| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don’t mean to dogpile you TMS; it’s just a question already answered before. That’s how so many of us had a response chambered ready to go.
So I'm seeing three desired versions at this point, all of which involve more than animal forms BTW.
1. Polymorph into many forms
2. Polymorph into singular form
3. Morph effects
1. Like Wild Shape w/ martial base stats
-Would need Battle Forms to remain competitive
(compare to Fighter (et al)/MCD Druid)
-Some desire swift form changes during combat.
(And I suppose good value for it)
-Much desire for substitution own better stats when able
2. Like Animal Barbarian except equally viable in alternate form
- Add non-animal options, likely simple skins on generic chassis
- Also compare to melded Summoner, but w/ attack enhancer
3. Like Ranger with Animal Feature
-Except baked into chassis & w/ monstrous abilities & multiple concurrent abilities as options
-Also compare with reskinned Monk builds & martial builds which dip for a Morph effect from another class. Also look at how Inventor chooses from an extra ability chart at key levels.
-Add distinct attack enhancer
One can make 1., but its shelf life is short, starting slow and capping fairly fast as one's Focus Spells cap at their highest version w/o access to the highest level feats. But it could be viable with an Archetype that makes them accessible.
One can make 2. obviously, except Barbarian options are limited and there's little gained by going into full form. And little utility. As a Summoner options broaden a lot, except there's some unnecessary awkwardness, unnecessary spells in budget, and no innate attack enhancer (though several good feat options).
One can make 3, but that's dabbling, not fully embracing the potential of the class.
--
So enough mechanics exist, they only need to be cleaned up, meshed together, and viable from 1st level (and given some extra Paizo oomph w/ some cool tricks). What would be feats/Instincts for other classes would become embedded in the Shifter chassis. While an archetype could do one of these, it'd take a class IMO to do justice to all three, especially concepts which combine like lycanthropes that would want to function as one singular animal or hybrid. (Now how does one make the abilities of those different enough for certain combats to favor one over the other?)
It seems there'd only be two subclasses necessary; one for polymorph and one for morph, though picking from a menu could cover both too. Or there could be "weapon/armor/pet" options like Inventor, perhaps with "pet" replaced by "utility/skills".
|
There's plenty of meat, especially if the class isn't limited to Druid's flavor. Arcane shapeshifting is a thing too. Impersonation subclass to get earlier imitation of individuals and better duration, eventually getting detection protection. Battle form subclass that gets to add weapon traits to forms like Inventor improves weapons, eventually getting improvements to temporary hitpoints or even healing some on transformation. Chimeric subclass that can't pass as natural but gets a menu of movement and other unique features like a frog tongue to add onto various forms, eventually getting expanded options.The Shifter is, in my view, prime real estate to be implemented as a Druid Class Archetype that trades out all of their non-Focus Spell Spellcasting for additional Aspect and Wildshape functionality.
Heck, the PF1 Class Description even just literally says it outright, it's a "druidic discipline."
It could force the Wild Order, trade out Spellcasting for Martial Proficiencies, and grant Focus Cantrips to allow for at least minor all-day/at-will Wild Shape functionality and they could be done with it. There is just simply not enough meat on the Shifter concept to make it an entirely new Class without copying/pasting half of the Druid in the first place.
I admit I had forgotten about the Impersonation idea/subclass. This one sounds cool too.
So, as I've mentioned, I feel like #1 is best handled by a well-done Class Archetype off of the Druid that offers buffs related to Wild Shape in return for downshifting to a wave caster. It would be a lot less work than a full class, and it would give these people pretty much exactly what they want.
I feel like the answer to #2 is... well, we've been promised a full Synthesis Summoner at some point - likely also a class archetype. Ideally in my mind there is also an option to cash in some of that casting ability for further eidolon buffs (even just more evolution feats) that is compatible with the synthesist. I feel like a well-done version of that would, again, give htese people pretty much exactly what they're asking for and, again, be a lot less work than a full class.
I feel like #3 is the one that really wants its own full class.
