Dreamscarred Press Introduces Lords of the Wild- The Playtest!

[squiggit]

That you need a limb for each body part that uses a natural attack is never stated explicitly. Though this FAQ mentions that you need a second mouth to make two bite attacks.

[stack]

So a fighter, monk, or other class with early bonus feats could get a fly speed as early as level 2? Or level one if you get the shapechanger subtype on there? Limited usage so I guess it's not a real problem, except that it is for an hour at a time.

[Lycar]

The intent on this is to make it fully 1 category lighter. Normally, mithral is lighter for just about everything except proficiency. Silverblades, while they lose their heavy armor proficiency, can get that armor back if they are able to shell out for the mithral heavy armor.

Okay, now THIS is something I personally have a BIG problem with.

In 3.5, mithril already made armours count as 1 category lighter, including proficiencies. Which in effect made Heavy Armour Proficiency pointless.

Having Heavy Armour Proficiency was one of the very, very few things that martials like Fighters and Paladins had going for them. Never mind Clerics getting that and full casting.

Pathfinder, in a baby-step towards making martials a bit more worth-while, clarified that you still require the appropriate proficiency to wear heavy armours. Thus, having Heavy Armour Proficiency was actually still worth a damn. Oh and Clerics lost HAP. Not that they need it.

So, either let the archetype keep HAP to begin with or make them cough up the feat like everybody else. Don't make it a 3 level dip class to get heavy armour AC with light armour limitations (that is, none!).

If you want to make the guy get extra benefits from wearing mithral armour, give them a Slam attack instead of having to shell out for armour spikes. Maybe give them a feat that allows them to count the enhancement bonus on armour for the Slam attack maybe.

But never, ever invalidate a class feature.

[Vhaidara]

What Mithral Armor Training allows is for a Silverblade Hunter to still make use of heavy armor. But they wear it as medium armor, not light. To use it as light, they need access to Path of War: Expanded (either through Martial Training or the Myrmidon archetype) and the Piercing Thunder stance Iron Pikeman Attitude.

The thing to remember is that all nonproficiency does is apply your ACP to attack rolls. At level 3, when you get the ability, the ACP of Mithral Full Plate is -2 (-6 base, -3 from mithral, -1 from Armor Training). For the cost of a trait (Armor master) it becomes -1. But Mithral Full Plate costs 10.5k gold, way out of the price range of a level 3 character. Following the rule of "no more than 1/2 your WBL on a single item", the earliest you can afford it is level 7, at which point you have Armor Training 2, lowering the ACP to -1, 0 if you have armor master. This is a quality of life bonus, nothing more

Additionally, lowering it for all purposes creates some nice synergies with abilities that only work in light/medium armor, since now you can wear one category up.

[Yue Ryong]

OK, this is really cool. Quick glance over, initial thoughts:

Shouldn't Pack of the Shared Soul be a Psionic feat, in addition to it's other types?

Shifting Feats are cool, but still not cool enough to get over my distaste for per day options.

Might want to clarify that Return to Nature doesn't let you sunder things not on their person, or else I can foresee people attempting to sunder Phylacteries by hitting the Lich.

[EldritchWeaver]

The thing to remember is that all nonproficiency does is apply your ACP to attack rolls. At level 3, when you get the ability, the ACP of Mithral Full Plate is -2 (-6 base, -3 from mithral, -1 from Armor Training).

Could it be that you mixed up plusses and minuses? I calculate -10 here.

[Vhaidara]

Could it be that you mixed up plusses and minuses? I calculate -10 here.

It's kind of weird. You have -6 ACP, which is reduced (my brain says to write as -) by 3 from mithral and 1 from armor training.

ACP = -[6 (base) - 3 (mithral) - 1 (armor training)]

[Lycar]

What Mithral Armor Training allows is for a Silverblade Hunter to still make use of heavy armor. But they wear it as medium armor, not light. To use it as light, they need access to Path of War: Expanded (either through Martial Training or the Myrmidon archetype) and the Piercing Thunder stance Iron Pikeman Attitude.

So you mean to say the only change is supposed to be the proficiency thing? Then you better clarify the wording because to me this looked liked 'on top of what mithril usually does, it lowers the type another category'...

