Classes

[Bluemagetim]

Tridus wrote:

Bluemagetim wrote:

Couldn’t shifter be made as a class archtype though?

The dedication would give untamed order’s focus spell.l but give them an exception allowing them to use thier ac if its higher than the forms ac.
When you start as a martial class you would already use your attack bonus when its higher than animal forms.

Druid has caster armor proficiency so if you're using on-rank forms, the character's AC is almost never above form AC, so that would do nothing. Druid already has the same problem with attack modifier: Untamed can use its own attack modifier if its higher (and get a +2 in that case), but at most levels it's literally impossible for a Druid to achieve that with on-level forms even if they are maxing out their attack.

The whole thing would work way better if that +2 was just baked in rather than being conditional, because right now it only really does anything if you're using forms that have othrewise fallen behind (and as they lose out on damage/AC/skill progression, they still fall behind)... and Fighters taking Druid archetype who can easily get it.

Quote:

Then the rest of the feat line can make them better at fighting with those forms.

Keeping up with forms is feat intensive already, so there won't be a lot of spare feats to take anything like this unless those feats also give access to forms (and do some other stuff).

A class archetype of this doesn't address the issues very well because they're issues core to the class. So the archetype would have to change a LOT of things, including the class weapon/armor proficiency scaling. At that point it probably makes more sense for it to just be a class and not carry all the Druid baggage along.

Ah i see what i did there. I meant an archetype anyone can take. I didnt mean a class archtype of the druid. Sorry about that.

That way if a martial takes it they would get battle forms and be as good at fighting as they already are, if a caster takes it they would be as good as they would if they cast a battle form normally. But I guess the battle form ac would be a minimum you get unless yours is better just like the to hit. And maybe the dedication actually makes it so you use your to hit and ac if its better than what the form gives you including benefits from armor your wearing and handwraps.

[Tridus]

Bluemagetim wrote:

Ah i see what i did there. I meant an archetype anyone can take. I didnt mean a class archtype of the druid. Sorry about that.

That way if a martial takes it they would get battle forms and be as good at fighting as they already are, if a caster takes it they would be as good as they would if they cast a battle form normally. But I guess the battle form ac would be a minimum you get unless yours is better just like the to hit. And maybe the dedication actually makes it so you use your to hit and ac if its better than what the form gives you including benefits from armor your wearing and handwraps.

Oh I see. Yeah an archetype could work instead of a class. A martial character could take that and it'd be pretty effective. Though a class can come with its own focus spells and such too, and they'll need another class idea in the future since they like classes in terms of book marketing.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

To be honest, the idea of making a Shifter class that uses spells and battle shapes feels really outdated.

I can understand when people were saying that when PF2E launched, and the Druid was the only frame of reference for what that could look like. Plus, there was still this pf1e mindset of the game being "casters, and everyone else".

But we've had a LOT of new PF2E classes at this point, and I feel like it's really clear that the devs prefer "distinct thematic powers" as the core of a class more than "spells" anymore.

PF2E becomes less reliant on spells every day. Classes like the Runesmith wouldn't be able to exist if they stuck to using spells instead of distinct class abilities. The devs really seem to like class abilities that have a passive effect that can be cashed in for a larger effect.

I can very easily imagine them using this system to try to make both "I turn my limbs into snakes" players and "I turn into a bear every combat" players happy.

At Level 1, Timmy The Shifter picks the Hawk spirit and Gorilla spirit as their class choices. Hawk Spirit gives you a passive benefit (Enhanced sight like a Hawk) and an unarmed strike (talons and wings) while it's passively on.

But Timmy The Shifter can also "cash it in" to full on transform into a Hawk Form, which offers greater benefits at the cost of being temporary. Timmy would probably then switch to Gorilla Spirit, which offers a different unarmed strike, a different passive benefit like a climb speed, etc.

[JiCi]

The Shifter could be a good chassis for Starfinder's Evolutionist in 2E though.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

JiCi wrote:

The Shifter could be a good chassis for Starfinder's Evolutionist in 2E though.