I'm going to admit, though, that I don't expect that we're going to be seeing any of these "Class archetype done right" setups soon. I feel like we're in early-middle PF2, or perhaps middle-middle. I don't expect to start seeing the kind of major rebuild class archetypes like warshifter druid or synthesist summoner until at least early-late, and I don't expect to see *that* until they've at least finished out the list of "well of course we need to have X" classes. So... Shaman and Medium, at minimum, and possibly Intercessor, plus whatever new classes they come out with in the meantime. True Warpriest and Bloodrager probably get the Class Archetype treatment - True Warpriest to bring them down to wave caster, and Bloodrager to bring them up to the same.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem with making "it doesn't have spells" as a class archetype is that suddenly a lot of the feats the class could take are no longer applicable. Like if you traded out spellcasting with a druid class archetype you could still take widen spell and steady spellcasting, but they wouldn't do anything for you.
Plus the amount you would need to give the class in order to be compensated for "you no longer get spells" would occupy a lot of page space. So it's almost better to do it as a class when it's major surgery. Like a druid minus spells archetype doesn't really make more sense than a wizard or cleric minus spells archetype.
I think the problem with making "it doesn't have spells" as a class archetype is that suddenly a lot of the feats the class could take are no longer applicable. Like if you traded out spellcasting with a druid class archetype you could still take widen spell and steady spellcasting, but they wouldn't do anything for you.
Plus the amount you would need to give the class in order to be compensated for "you no longer get spells" would occupy a lot of page space. So it's almost better to do it as a class when it's major surgery. Like a druid minus spells archetype doesn't really make more sense than a wizard or cleric minus spells archetype.
...except that I'm not saying "ditch the spells entirely", I'm saying "downshift to wave caster". You still have pretty much standard access to cantrips, you still have your four high-level slot spells (and possibly a feat to give you a few lower-level slots for utility, like the magus and summoner get) and you still have your focus spells. So a number of the feats may not be worth as much to you anymore, but it hasn't suddenly made any of them useless.
Also, the amount of page space you'd have to give the class really isn't as much as you're suggesting. Mostly, you'd need to give them chassis buffs. Chassis buffs are important and valuable. They're worth a lot. They don't take a lot of page space, though. Figure out the bonus to hit, damage, and defenses that you'd need for a druid in battle form to not feel embarrassed while standing next to a martial and you're very nearly there. Layer on a few appropriate quality of life and/or action-efficiency bumps? Maybe some freebie feats that can only be used on wild shape stuff? Let them stay medium at higher levels without losing combat effectiveness? Should be plenty.
So... yes. A druid with all the spells taken away would be a weird, mutant thing... but that's not what I've been suggesting. One that basically says "the other guys are spellcasters who sometimes wild shape. I'm a wildshaper who sometimes casts spells" works a lot cleaner.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem with making "it doesn't have spells" as a class archetype is that suddenly a lot of the feats the class could take are no longer applicable. Like if you traded out spellcasting with a druid class archetype you could still take widen spell and steady spellcasting, but they wouldn't do anything for you.
Plus the amount you would need to give the class in order to be compensated for "you no longer get spells" would occupy a lot of page space. So it's almost better to do it as a class when it's major surgery. Like a druid minus spells archetype doesn't really make more sense than a wizard or cleric minus spells archetype.
Exactly.
Either one's spending feats to achieve the build or trading out class abilities and having hardly any feat support. It'd become obligatory to multiclass to function, which defeats the purpose.Also the two wavecasters are built on the concept of "Cantrip + Strike" for their bread-n-butter damage curve. I don't see Shifter falling into that territory, nor the "unexpected Fireball"/nova area.
It could possibly work as a Ranger class Archetype, but since it should expand outside of animals, it's hardly retaining Ranger's outdoors essence (nor its singular target emphasis). Considering the extensive list of appropriate feats one could assemble out of already existing ones, yes, Shifter's worthy of a class (though several should be part of the chassis).
Exactly.
Either one's spending feats to achieve the build or trading out class abilities and having hardly any feat support. It'd become obligatory to multiclass to function, which defeats the purpose.
