocation. Sure, there would be combat feats but they'd involve shapechanging in some way so it's the fighting that's tacked on to the transformation. So instead of FIGHTING with a side of combat transformation [barbarian] for a theme or CASTING with a side of combat transformation [druid] you have a theme of TRANSFORMATION first: this means the only real overlap is in the combat and that, IMO, isn't "heavy" as there is a whole lot of theme left on the table unused.
This post is giving me ideas. First: a shifter that who’s alternate form is the humanoid has been brought up in various ancestries (Kitsune, Anadi, Beastkin), but that could be a potential narrative theme for this class as well.
Building on that, firms for exploration and downtime mode seem like obvious mechanical holes. Ranger are the best at tracking right now; a Wolf form that allows you to track at full speed and then combine it with a specific other exploration activity seems like an obvious class feat or class feature option.
Edit: just to be clear, when I refer to forms in this thread, I do not mean a polymorph spell, but something like change shape or synthecist summoning.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Most everyone want Shifter to be a melee class with martial stats.
2. Most everyone want Shifter to be better at utility shifting than a Druid with the relevant feats.
3. Most everyone want to limit Shifter spellcasting anywhere from none to only focus spells.
4. Most everyone want Shifters to be able to grab multiple morph spells/abilities simultaneously. (At least 2 at any one time)
5. Most everyone wants little connection with druid, anathema, and primal theme.
Your list, while good and mostly accurate, needs two changes from the impressions I got:
It is not "no spellcasting". It is no build-in spellcasting, i.e the class shouldn't have a spellcasting feature in its chassis. I doubt people would mind spellcasting abilities from feats or some paths like the summoner's eidolon is going to.
And most important of all - shapeshifting is innate and shouldn't have anything to do with spells. Form spells least of all. It creates too much thematic conflict and is mechanically unsound. Those spells are designed for full casters and are limited accordingly. Using them as the basis for a full class in any way is a guaranteed way to make everybody unhappy.
So then I see Shifter as a Monk-like class. With morph stances to get the shifting and feats to get "multiple stances at once" among other stuff. The damage would similar to a monk without flurry, although some morphs might grant a flurry like ability.
Ok, this I don't understand at all.
Stances and morph abilities have nothing to do with each other. Stances are purely techniques, there is no conceptual overlap with shape-shifting abilities. It would also limit those shapeshifting abilities purely to encounter mode, which makes no sense at all. I think this is stretching the stance system far beyond what is intended or needed. We have existing examples and systems for morph and polymorph that work perfectly fine for this purpose.
And why would you make the class like a monk without flurry? The point of the monk in the offensive department is to make many low impact attacks and it is already not exactly the best in the damage department. Such a class is like a rogue without sneak attack or a barbarian without rage - pointless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While it'd be a fun idea I'm leery of allowing a shifter to poach the abilities bestiary monsters get outright. That sems like it could become potentially very unbalanced very quickly. Monsters are created with the assumption that they will get to do their thing maybe three or four times, and then die, so they have a more effective action economy than PCs in almost all cases. If the shifter could start taking abilities like that they could quickly become the most efficient fighter in the game.
Most abilities are fine, I think. The real problem is some of those two-action super-abilities. There are some really nasty ones out there. But given that Paizo has given the dragon eidolon both the breath weapon and draconic frenzy, I guess they aren't that worried in general.
But just for giggles, I would love to see a fiend shifter that some madman gave the full abilities of a pit fiend. An 8th-level fireball every round for one action seems very fair XD
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I certainly would want to have the option of playing an animal-themed shifter.
First, I said "from none to focus spells", this is only talking about the "Shifter Class" itself and not what they might get with feats from ancestry and other classes/archetypes.
Your list literally states "3. Most everyone want to limit Shifter spellcasting anywhere from none to only focus spells.". And that is all I was talking about. If you wanted it to say something else, with all due respect, you should have phrased it differently.
Second, I said "spells/abilities" which means that the feats and abilitiea might reference spells or be actual spells much like how Animal Barbarian references Animal/Dragon/Giant form or how Druid uses the spells. But Shifter might also just get other ways to do it outside referencing a spell. I have no idea why you went straight to "oh no magic" when just the section before I said "little to no magic". Which btw you absolutely need magic to make a Shifter. Its just not possible otherwise outside you having Malleable Flesh (PF1 Vigilante reference).
Yes, I know that that is what you said. And I disagree that that is necessary or that it is something that many people want.