The thing to remember is that all nonproficiency does is apply your ACP to attack rolls. ... the earliest you can afford it is level 7, at which point you have Armor Training 2, lowering the ACP to -1, 0 if you have armor master. This is a quality of life bonus, nothing more

Uh huh. Still invalidating an entire class feature. What exactly is so atrocious about making people suck up that -1 until they either get 3 more levels or cough up the feat or shell out for the trait? The whole damn point of archetypes is that they offer trade-offs. And given how much stuff this archetype gets compared to other Fighter types...

I mean, come on, on the one hand you give the guy 2 more skill points, allegedly paid for by loss to Heavy Armour Proficiency. And then you go and totally negate the cost by effectively giving it back to them via, here it comes, an alternate class feature. Seriously, whatever way you cut it, this is just dishonest.

The whole 'limiting Armour Training to mithral armours' thing is way off tp begin with. If anything, make it so that they have proficiency with light armours of all kinds, and medium and heavy armours made from mithril only.

Additionally, lowering it for all purposes creates some nice synergies with abilities that only work in light/medium armor, since now you can wear one category up.

... The only purpose mithril doesn't count as one category lighter already is proficiency. This is a non-argument.

Now don't get me wrong: I like what you have been doing so far (except for reducing damage resistance... again... just make is scale with level already, sheesh) but I am allergic to taking things away from martial types because they have so little going for them as is. As it is written now, the archetype basically 'pays' for extra skills with a proficiency, except it doesn't matter at all because a class feature makes the lost proficiency irrelevant anyway. That is dishonest and bad design in my eyes.

Just mull it over a bit, I'm sure you can come up with a better way.

After all, we want this book to be awesome. Can't have those damn leaches all the cool stuff, now can we...

[Elricaltovilla]

Lycar, would you be willing to restate your issue with the Mithral Armor Training class feature for me please?

I admit, I'm having a little trouble following your thought process, so I'd like to make sure I understand what it is about the class feature that bothers you so we can address your concerns.

[Mehangel]

It seems that the document doesnt include a martial tradition for Chimera Soul. Is that intended, and/or will one be created?

EDIT: I stand corrected. I did a search for tradition and scrolled through the document, but I did not see it. But it was later pointed out to me.

[Elricaltovilla]

It seems that the document doesnt include a martial tradition for Chimera Soul. Is that intended, and/or will one be created?

EDIT: I stand corrected. I did a search for tradition and scrolled through the document, but I did not see it. But it was later pointed out to me.

The Temple of the Formless Spirit is located at the end of the document (starts on page 32) for anyone else who is curious.

[EldritchWeaver]

The Temple of the Formless Spirit is located at the end of the document (starts on page 32) for anyone else who is curious.

Can you please the word "tradition" somewhere in the document? That's what I'd be looking for to find the text fast on the computer.

[Elricaltovilla]

Can you please the word "tradition" somewhere in the document? That's what I'd be looking for to find the text fast on the computer.

Consider it done.

[stack]

Deathsting Shift feat - does this require a tail to gain the benefits? Usually natural attacks require an appropriate limb. Unless the sting is not intended to be tail-dependant. Perhaps this has already been discussed.

[upho]

Deathsting Shift feat - does this require a tail to gain the benefits? Usually natural attacks require an appropriate limb. Unless the sting is not intended to be tail-dependant. Perhaps this has already been discussed.

This is what has been said on the subject so far:

Also, some of the more rules-fuzzy attack types Chimera Soul and the Shifting feats offer, such as tail slaps or stings, might need a little clarification on whether they have a limb requirement or come with the required limb.

This is honestly something I've had a bit of trouble with in terms of wording. I'm reluctant to stick Special sections in a bunch of stances but finding a general wording to add to Chimera Soul and the Shifting Feats has been a little tricky. I'm open to suggestions if you have any.

Well, how about simply using wording similar to the Fleshwarped Scorpion's Tail? Something like:

Deathsting Shift (Shifting)
Benefit: You grow a tail which you can use to make a Sting attack, dealing 1d4 damage for a medium creature.

This doesn't interfere with any other potential tail or tail-dependent attack the PC might already have (which I don't think it should) and also ties the attack to the limb and vice versa. This does allow for having multiple tail attacks, but since this is already possible with Paizo options and the costs are high, I don't think this will be problematic.