Also the two wavecasters are built on the concept of "Cantrip + Strike" for their bread-n-butter damage curve. I don't see Shifter falling into that territory, nor the "unexpected Fireball"/nova area.It could possibly work as a Ranger class Archetype, but since it should expand outside of animals, it's hardly retaining Ranger's outdoors essence (nor its singular target emphasis). Considering the extensive list of appropriate feats one could assemble out of already existing ones, yes, Shifter's worthy of a class (though several should be part of the chassis).
Except that that's not what's happening at all. In the case of the warshifter druid, it's effectively cashing in some (not all) of one class feature (spellcasting) to buff a different class feature (wild shape). All of the feat support is still there, and, yes, there would be at least a few additional feats as well. "obligatory to multiclass" is a pretty weird take on this.
It's true that they wouldn't fall into "Cantrip+strike". Instead, you'd get the standard druid-with-wildshape thing. Some fights they throw around a bunch of spells. Some they wildshape into a bear, and don't throw around a bunch of spells (or, alternately, throw, like, one spell, and then wild shape). Some fights they stop being a bear in the middle because they have a buddy who just went down and Really Needs A Heal Right Bleeping Now. This one does the "wild shape" option a lot more often, because that one's gotten stronger in return for the spellcasting option getting weaker, but they still have spells available for when the situation calls for them.
It wouldn't work for the ranger, because the ranger doesn't have wild shape to begin with, or the feat support that wild shape gets on the druid.
...and, let me be clear, I'm not saying "Shifter should be a class archetype". I'm saying "#1 should be a class archetype off the druid. #2 should be a class archetype off the summoner. #3 should be a class of its own called Shifter". Those are two very different statements.
I think that trying to fit all three of them into the same class is a mistake. They're all based around the basic idea of shapeshifting, but they're fundamentally different concepts.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It feels like the wave caster primal martial is the better class for "you can make the ground attack people" while the no spell slots at all class is better for the "you can turn into a bear and maul people."
It feels like the wave caster primal martial is the better class for "you can make the ground attack people" while the no spell slots at all class is better for the "you can turn into a bear and maul people."
I'm not opposed to the idea of a wave caster primal martial who can make the ground attack people... but we already have a full-caster who does the "you can turn into a bear and maul people" thing, which means that turning him into a wave caster who does exactly the same thing (except somewhat better) just shouldn't be that hard.
Thing is, Ranger has a lot of baggage that doesn't work with "turn into a bear and maul people" as your primary MO. You don't get the bow stuff, you don't get the traps stuff, you don't get the dual weapon stuff (unless you want to try to bolt it on weirdly), and then you have to somehow attach on the structure for turning into a bear... and the easiest way to do that is to poach it off the druid. Simpler to start with a druid in the first place. and then shift from that direction. Remember, this is the version for people who like battle-forms. If you don't like battle-forms? Then you probably want one of the other two.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except I don't want spell slots on my shifter. /shrug
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except I don't want spell slots on my shifter. /shrug
Neither do I! Personally? I want #3. I just don't want to leave the #1 and #2 people out in the cold, and I don't want to try to frankenstein them all together, so I'm trying to propose reasonable ways that all three ideas can have different expressions and coexist reasonably in the same game without forcing them to be the same class (which, honestly, sounds like a balancing nightmare).
Basically, I'm proposing a situation where a morph-by-parts shifter shows up as a fully martial class sometime in the next year or three, and then, some years later, once we're in late-stage PF2 and we start seeing the class archetypes filling in the spaces between classes, we get the warshifter druid and the synthesist summoner slotting in for "people who like battle forms and want them to be a viable strategy" and "people who want a single dedicated war form but don't like the duration issues or lack of customizability of the barbarian".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except I don't want spell slots on my shifter. /shrug
Nor d8s, caster saves & feats, caster-heavy feat choices, Wis-Key Ability Score, caster Weapon Specialization, etc.