Other classes and archetypes reference/use spells because shapeshifting is not their main thing. Therefore they get the discount spell version. They are not true shapeshifters. Archetypes are espectially limited, because anybody can take them. A wizard just popping a spell and matching the party fighter is not desired and thus the wizard doesn't get to do that.
And yes, you need magic to shapeshift. But magic doesn't automatically mean spells. We have the "Change Shape" action, which is magic due to the primal and transmutation traits. But it is not a spell. That distinction has some mechanical impacts, but the real reason is that it is necessary for the theme. It is part of your being, not something you impose on yourself.
This is why I got so confused when you started speaking about "no magic, magic bad" previously. My own potential idea for the class was based around having stances that "shift your form to different animals", not spells. I chose stance mechanic because it gives a nber of benefits:
1. Many stances already take after animals with animal like unarmed strikes. Extending it to give you animal body part as a shifter would work well.
2. Stances have a solid mechanic that is easy to use in and out of combat. Its also easy to add feats that modify them, ex: Monks have Stance Savant, Master of Many Styles, and Fuse Stance. Shifter could have the same and more stance feats with more Shifter flavor.
3. Stances already are a Tag so no need to invent new mechanics.
4. Stances are simple to understand and thus all you need are stances people actually want to use.
5. All current systems for using morph and polymorph that I know involve spells in some way. What I have suggested could be pure morph abilities unrelated to existing spells.
"Finally, to top it off, it would get a few feats to get the form spell for their given subtype.". That is why I made that second addition. And I think I have made clear why several times in this thread.
And of course there are non-spell (poly)morph abilities. Plenty of them in fact, even for players. The change shape action in several variants (e.g. beastkin and kitsune)is already in place to deal with natural shapeshifting. The base animal barbarian beastial rage isn't a spell either. Bending the stance mechanic is therefore not necessary or desireable.
Then you ask why "make a class like Monk with no Flurry?" Well the answer is simple. The Shifter is not supposed to be a Monk, why should it get Flurry?
The Monk is the premier unarmed striker, and thus all unarmed attacks must compare to a Monk. But not exceed it, otherwise you eat up into the Monk's niche. Monk is best when using Flurry to deal Unarmed Attack damage twice as 1 action. Thus Shifter could compete with Monk by not being able to Flurry outside specific morphs (Ex: Tiger Claws), but instead getting special bonuses or more damage with those morphs (Ex: Better grappling with tentacles).
The point of the Shifter is to "have a variety of forms that allow you to do a variety of things not possible by others." Its the same premise behind casters and the reason given to why they are limited. Its the same reason why Shifters wouldn't do more damage than a Monk: Without getting specific feats and forms/morphs. Their thing is transformations and utility, not damage.
Yes, the shifter is not a monk and is not supposed to be. But what you said previously is not the same as what you said now. Previously you simply said "The damage would similar to a monk without flurry, although some morphs might grant a flurry like ability.". There was no mention of compensation and therefore I had issues with that. Please, you really need to say what you mean, I cannot read minds.
And even with what you said just now, I can guarantee you one thing - the monk won't come out on top in the damage department. At least not in most situations. Because he already doesn't in comparison to the existing competition. He is handily getting out-damaged by the animal barbarian in most cases. Add to that unarmed rogues (e.g. with iruxi claws), fighters, dragon eidolons and most likely magus, all of whom can easily give the monk a run for their money. The monk is just really easy to out-damage.
Yes, I doubt the shifter will get a one-action flurry ability. But even if they will be as heavily focused on transformations and utility as you say - the latter of which I think will most likely be more about player choice than mandatory - the way classes are balanced will do the job just fine.
One of the biggest issues I see with the shifter is the paths, at least from a logistical perspective (i.e. page count). As with the summoner, there is just so much ground to cover if we go beyond just the "chimera shifter". And with how broad classes (and options in general) are in this edition, I seriously doubt we will just have the chimera of doom.
As an aside, I sure see a lot more support for that specific aspect than I would have expected, though. Based on the popularity of the wild order druid, I would have thought more specific full-form shifters would be a lot closer to the center of discussion.
Well, anyway, what would be the best format to convey all that information? The eidolon blocks are already pretty good. The "melee/suggested attacks" section in particular is very efficient. A certain amount of "build your own form" is very desireable from a design perspective, as it allows for a lot of different concepts to fit under the same mechancial roof. A dragon shifter might be quite a number of things - your character only takes aspects of dragons into their original form, transforms into dragons (or dakes and so on) in general, only transforms into a certain family of dragons (chromatic, metallic, primal,..etc.) or even just a singular type of dragon. Or a mix of some of those.