Yeah, I think there is a lot to be gained by combining the best parts of both classes. I wouldn't be shocked if Paizo makes an class that they call the 2e Evolutionist, but is more of a riff on the 1e Shifter mechanics than the 1e Evolutionist.

I think it's probably easiest to make the overall class "evolutionist", with subclasses being themed after the theme of your transformation: a wildlife and nature themed subclass would stand next to the nanobots and necrotech subclasses. That way, Pathfinder players could easily port in a Wildlife Evolutionist and have the classic Shifter fantasy.

It could honestly end up in either game, at this point. I think it's slightly more likely in Starfinder, because Starfinder doesn't have any classes that focus on Unarmed Strikes. It would be slightly more novel design space- I could see a class that's sort of a Monk-Druid-Runesmith hybrid.

[Zoken44]

The problem with that take is that the Evolutionist is not about turning into animals. It's about grafts/implants that include cybernetics and Necrografts in addition to bio-mechanics.

[Bluemagetim]

I personally don't even like the shifter concept for myself so I guess I don't have skin in the game for what kind of shifter is made.

[Justnobodyfqwl]

Zoken44 wrote:

The problem with that take is that the Evolutionist is not about turning into animals. It's about grafts/implants that include cybernetics and Necrografts in addition to bio-mechanics.

Well, you could also say that the Soldier was the fighter in space, and the Operative was the Rogue in space. But 2e took the general ideas of those classes and their names, and made new and more interesting things out of them. The devs seem way more interested in making new things, than recreating old things. This is why they're probably going to make a new class that doesn't have the expectations and baggage of calling it the old name.

For instance, that's why I'm glad they made the Animist have its own class name and identity. It's basically the 3.5e Binder, and I absolutely love the idea of The Binder. But it would be awful if everyone just nitpicked the class to death because it called itself "The Binder", and so people expected it to have every spirit that the 3.5 Binder had.

[Zoken44]

I think they did what they did with the Soldier and Operative because those were derivative. They had intentionally been created as "Fighter in Space" and "Rogue In space" in first edition. So in second edition they gave them their own roles and spaces to fill.

Evolutionist already has that, It's all about the Grafts, and that is a common theme for sci-fi/sci-fantasy heroes.

Also, I think the animist wasn't called "The Binder" for both the OGL/ORC split reasons, and because "The Binder" would be causing giggles.

[exequiel759]

I think what they did with the soldier in SF2e is great (even if I think there's a few hiccups) because they pretty much made a new mechanic just for the soldier and that mechanics is one that can't really exist in PF2e due to the technological limitations of a medieval-inspired game such as PF2e.

The operative, however, didn't have the same luck. Its not that the operative is weak or anything, I think it's arguably the strongest martial in both editions since its literally a fighter that adds free sneak attack damage to its attacks, but its because its just a fighter / rogue / ranger / swashbuckler hybrid that I feel they really weren't inspired with it. I also think the operative was sadly limited by the gunslinger in part because they have a ton of thematic overal in being the "guns" class of each system. I can't say I have a better class concept for the operative than what we had, but I think that if they really didn't have anything better than steal features from already existing class and change them slightly I would have prefered for them to replace the operative with the technomancer in the core book.

[Brinebeast]

I could see the Evolutionist going the way of the Cavalier and becoming a very robust Archetype. Grafts are something any class might pick up and depending on the type of graft, grafts can work well in both Starfinder and Pathfinder.

[Ryangwy]

Zoken44 wrote:

Evolutionist already has that, It's all about the Grafts, and that is a common theme for sci-fi/sci-fantasy heroes.

Grafts were in Howl of the Wilds for a reason, sticking vampiric teeth on yourself due to SCIENCE, nature magic or shapeshifting is functionally the same and unless you want to go the Inventor route with only downwtime modifications to your graft then I think a person who grows a tentacle when they spend a resource that replenishes in 10min counts as a Shifter.

[Zoken44]

The term graft was introduced in HotW, but the concept was introduced earlier in SF1e. It could be more than just animal parts, It could also be mechanical bits, and actual undead tissue.