Druid makes for a poor chassis for a martial Shifter, and relies on Battle Form stats more than the class's (which serve a full caster well, but create a secondary martial).
Except I don't want spell slots on my shifter. /shrugNor d8s, caster saves & feats, caster-heavy feat choices, Wis-Key Ability Score, caster Weapon Specialization, etc.
Druid makes for a poor chassis for a martial Shifter, and relies on Battle Form stats more than the class's (which serve a full caster well, but create a secondary martial).
...and that's why that particular idea would involve having direct buffs to your battle form stats, yes - so that you'd be able to be better than a secondary martial. The whole concept is "I want to fight in wild shape, but actually be good at it."
There's space in a class archetype for at least a smattering of applicable feats, as well.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, Ranger has a lot of baggage that doesn't work with "turn into a bear and maul people" as your primary MO.
I mean so does the Druid but you seem keen on rebuilding that.
And to be honest, I'm not even sure I agree. A ranger with a wild shape feat at level 1 (or maybe a new Edge) would fit the design space a lot better than trying to redesign the druid.
Both aren't going to be as good as making a proper class, but if it must be a class archetype...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A shifter being chained to the druid class and loaded down with spell slots for no reason is enough to get me to dust off the word 'codswallop'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people may be getting too focused on the mistaken notion that Sanityfaerie said, "forget the Shifter, we have shapeshifters at home" when what they actually said is "Why not have the Shifter and then add even more shapeshifting to other classes?"
Personally I love the idea of giving some full casters a wave casting archetype so they can spend some of that class budget on cool art abilities, and I think a more shifty Druid would be an excellent place to have more shapeshifting available for all levels of play.
The Shifter to me is a noncaster. I straight up don't want spells to get in the way of my mauling rampage. On the other hand, I feel like there's room enough to say "I want to be a Druid and have a couple spells available, but what if 90% of my magic was for shapeshifting?
I don't necessarily agree that our Shifter typology system should break down as SF suggests (I'm rather focused on a Shifter who can do the werewolf thing, but that's not the only Shifter I'm here for, for example) but the core idea isn't bad
There's no reason a class couldn't emphasize both shapeshifting into different creatures and utilizing morphs.
In fact, the most unique space for the Shifter would be a class that can do both at the same time. It not only fulfills a niche of "good battle forms" but also provides flat-out new possibilities.
Shifters dedicated to a specific form would probably be a class archetype or just a shifter that never specs out of a starting form.
Why not a bear w/ crab claws? And whatever else. I'm unsure why there's so much emphasis on animals when there are so many biological forms at hand (though I do understand non-biological ones might fail at replicating the essence of the creature).
A Shifter should have access to Wild Shape & Animal Feature, yet its chassis should be more like how one builds an Eidelon except you're building your own stats and whatever flavor you'd like. I also expect their Morph abilities to accumulate, not merely become stat-fixers.So you might have a generic bear base, or maybe the exact same abilities, but you appear as a space cow, Buggy McBugface, or thug demon (with the intent of taking different feats later to suit one's flavor).
Why not a bear w/ crab claws? And whatever else. I'm unsure why there's so much emphasis on animals when there are so many biological forms at hand (though I do understand non-biological ones might fail at replicating the essence of the creature).
A Shifter should have access to Wild Shape & Animal Feature, yet its chassis should be more like how one builds an Eidelon except you're building your own stats and whatever flavor you'd like. I also expect their Morph abilities to accumulate, not merely become stat-fixers.
So you might have a generic bear base, or maybe the exact same abilities, but you appear as a space cow, Buggy McBugface, or thug demon (with the intent of taking different feats later to suit one's flavor).