That is a lot of abilities to have potentially have access to. And you can't just go with "here is the pool of abilities you can get at certain levels, so go to the bestiary and or book x to see what they do". You can't just limit it as heavily as the eidolon either, because then you can just play a synthesist summoner when that comes out.
The best I can come up with is a web supplement that is largely copy-pasted abilities with some adjustments for some of the more spicy options. In the original book, each shifter path just gets a list of potential abilities, with certain abilities gated behind levels. I just don't know if Paizo can afford to do that from a business perspective.
Anyone have a better idea?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. I think its pretty clear than when you say "[insert class] spellcasting" its talking just about spellcasting from the class. I really didn't think I had to explain something that I have seen everyone else understand.
Karmagator was also talking about spellcasting from the class, specifically feats like the summoner gets where you have 2-3 innate spells or feats that duplicate the basic/moderate spellcasting benefits.
I don’t personally want that; it doesn’t fit what I would think of as a shifter, but as a class path or class archetype, which is what Karmagator suggested, I could see it working. And he was not the only one that suggested minor to moderate spellcasting, though I feel that is a minority opinion.
I also ultimately agree that stances would be suboptimal. I think it could be made to work, but I’d rather they create a new mechanic that work similar but alongside stances, so that a monk/shifter multiclass could work well.
The PF1 shifter was a mashup of Druid and Monk, in some senses a hybrid class of those two (note: I am aware it is not actually a Hybrid class). I think many in this thread are firm on getting away from Druid mechanics, I am equally keen on going away from Monk mechanics.
So... that all raises an interesting question about monks - particularly the monk archetype. Flurry of Blows is available for two feats (one lvl 2, one lvl 10). If the attacks that shifter offers aren't competitive with monk stance strikes, then you can pick up a stance that will solve that problem for another feat, and shifters seem like "unarmored" should be a viable choice already. I'm not going to say that shifter/monks shouldn't be a reasonable build, but I think that at least a little thought should go into making sure that monk archetype isn't effectively mandatory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... that all raises an interesting question about monks - particularly the monk archetype. Flurry of Blows is available for two feats (one lvl 2, one lvl 10). If the attacks that shifter offers aren't competitive with monk stance strikes, then you can pick up a stance that will solve that problem for another feat, and shifters seem like "unarmored" should be a viable choice already. I'm not going to say that shifter/monks shouldn't be a reasonable build, but I think that at least a little thought should go into making sure that monk archetype isn't effectively mandatory.
That's a good point. A few ideas:
1. A flourish activity that competes with Flurry of Blows. Examples:
A decent set of attacks that has the Flourish trait and adds a point to a pool of shifting related abilities.
A single attack that powers up a form's capabilities (larger damage dice, poison damage, increased range) and has the Flourish trait.
2. Straight up giving Shifters a Flurry of Blows equivalent
3. Tying frequent shifting to a stance, to either choose to be one creature and get monk compatibility or gain the flexibility of multiple forms but be restricted by the stance
4. Give lots of three action activities that are thematically satisfying and mechanically potent.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd rather see Shifter's get an ability centric to maybe their "specialty" shifting.
Like a Horned shifter probably doesn't get FoB, but maybe they get something that allows them to move enemies easily, Clawed shifter maybe gets a Rend, etc.
So I guess that falls in your category 4.
Honestly, the Shifter could probably eat the old concept of the Synthesist in a way, where you can effectively build your shifting much the same way you build Eidolons and then select appropriate abilities as you level.
So... that all raises an interesting question about monks - particularly the monk archetype. Flurry of Blows is available for two feats (one lvl 2, one lvl 10). If the attacks that shifter offers aren't competitive with monk stance strikes, then you can pick up a stance that will solve that problem for another feat, and shifters seem like "unarmored" should be a viable choice already. I'm not going to say that shifter/monks shouldn't be a reasonable build, but I think that at least a little thought should go into making sure that monk archetype isn't effectively mandatory.
I'm pretty sure the die sizes will be different, at least in some cases and at some levels. For example, I do not think shifters with "regular" claws will be anything but d6 agile finesse to start with. Non-agile stuff will be d8 or d10 to start with. What I expect to happen is a die size increase at level 7 or so, just like with the animal barbarian. So stances will still be pretty good regardless, depending on what you want and what fits your character. From a purely mechanical perspective, it never hurts to pick up another damage type and side benefit, for example. But I seriously doubt they will be anything mandatory.