I still think this suggestion is reasonable for the purpose of dealing with the limbs issue, thereby not shutting out a very large majority of PC races, including all core ones, or limiting access to the few tailed races or PC's of classes able to polymorph, both of which typically need additional natural attack options the least. (At least in theory, any PC could of course eventually get a tail by buying the aforementioned Fleshwarped Scorpion's Tail for 18.5 k and getting a bit of surgery to attach it, but that makes the feat's benefits seem largely redundant for most builds concerned.)

But the suggestion unfortunately also further increases the risks of early level rocket tag which plagues natural attack builds even if limited to Paizo options only, offering more options which can create such broken builds. So I'd prefer if this feat also came with a level or bab prereq, and the same goes for all other options in the document which grant a less common natural attack type (ie anything besides bite or claws). I can't really say what would a be suitable such prereq yet, but I guess somewhere around 10th level could be a good starting point for a discussion in the case of Deathsting Shift, as this is when the somewhat comparable Fleshwarped Scorpion's Tail might start to become accessible if bought for the listed market price.

Actually, on a second thought, I would really prefer if Lords of the Wild included a paragraph or two with following general info and rules:

1. A summary of the most relevant rules for natural attacks (which are now spread out among several sources), plus any required additions/clarifications for situations not properly addressed by the current Paizo RAW. This shouldn't waste space by repeating the basics already well covered by the CRB or Bestiary, but focus on the highly relevant but less easily found stuff, such as "you cannot add claw attacks to your feet", "you can make both a gore and a bite attack even if you have only one head" and "unless otherwise stated, an option in this book which grants a natural attack does not also grant any associated limb required to make the attack".
2. A level-dependent maximum number of attacks, regulating at least primary and secondary natural attacks (and maybe also if combined with weapon attacks) for PCs using any of the options presented in the book. Something similar to the (un)-eidolon's "max attacks" would be OK, but I would rather see a limit which also distinguishes primary from secondary attacks, and preferably starts at 2 primary attacks and ends at no more than 7 primary attacks.

This would hopefully both straighten out most question marks regarding natural attacks, and remove the current potentially serious "early level OP, late level UP" balance issues, finally making natural attackers play nice with other build types during all levels of the game.

What do you think?

[Elricaltovilla]

A section detailing the most recent rules for natural attacks would only be relevant so long as those rules don't change. Once a new errata or bit of rules text arrives, that entire section becomes effectively useless and would necessitate a reprint or other update in order to maintain relevance. That's something that is, unfortunately, beyond us.

Adding a level dependent "max attacks" limit would imply sweeping changes to the base rules system that exists in Pathfinder already, something far beyond the scope and ability of a book like Lords of the Wild or a company like Dreamscarred Press to do. Something like that should be handled entirely by Paizo, not us.

[stack]

Paizo ruled you can bite and gore with the same head? Huh. Need to check if that screws up anything in my new book.

[upho]

A section detailing the most recent rules for natural attacks would only be relevant so long as those rules don't change. Once a new errata or bit of rules text arrives, that entire section becomes effectively useless and would necessitate a reprint or other update in order to maintain relevance. That's something that is, unfortunately, beyond us.

Well naturally this kind of "minimum detailed interaction"-policy appears to be the only reasonable way to make Paizo errata at least somewhat manageable for a 3PP. I don't question this. Rather, I'm asking you to clarify the mechanics of the options you've designed and answer the questions those options are most likely to cause, because players won't be able to easily find any clear answers in the Paizo books, and there's a significant risk they'll come to the wrong conclusions unless they actually manage to find all the scattered relevant info and judge it properly.

So in this particular case, I do think the need is far greater than the risks of the text being invalidated/requiring additional updates. And of course this kind of "FAQ and their hard-to-find answers" would have to include something along the lines of "At the time of writing..." and maybe "Please note that these rules have not been designed by the authors of this book or DSP, and any changes are beyond the control of the authors.". More importantly, if Paizo changes the rules in such a manner this section would be affected in a significant way, I'd say chances are pretty high a lot of other content in the book would have to updated anyways. Also, note that I don't suggest detailing all natural attack rules or even the most recent, only the ones least obvious/hardest to find which are also highly relevant to the options in the book.