And see... here's my real point of disagreement with you. A True Shifter should not have Wild Shape. Wild Shape is a very specific power that plugs into battle forms and the whole magic system that supports them. I don't want to be beholden to specific battle forms when I go out to do my shifter thing. I'd much rather have it be a build-as-you-go. You want a bear? take morphs for claws, bite, large, constrict (bearhug), probably something about increased toughness/durability, and possibly Animal Appearance. You want a bear with crab pincers? Swap out your "claws" morph for a "pincers" morph and turn Animal Appearance off. Put enough toys in the toybox that it's possible to assemble all of the bodies that someone might reasonably want to have, and you don't need to worry about also meshing it with an "and now we change our core body" subsystem. The simpler and more coherent we can keep the underlying system that makes it all go, the easier it will be to balance, the easier it will be to write down, the easier it will be to keep the rules clear, and the more awesome we'll be able to get out of the thing before the devs run out of resources to write it with.
The Battle form system, especially after Remastered, should nicely provide for those who want to use specific shapes.
Then we only need a system for what I call the Chimera (or Morph) Shifters who want to mix and match.
I agree. I just think these should be different classes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree. I just think these should be different classes.The Battle form system, especially after Remastered, should nicely provide for those who want to use specific shapes.
Then we only need a system for what I call the Chimera (or Morph) Shifters who want to mix and match.
I think it would be easier to have a single class with the basic chassis (HD, Proficiencies), battle forms for the beginning shapes and feats for the "subclasses".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be easier to have a single class with the basic chassis (HD, Proficiencies), battle forms for the beginning shapes and feats for the "subclasses".I agree. I just think these should be different classes.The Battle form system, especially after Remastered, should nicely provide for those who want to use specific shapes.
Then we only need a system for what I call the Chimera (or Morph) Shifters who want to mix and match.
Yes, a basic chassis where you can take another form/morph your normal form, adding some abilities off a menu (like Inventor) and adding more w/ feats. Some people might invest everything in one form w/ one set of abilities, some might take feats to swap, mix, alter their abilities representing various forms (which may or may not have in-game equivalents). One might merely Morph or fully Polymorph to suit one's tastes (with mechanically balancing those likely the most difficult task).
Sanityfaerie, my point is that the Wild Shape feats would be an option, not the foundation. Shifter should be the class for a martial Wild Shape PC option, even if optional. Having two shapechanger martial classes would be odd.
Yes, a basic chassis where you can take another form/morph your normal form, adding some abilities off a menu (like Inventor) and adding more w/ feats. Some people might invest everything in one form w/ one set of abilities, some might take feats to swap, mix, alter their abilities representing various forms (which may or may not have in-game equivalents). One might merely Morph or fully Polymorph to suit one's tastes (with mechanically balancing those likely the most difficult task).
Sanityfaerie, my point is that the Wild Shape feats would be an option, not the foundation. Shifter should be the class for a martial Wild Shape PC option, even if optional. Having two shapechanger martial classes would be odd.
I suppose, then, that I disagree. I don't want to try to cram all of the potential kinds of shifter together into the same class. I don't particularly like battle forms, and they're especially awkward on top of a martial chassis. I'm hopeful that the remaster will be able to clean them up a bit, but I expect that even after that, they'll still be awkward. It's also the case that every bit of battle form structure we currently have is tied directly to spells, which neccessarily follow different requirements than a well-built martial shifter will have.
Additionally... I don't want a battle form. I want to be a fully viable shifter who's just a dude that reshapes his own bodyparts. I want to be fully functional as that. That feels like it clashes with the battle form idea. Battle forms are all about swapping out your chassis, and I feel like it would be hard to build the class such that they weren't necessary without also making them somewhat pointless.
I suppose I'll say this. I don't want the Shifter yet. There's too much churn in the water. Let the remaster hit, along with any changes that it might or might not have to battle forms. Let us get some experience with the final form of Kineticist. If it can be managed well, possibly even let us have synthesist summoner. Then take a look at things, and see what spaces still need to be filled.
I expect, for example, that if what you want is "werewolf: the class" then Synthesist summoner (if done well) will satisfy you. We can hope that it is done well. How viable battle forms are for various uses is going to depend heavily on what they look like when they come out. I certainly wouldn't want to tie the Shifter to the current set of battle form spells and/or the current Wild Shape.