Flurry of Blows will be as "interesting" as it is already on other unarmed builds - not really mandatory, but pretty damn strong and usually stronger than on the original class, ironically. But as always, it is a trade-off between potentially more hits on an enemy and fewer hits plus special goodies. Now that I think about it, the picture of a bearbarian urauraura-ing an enemy into the ground is pretty damn funny.
When it comes to the unarmored situation, I expect some divergence between the shifter paths. The easiest way would be copying armour patterns like the barbarian's animal skin feat does, just with a bit more variety. Maybe even including heavy armour. Other, more humanoid shifters, will probably be able to wear armour like regular people.
What I'm currently thinking about is the damage compensation mechanic(s) they could get. With the varitey of damage die sizes we can expect, a panache or sneak attack-esk mechanic seems rather unlikely. I could see a "discount barbarian" solution, i.e. minor scaling flat damage (always significantly lower than the barbs). Or we could have another legendary in unarmed attacks situation on our hands as well, which would be cool as well. I'm personally hoping for a Mutate Weapon-like brief-ish buff mechanic.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'd rather see Shifter's get an ability centric to maybe their "specialty" shifting.
Like a Horned shifter probably doesn't get FoB, but maybe they get something that allows them to move enemies easily, Clawed shifter maybe gets a Rend, etc.
So I guess that falls in your category 4.
Seems like the most thematic solution. Which is usually the most satisfying solution.
Honestly, the Shifter could probably eat the old concept of the Synthesist in a way, where you can effectively build your shifting much the same way you build Eidolons and then select appropriate abilities as you level.
That's what I'm thinking as well. Mechanically and thematically, they will occupy largely the same space, just from looking at all these evolution feats.
But I hope we get both, even if there is a ton of overlap. There is a simple, but increadibly important distinction here. The shifter is one being, while the Synthesist will be a fusion of two individuals. That will make all the difference.
I meant thematic overlap. If gameplay is different but thematically it's very similar to existing things all the more reason to make it an archetype.A Shifter would have heavy overlap with existing subclasses (Animal Barb and Wild Druid)I'd honestly prefer if they didn't have a "heavy overlap"... There is a LOT more to shapechanging than a combat buff.I understand, but my reply stays the same: there is a HUGE hole missing in the theme right now. Animal Barb and Wild Druid are your shapechange for sort term fighting theme. The focus ISN'T shapechanging but fighting. The barbarian is good at fighting: full stop. You actually get more shapechanging out of dragon, where you actually get some kind of utility transformation [like wings]. Pretty much the same with druid, who has a focus on casting and has a spell for a short term combat buff that just happens to transform you.
IMO, it's a completely different to shift the focus to shapechanging FIRST. For instance, a utility feat to grow a tail and prehensile feet for a climb speed or a feat to grow cold resistant fur or bat ears for echolocation. Sure, there would be combat feats but they'd involve shapechanging in some way so it's the fighting that's tacked on to the transformation. So instead of FIGHTING with a side of combat transformation [barbarian] for a theme or CASTING with a side of combat transformation [druid] you have a theme of TRANSFORMATION first: this means the only real overlap is in the combat and that, IMO, isn't "heavy" as there is a whole lot of theme left on the table unused.
You won me over a little bit. I kind of agree with you now but still feel there is no need for a full class for this. An archetype could work just as good.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I hope we get both, even if there is a ton of overlap. There is a simple, but increadibly important distinction here. The shifter is one being, while the Synthesist will be a fusion of two individuals. That will make all the difference.
I guess my hope would be that the Synthesist is based on the Shifter and not the other way around if they were to both exist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You won me over a little bit. I kind of agree with you now but still feel there is no need for a full class for this. An archetype could work just as good.
I have a hard time seeing an archetype when you're going for an entirely different focus. What is a barbarian once you take away rage? At that point, you're pretty much building a new class and if you keep rage, it stays combat-centric and locked into a 1 min combat buff link for all it's abilities. It's much the same with the druid: once you start removing spells and shifting proficiencies for attacks, you're once again rebuilding the class, so IMO, you're better off just building the class from the ground up than trying to jerry rig a kludge of add-on parts to a class that doesn't share a focus. Going archetype, I can't see how get the full feel of a utility shape changer and you'd most likely lose the feel of the base class meaning a good chance neither fans of shifters NOR the base class would like it.