I think it's easy to forget most of us discussing here are in agreement on how natural attacks work simply because we've already vacuumed rulebooks, the net and our brains for clues and thoroughly discussed how the vague implications and gaps in the RAW should be interpreted, and mostly because we've built and played natural attackers and/or designed new mechanics specifically for natural attackers. Most players haven't, and as I think can be seen in this thread alone, even very experienced and otherwise very rules-savvy players who haven't looked as far into these matters specifically have also often missed potentially important pieces of information. These questions and hard-to-find answers may have been mostly regarded as of little concern or as not requiring anything beyond the occasional rare DM judgement call in most games, since there hasn't yet been any major publication, or even serious class option IMO, focusing primarily on natural attacks for PCs. But as LotW is a book largely consisting of options specifically concerned with natural attacks for PCs (mechanically speaking), the previously rare corner case questions and their hard-to-find answers are very likely to matter quite a lot to the players and DMs who now have a most compelling reason to include natural attack PCs in their game.

Adding a level dependent "max attacks" limit would imply sweeping changes to the base rules system that exists in Pathfinder already, something far beyond the scope and ability of a book like Lords of the Wild or a company like Dreamscarred Press to do. Something like that should be handled entirely by Paizo, not us.

Oh, I'm certainly not suggesting you introduce a max attacks limit applying to PCs in general, that would indeed be far beyond the scope and ability of DSP. I'm suggesting you introduce a limit specifically for the PCs that use the options in the book, just as only the eidolon is affected by its limit. Because a PC with access to the many options in LotW which grant natural attacks, is in just as dire need of a max attack limit as an eidolon which has access to the many evolutions which grant natural attacks, especially during earlier levels.

[Elricaltovilla]

Upho, if either of these options were logistically feasible I would support adding them to the book. This isn't a case of shooting down your suggestions because I disagree with them, it's a question of what is realistically feasible given the resources available.

Well naturally this kind of "minimum detailed interaction"-policy appears to be the only reasonable way to make Paizo errata at least somewhat manageable for a 3PP. I don't question this. Rather, I'm asking you to clarify the mechanics of the options you've designed and answer the questions those options are most likely to cause, because players won't be able to easily find any clear answers in the Paizo books, and there's a significant risk they'll come to the wrong conclusions unless they actually manage to find all the scattered relevant info and judge it properly.

So in this particular case, I do think the need is far greater than the risks of the text being invalidated/requiring additional updates. And of course this kind of "FAQ and their hard-to-find answers" would have to include something along the lines of "At the time of writing..." and maybe "Please note that these rules have not been designed by the authors of this book or DSP, and any changes are beyond the control of the authors.". More importantly, if Paizo changes the rules in such a manner this section would be affected in a significant way, I'd say chances are pretty high a lot of other content in the book would have to updated anyways. Also, note that I don't suggest detailing all natural attack rules or even the most recent, only the ones least obvious/hardest to find which are also highly relevant to the options in the book.

I think it's easy to forget most of us discussing here are in agreement on how natural attacks work simply because we've already vacuumed rulebooks, the net and our brains for clues and thoroughly discussed how the vague implications and gaps in the RAW should be interpreted, and mostly because we've built and played natural attackers and/or designed new mechanics specifically for natural attackers. Most players haven't, and as I think can be seen in this thread alone, even very experienced and otherwise very rules-savvy players who haven't looked as far into these matters specifically have also often missed potentially important pieces of information. These questions and hard-to-find answers may have been mostly regarded as of little concern or as not requiring anything beyond the occasional rare DM judgement call in most games, since there hasn't yet been any major publication, or even serious class option IMO, focusing primarily on natural attacks for PCs. But as LotW is a book largely consisting of options specifically concerned with natural attacks for PCs (mechanically speaking), the previously rare corner case questions and their hard-to-find answers are very likely to matter quite a lot to the players and DMs who now have a most compelling reason to include natural attack PCs in their game.

The fact is that this suggestion, while great in theory, implies a level of commitment that is beyond the ability of DSP and myself to promise. Print orders of Lords of the Wild would suffer the worst. We simply can't afford to constantly reprint material. PDFs would require constant monitoring to update the existing rules text, or reissuing of errata on a repeat basis. Including that rules text also includes a promise to keep it up to date, and that is a commitment of time, money and resources that we can't afford.