Happily for me, I'm pretty sure I'll get as much of that as I need. I will lay a prediction, in which I have a fair bit of confidence. If Shifter shows up as a class at GenCon, then it will not have any battle form tie-in. Battle forms are an obvious thing to fix a bit in the remaster, and if they're going to do that, then it only makes sense for them to wait to see how the new version works out in the playerbase before trying to build a class around them.
|
|
I don't think Battle Forms proper are a good way to do Shifter either.
Battle Forms are just a simple and easy to package way for casters to shapeshift, but a class can be more complex.
Plus Battle Forms are pretty rote.
I think Battle Forms with some enhanced options are fine for those who want to just change into other shapes (each shape a given package of abilities). No need to reinvent the wheel there. Just boost it to Martial level of power.
And maybe also use Battle Forms to provide a basic shape to which Morph effects could be applied for the mix and match Chimera Shifter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Battle Forms proper are a good way to do Shifter either.
Battle Forms are just a simple and easy to package way for casters to shapeshift, but a class can be more complex.
Plus Battle Forms are pretty rote.
I think Battle Forms with some enhanced options are fine for those who want to just change into other shapes (each shape a given package of abilities). No need to reinvent the wheel there. Just boost it to Martial level of power.
And maybe also use Battle Forms to provide a basic shape to which Morph effects could be applied for the mix and match Chimera Shifter.
The problem is that battle forms are fundamentally unfit for anything outside of the limited purpose they were designed for - giving casters the ability to imitate a martial for a short time. It's not an issue that can just be solved by stats, either.
Just to give you a small list of issues:
- they are dispellable (if granted by a spell, which most are)
- they don't allow for item bonuses
- they do not interact with your class features that affect HP, AC, resistances or damage
- you cannot activate items and all of your gear is absorbed into you
- you cannot speak
- you cannot cast
- you cannot use manipulate actions, even if you could do some things with your limbs
- they deliver a very limited package (some senses and maybe one special ability - most of which you could have permanently with a 1st level feat)
- each new form would cost major resources (look at the wild druid)
The lack of active interaction with gear and complete irrelevance of major aspects of your class alone kills this from the start.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An alternative could be to have the Shifter have three or so default Base Forms, each subclass granting an extra Base Form + Unique Morphs + some other activated abilities, and then feats focus on Morphs and such.
You don't want to make players feel like they are "paying" for stuff they'll never use. Especially not when their main "thing" is concerned. And there will be more than enough players whose entire goal it is to just build on their one cool form.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Battle Forms proper are a good way to do Shifter either.
Battle Forms are just a simple and easy to package way for casters to shapeshift, but a class can be more complex.
Plus Battle Forms are pretty rote.
I think Battle Forms with some enhanced options are fine for those who want to just change into other shapes (each shape a given package of abilities). No need to reinvent the wheel there. Just boost it to Martial level of power.
And maybe also use Battle Forms to provide a basic shape to which Morph effects could be applied for the mix and match Chimera Shifter.
I expect we will eventually get an archetype which is essentially just wild shape. Like the base feat gives you a slightly modified version of the focus spell, and the archetype grants you access to wild shape druid feats.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's my initial thoughts after reading the thread:
Just spitballing-
D10
KA: Con
Trained in Perception
Expert in Fort
Expert in Ref
Trained in Will
Trained in Simple Weapons and Unarmed attacks
(I really like Temperan's idea of "Expert" in 'Shifted'
but, if it happened it would probably be at 5th level")
Trained in light and unarmored
Start with 3 forms: Ancestral, "Battle" and Hybrid
Feats which you ca mix and match that improve these forms or gain additional forms
Master Attack (Legendary with Shifted attacks)
Master in Unarmored when shifted
Class features to improve base forms with options to get better
without having to get bigger if you don't want to.
a 1 action "cantrip" to change form
A "Focus spell" to allow you to change as a free action up to once a round for up to a minute.