IMO, archetypes only really work if they don't change integral parts or if they do, those parts still interact the same with the rest of the class: for instance, if you archetype a barbarian, either do not touch rage or make sure the replacement counts as rage for all the powers and abilities. For the druid, I'd say swapping up casting types, traditions, number of slots, ect would be fair game for an archetype but removing just makes too much not work right.
That's what I'm thinking as well. Mechanically and thematically, they will occupy largely the same space, just from looking at all these evolution feats.
But I hope we get both, even if there is a ton of overlap. There is a simple, but increadibly important distinction here. The shifter is one being, while the Synthesist will be a fusion of two individuals. That will make all the difference.
The most basic difference that I see is that the Synthesist is still a Summoner, and as a Summoner they still have a significant chunk of their potential bound up in spells. If there was a way to build a Synthesist as a pure martial (possibly getting a few extra evolutions here and there as they level), and maybe a few class feats that would let them hotswap their available evolutions in the moment, that suddenly becomes very interesting to me.
As for fluff... well, first, why *shouldn't* we have shifters be based on channeling spirits with their bodies? Even without that, though, it's pretty easy to refluff, or say that your character doesn't think of them as separate entities. Heck - reading the story of the iconic summoner, and the way they pass actions and HP back and forth, it's not entirely clear that they are separate entities. That sounds like exactly the sort of thing that characters could have rousing academic disputes over in-character.
...and if they *do* run it this way (especially if "synthesist" and "pure martial" are nonconflicting class archetypes for the summoner) then there's a real win in complexity cost. At that point, Paizo can just make sure that the class archetypes in question are reasonably well-balanced against the base class, and then all of the effort that would go into making balanced shifter morphs on the one hand and summoner evolutions on the other can go into the same pot. Shifter and Summoner both seem like classes that would really benefit from having nice, deep pools of morphs/evolutions to draw from, and a variety of base forms. Not splitting that effort could be really good for all involved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the Shifter could probably eat the old concept of the Synthesist in a way, where you can effectively build your shifting much the same way you build Eidolons and then select appropriate abilities as you level.
I’ve certainly just assumed we were headed there, but I won’t belabor points over made already. I think though that a class archetype that gives summoner spell casting would be thematically and mechanically appropriate.
Let’s see. An eidolon had 3 hard coded abilities and their base stats. Give the shifter version 2 more abilities (one scaling), and the class archetype could pick up a summons as their “shift” and add wave casting to lean on when you’re not shifted.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, the Shifter could probably eat the old concept of the Synthesist in a way, where you can effectively build your shifting much the same way you build Eidolons and then select appropriate abilities as you level.I’ve certainly just assumed we were headed there, but I won’t belabor points over made already. I think though that a class archetype that gives summoner spell casting would be thematically and mechanically appropriate.
Let’s see. An eidolon had 3 hard coded abilities and their base stats. Give the shifter version 2 more abilities (one scaling), and the class archetype could pick up a summons as their “shift” and add wave casting to lean on when you’re not shifted.
I think you might be able to get away with an ala carte system on Shifter if there's no power budget for their spells.
The question still remains whether they should be focus casters, but I legimately think a "morpher" can work as a Champion/Ranger/Monk Focus Spell only.
If we're being honest, thematically, I feel like there's more thematic overlap with the Mutagenist though in some regard, but that's probably a whole other can of worms. And Animal Barbarian, but that was already said.
I mean I'd be down for all spectrums of shifters to take a shape too, everything from Beast Boy to Ben Hargraves/Number 6.
It's funny because I feel like Shifter has a lot of thematic space to live distinctly from other Classes.
The question becomes how do the mechanics become distinct enough that they fulfill that narrative space well and also differentiate playstyle from other Classes.
Like, to me, fighting with shifty arms, not that different from fighting with a shifting weapon, or Monk stances if all we're talking about is making attacks and them having varying traits.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey everyone, I just wanted to say that I expanded on my previous idea and some other people's ideas "a bit". In short, I made a homebrew. But since this is not the section for this sort of thing, I'm just gonna leave this link here for anyone interested. You can find everything there and maybe give your 2 cents :)
Hmmm I was thinking do you think Shifters could follow the gunslinger/fighter paragdim of the increased progress of natural weapons. I would want to see it develop in other ways, but I could se a chasis of like d8 but starting with expert proficiency in unarmed attacks. Heck maybe something like Expert unarmed, simple weapons trained( but no martial.