Oh, I'm certainly not suggesting you introduce a max attacks limit applying to PCs in general, that would indeed be far beyond the scope and ability of DSP. I'm suggesting you introduce a limit specifically for the PCs that use the options in the book, just as only the eidolon is affected by its limit. Because a PC with access to the many options in LotW which grant natural attacks, is in just as dire need of a max attack limit as an eidolon which has access to the many evolutions which grant natural attacks, especially during earlier levels.

And then people who don't use the rules in this book will still be able to spam their natural attacks with uncapped impunity and the perceived value of the material this book brings to the table decreases as a result. If I'm being completely honest, I tend to err on the side of allowing GMs to make necessary houserules in order to better tailor material that fits their games. For many people, the plethora of natural attacks available isn't a problem, and they were able to get said attacks long before this book became available. Adding a maximum attack limit to Lords of the Wild doesn't fix the problem that already exists, assuming it even is a problem (as that opinion varies from table to table).

[upho]

Paizo ruled you can bite and gore with the same head? Huh. Need to check if that screws up anything in my new book.

AFAIK, Paizo devs have said very little which directly addresses this. Though IIRC, maybe three years back or so, Jason Bulmahn did write something (not official I believe) along the lines of "I don't see why not" in a post on the Paizo forum, replying to someone asking about his barbarian attacking with both a bite and the gore from the Fiend Totem rage power. And I clearly remember SKR calling it "cheesy" to have both a bite and a gore in another thread from around the same time, which of course made me absolutely certain that is indeed how it works and also that it's good for the game!

More seriously though, AFAIK every single monster published by Paizo which has both a gore and a bite also has both listed in its full attack. And there's nothing in the RAW for eidolon evolutions which stops an eidolon from doing the same, while there is indeed explicit limitations related to limbs for every natural attack which rely on something other than a head (or which comes with its own limb in the case of the tentacle evo). Besides, the EP pricing of the gore and bite evos would make little sense otherwise. (On top of this, every thread I can remember having read or participated in which discusses the matter have basically ended with the only logical conclusion being that a creature can make both attacks. But don't trust my memory - it's notoriously and highly selective...)

In other words, I think it's safe to say that a creature's head is not treated as a "limb" by the system, or possibly that a gore attack is treated as coming with its own limb(s). Regardless, everything published plays nicely with the assumption that you can make both attacks, while a lot of related material doesn't play nice - or not at all - with the assumption that you cannot.

[upho]

Upho, if either of these options were logistically feasible I would support adding them to the book. This isn't a case of shooting down your suggestions because I disagree with them, it's a question of what is realistically feasible given the resources available.

The fact is that this suggestion, while great in theory, implies a level of commitment that is beyond the ability of DSP and myself to promise. Print orders of Lords of the Wild would suffer the worst. We simply can't afford to constantly reprint material. PDFs would require constant monitoring to update the existing rules text, or reissuing of errata on a repeat basis. Including that rules text also includes a promise to keep it up to date, and that is a commitment of time, money and resources that we can't afford.

*removes rose-tinted glasses* It pains me to see what you're saying here really does describe the reality in which DSP has to operate. You guys truly deserve better.

And then people who don't use the rules in this book will still be able to spam their natural attacks with uncapped impunity and the perceived value of the material this book brings to the table decreases as a result. If I'm being completely honest, I tend to err on the side of allowing GMs to make necessary houserules in order to better tailor material that fits their games. For many people, the plethora of natural attacks available isn't a problem, and they were able to get said attacks long before this book became available. Adding a maximum attack limit to Lords of the Wild doesn't fix the problem that already exists, assuming it even is a problem (as that opinion varies from table to table).

I think I largely agree with your "philosophy" of trusting GMs to introduce the necessary house rules to make your material play nice with their games. But judging from other posts in this thread, as well as the feedback which has prompted the errata of certain maneuvers in PoW, it seems to me many of your customers do seem highly critical of books introducing options which they believe are clearly not in balance with the majority of the game, regardless of whether there are Paizo options already available which are potentially even more game breaking (such as T1 classes). It appears the perceived value this book brings to the table may thus actually increase if it reins stuff in.

As a concrete example, Steel Flurry Strike has received critique for its high damage potential and is now up for errata, despite producing DPR numbers lower than those every full attack from a same level build (such as a natural attacker) without Steel Flurry Strike could produce.