As I said...just spitballin'
Here's my initial thoughts after reading the thread:
Just spitballing-
D10
KA: Con
Trained in Perception
Expert in Fort
Expert in Ref
Trained in Will
Trained in Simple Weapons and Unarmed attacks
(I really like Temperan's idea of "Expert" in 'Shifted'
but, if it happened it would probably be at 5th level")
Trained in light and unarmoredStart with 3 forms: Ancestral, "Battle" and Hybrid
Feats which you ca mix and match that improve these forms or gain additional forms
Master Attack (Legendary with Shifted attacks)
Master in Unarmored when shifted
Class features to improve base forms with options to get better
without having to get bigger if you don't want to.
a 1 action "cantrip" to change form
A "Focus spell" to allow you to change as a free action up to once a round for up to a minute.As I said...just spitballin'
The idea for the 3-way split between ancestral/hybrid/full sounds pretty cool. Most fully shifted forms would have extreme problems with meaningfully interacting with items. By having a hybrid form with presumably the same or similar statistics, you avoid that. Just having 2 - ancestral and full shift - is easier at the top level but requires substantial supplemental rules to get any item stuff going.
Just one thing - can you please explain the attack modifier progression? You said they start at trained but then go to expert at lvl 5 (like every other martial) and eventually all the way to legendary. So presumably from 1 to extremely late game they would just be a martial... without a damage booster of any kind. Because that sounds incredibly bad for even just a few levels, much less pretty much the entire game.
|
|
Here's my initial thoughts after reading the thread:
Just spitballing-
D10
KA: Con
Trained in Perception
Expert in Fort
Expert in Ref
Trained in Will
Trained in Simple Weapons and Unarmed attacks
(I really like Temperan's idea of "Expert" in 'Shifted'
but, if it happened it would probably be at 5th level")
Trained in light and unarmoredStart with 3 forms: Ancestral, "Battle" and Hybrid
Feats which you ca mix and match that improve these forms or gain additional forms
Master Attack (Legendary with Shifted attacks)
Master in Unarmored when shifted
Class features to improve base forms with options to get better
without having to get bigger if you don't want to.
a 1 action "cantrip" to change form
A "Focus spell" to allow you to change as a free action up to once a round for up to a minute.As I said...just spitballin'
The idea for the 3-way split between ancestral/hybrid/full sounds pretty cool. Most fully shifted forms would have extreme problems with meaningfully interacting with items. By having a hybrid form with presumably the same or similar statistics, you avoid that. Just having 2 - ancestral and full shift - is easier at the top level but requires substantial supplemental rules to get any item stuff going.
Just one thing - can you please explain the attack modifier progression? You said they start at trained but then go to expert at lvl 5 (like every other martial) and eventually all the way to legendary. So presumably from 1 to extremely late game they would just be a martial... without a damage booster of any kind. Because that sounds incredibly bad for even just a few levels, much less pretty much the entire game.
Oh, I hadn't really thought that deeply about it. Just that they could get to Legendary in their Shifted form attacks, which would maybe add bonus damage like +3 when you get to expert, +6 master, and +9 legendary...something like that. Class feats to make your attacks stronger or more versatile, or give you more varied forms...
Maybe a feat at 13th level that gives you functional wings to your alternate forms, even if their not usually avian...A bear...or a Rhino...with wings...
It'll be interesting if they take up Mark's idea of having a size increase feat line with Large at 8, Huge at 12 and Gargantuan at 18. With the appropriate reach increases. I think it'd be fun. Also a bit more easy to balance on a dedicated class, rather than an archetype that can apply to every class.
Let me tell you, even just a Large rogue or fighter is pretty damn spicy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hrmmm, I think I'm just not convinced that extra reach at level 1 is game breaking...
You also think that shortbows and shortswords should be simple.
Anyway, reach is available at level 1 - on certain specific weapons, that pay for that privilege in various ways.
Hrmmm, I think I'm just not convinced that extra reach at level 1 is game breaking...
I mean, it wouldn't be impossible. But given how heavily Paizo restricts unarmed attacks, especially at early levels, I don't expect to like the outcome. That'd probably be something like a whip with a trait missing or something... hard pass.
I also think this part works much better as an optional goal to work towards.