I believe the same thing applies here and that one should be very careful not to view Paizo's errors as any kind of "carte blanche" to introduce additional options at an equally broken level. People don't seem to like the idea of increasing the number of options and combos leading to early level rocket tag builds. And I also think it's worth noting that in practice, the introduction of additional equally broken options does in this case not only increase the risks of having a broken build in the game, but indirectly also says this kind of imbalance should be expected and accepted, if not endorsed. Not to mention the options also actually increase the level of brokenness possible and makes it significantly easier to maintain that brokenness further up the levels.

Anyhow, there's probably a much more elegant solution than my suggestion, capable of reducing the problem enough for most potential customers' liking. I just hope you don't give up on finding such a solution. It sure would be nice to finally have options which make natural attackers viable and balanced during all levels, without the need for extreme optimization replacing the need for extreme self-nerfing, which is the current situation IME.

(In this case, these issues won't really affect my game besides perhaps requiring me to slightly redesign some options and add a few restrictions if my players wanted early level access. But I still judge the mechanical quality of any new material to no small extent based on how well the options may help reduce existing balance issues, a large part of the reason why I have such high regard for most DSP products, especially the PoW line. In contrast, a product which ignores these issues and/or actually makes them worse (unless clearly stating a different intended use) doesn't exactly give me the impression of quality. Such poorly balanced mechanics also often drastically reduces the book's value for me, since it basically means the mechanical balance of my game (and related GM work) would be better served if I used free homebrew material or designed the mechanics myself. I find it hard to believe I'm the only one having these views.)

[Vhaidara]

Okay everyone we have a new wave of toys and updates. Complete with a changelog!

Added animal form size to the werewolf template
Added Greater Werewolf and Formless Master prestige classes
Werewolf requirement removed from Varsark
Size Shift renamed to Magnitude Shift
Text added to Rapid Shifting and Extra Shifting to clarify that it does not require that you be shifted
Tail added to Deathsting Shift
Chameleon Shift, Identity Shift, and Sensory Shift added
Temporary natural weapons created by Chimera Soul maneuvers now do damage as normal for their size and type

It sure would be nice to finally have options which make natural attackers viable and balanced during all levels, without the need for extreme optimization replacing the need for extreme self-nerfing, which is the current situation IME.

I think this is the core of your misunderstanding.

With things like PoW, we can bring the power level up. But we're working inside of an existing system here (natural attacks), and we cannot change the underlying mechanics of that system, because that's beyond our domain

We can make the option stronger by adding options (which is what LotW does), but we cannot make it weaker, because the only way to make it weaker would be to change existing items that we didn't publish. And the only way for the new stuff from us to NOT make it stronger is if our material is so underpowered no one looks twice at it because it falls into the category of self nerfing

[Lorrdernie]

Aww this means the werewolf ogre that my PCs are planning on riding into battle is no longer RAW legal :(

I'm the DM though so the ogre gets to ignore it. He's also going to be picking up shifting feats and I think the PCs are really going to appreciate the new identity and chameleon shifting feats since they like infiltration and stealth. Overall really enjoying it and I'm looking forward to testing out the new discipline as well.

[EldritchWeaver]

I think this is the core of your misunderstanding.

With things like PoW, we can bring the power level up. But we're working inside of an existing system here (natural attacks), and we cannot change the underlying mechanics of that system, because that's beyond our domain

We can make the option stronger by adding options (which is what LotW does), but we cannot make it weaker, because the only way to make it weaker would be to change existing items that we didn't publish. And the only way for the new stuff from us to NOT make it stronger is if our material is so underpowered no one looks twice at it because it falls into the category of self nerfing

That is truly the crux of the matter. Adding options relevant enough to be part of an optimizer's toolbox makes builds overall stronger, because of virtue being part of the choices present. That is a fundamental truth, as you can't have one thing without the other. Making stuff deliberately weak(er), so no optimizer would touch it with an 11 foot pole, is just adding trap options. Stuff that at best looks good and is only chosen by those who either don't know better or don't care about effectiveness.

Personally, I consider it insulting to customers to include trap options deliberately. We end up paying for things which are less than useful, in the believe that we pay for the talents and effort that the rules are balanced enough to play without having to worry about ending up with characters which can't pull their weight. Obviously, the mechanics are complex enough that you always can create a subpar character, but I expect that at least an attempt in good faith was made to filter these things out. Or I can just homebrew stuff myself with the same results (compared to including trap options).

As long the new options aren't no-brainers, basically invalidating the plethora of the previous options, I welcome having more options overall.:)

[Sayt]

Greater werewolf looks...fantastic, actually very cool, but the +1 class features could use a slight tweak, as it doesn't state whether you get new class features, or just advance the previous ones.

For example, Fighter's bonus feat class feature says that you get one at elvel 1, 2 and every even level thereafter, so Greater Werewolf will net you an extra bonus feat. But if you go Fighter 3/Greater Werewolf 5, will you pick up Weapon Training at seventh level? It's a new
class feature, not one you had at entry to the class. I'm pretty sure the RAI is yes, but I'm not sure if the text supports it 100%?

Also, I really want to play one of these!

[upho]

We can make the option stronger by adding options (which is what LotW does), but we cannot make it weaker, because the only way to make it weaker would be to change existing items that we didn't publish.

Of course. But that's not what I've been asking for.

And the only way for the new stuff from us to NOT make it stronger is if our material is so underpowered no one looks twice at it because it falls into the category of self nerfing

Sorry, but I don't understand. How is it that new options which don't increase

the risks of early level rocket tag

are inherently and inevitably also "so underpowered no one looks twice at it because it falls into the category of self nerfing"?

I can think of several ways to make natural attackers stronger without also increasing the risks of early level rocket tag. See the wrathblood build below for a few examples.

That is truly the crux of the matter. Adding options relevant enough to be part of an optimizer's toolbox makes builds overall stronger, because of virtue being part of the choices present. That is a fundamental truth, as you can't have one thing without the other. Making stuff deliberately weak(er), so no optimizer would touch it with an 11 foot pole, is just adding trap options. Stuff that at best looks good and is only chosen by those who either don't know better or don't care about effectiveness.

I'm sorry, but I believe this is a false dichotomy when applied to this case. You can certainly introduce tons of new options which are all generally "relevant enough", vastly improve "an optimizer's toolbox" and make "builds overall stronger", without those options also further increasing the number of combos leading to OP/broken early level rocket tag builds, or the rocket tag power of such builds. Most options in PoW and PoW:E manages to do exactly that.

When it comes to options for natural attackers specifically, I can even use my own homebrew bloodrager archetype, the wrathblood, as a practical example of how this can be done. Take a look and ask yourself whether it:

• adds "options relevant enough to be part of an optimizer's toolbox" which make "builds overall stronger"? According to the players and DM's I've heard from who uses it in their games (some of them very high-op) and my own assessment, yes, very much so. Especially in terms of general versatility and in terms of allowing a natural attack build to take on combat roles otherwise virtually impossible for any Paizo martial build to fulfill. And despite having a lower number of attacks in a full attack than a build using only Paizo options during most levels, a damage oriented build can still certainly produce a notably higher average DPR total during all 20 levels (especially when looking at actual game numbers, mainly because of the many options the archetype offers which can significantly increase DPR outside of full attacks as well as the number of situations in which a full attack is possible).
• further increases the number of combos leading to OP/broken early level rocket tag natural attack builds, or the rocket tag power of such builds? Considering the maximum number of attacks a build using the archetype's features can make in a full attack at 1st character level is limited to 2, growing to a maximum of 6 attacks at 20th level, I think it's pretty safe to say the answer here is "no, not in the least".

So do you think my answers here are wrong? If so, why?

To illustrate what the mentioned "options relevant enough to be part of an optimizer's toolbox" can achieve in this case, here's a debuff/control focused anti-caster "tank" example build (note especially reach and Special Attacks):

Spoiler: The Tentacled Doom of Pointy-Hats a. k. a. "Batman Bob", 16th Level Summary

Show

Angel-blooded aasimar wrathblood primalist bloodrager (arcane bloodline) 16
LN huge male outsider (native)

(All values, except for initiative and unusable skills, while in bloodrage and Black Seraph Style stance, using greater surge of wrath, boots of speed and listed wands.)

Initiative +12 (+10 in bloodrage); Senses blindsense 60 ft., darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, Perception +36
Aura Enemies within 30 ft. lose immunity to fear (creatures immune to mind-affecting effects can be affected by fear effects, but gain a +5 bonus to save)

DEFENSE
AC 38, touch 18, flat-footed 36, +4 vs. attack by creature suffering from fear +4 armor, +12 natural, +1 dex, +4 shield, +3 insight, +5 defl, +2 luck, +1 dodge, -2 rage, -2 size, +4 black seraph style
HP 253 10+15d10 hit die, +144 con, +16 favored class
Fort 27, Ref 17, Will 18; +4 on Will saves vs. enchantments, +6 on saves vs. spells, (Su) and (Sp) abilities, +4 on saves vs. effect created by creature suffering from fear, +2 on saves vs. poison
DR 4/-, Immune blightburn (all effects), Resist acid 5, cold 5, electricity 5, fire 10
Defensive Abilities blur (20% miss chance) and displacement (50% miss chance)

OFFENSE
Speed 40 ft., Fly 90 ft.
Melee (Power Attack) bite +30 (2d6+29 /x2, plus Cornugon Smash, cruel and grab), 2 claws +30/+30 (1d8+29 /x2, plus Cornugon Smash, cruel and grab), and 3 hooked tentacles +30/+30/+30 (1d8+29 /x2, plus Cornugon Smash, cruel, grab and poison)
Space 15 ft., Reach 15 ft., 30 ft. with tentacles (+5 ft. for 1 round as swift action 3/day)
Special Attacks Come and Get Me, constrict (1d8+29 plus poison), Cornugon Smash (Intimidate +54, stacking fear effects), cruel (creature suffering from fear sickened on hit), grab (any size, +47 with Power Attack), hooked tentacles (can grapple with hooked tentacles without gaining grappled condition), monstrous opportunist (free extra attack with AoO once per target and round), monstrous prescience (4 AoOs/round), poison

Blightburn Mage Cage Poison (Su)
1/round when hooked tentacle deals damage: type poison (injury); save Fort DC 35 (DC 30 vs. target immune to poison); frequency 1/round for 4 rounds.
Failed save effect: 2d6 fire damage, 1d4 Str damage, blightburn sickness (no save), bound as by dimensional anchor, all extradimensional perception and attack forms and any magic/supernatural movement (ex: fly, freedom of movement, haste) barred and suspended; cure 1 save.
Successful save effect: 1d6 fire damage, blightburn sickness, bound as by dimensional anchor; DC 15 Heal check to clean away.

Bloodline and Rage Powers 38 rounds/day
Arcane Bloodrage (blur), Greater Arcane Bloodrage (displacement), True Arcane Bloodrage (beast shape IV), Superstition, Come and Get Me

True Arcane Bloodrage Abilities beast shape IV (doombat)
Large size, +6 str, +2 con, -2 dex, +6 NA, blindsense 60 ft., darkvision 60 ft., low-light vision, speed 10 ft., fly 50 ft., bite, tail

Shape of Wrath Evolutions 13 evolution points
Blightburn Poison (1 EP), Hooked Tentacles (tails) (2 EP), Lethal Injection (1 EP), Merged Amulet (0 EP), Monstrous Limbs (hooked tentacles) (2 EP), Monstrous Opportunist (2 EP), Monstrous Prescience (2 EP), Poison (2 EP), Skilled (Perception) (1 EP)

Greater Surge of Wrath Evolutions +6 evolution points, -6 rounds of bloodrage, 2 bloodrages/day
Mage Cage Poison (2 EP), Monstrous Size (4 EP)

Focused Form 26 evolution points, 1 hour, 4/day

STATISTICS
Ability Scores (20-point buy)
Str 42 16 base, +2 race, +4 level, +4 belt, +6 greater bloodrage, +6 size beast shape, +4 monstrous size evo
Dex 12 12 base, +4 belt, -2 size beast shape, -2 monstrous size evo
Con 28 14 base, +4 belt, +6 rage, +2 size beast shape, +2 monstrous size evo
Int 9 7 base, +2 headband
Wis 14 12 base, +2 headband
Cha 22 14 base, +4 race, +4 headband
Bab +16, CMB +37 (grapple +52), CMD 56 (58 vs. grapple)
Feats *Black Seraph Annihilation^B, *Black Seraph Style^B, *Black Seraph's Malevolence^B, Cornugon Smash, Fiendskin, Greater Grapple, Improved Grapple, Improved Initiative^B, Improved Unarmed Strike^B, Intimidating Prowess, Power Attack, Rapid Grappler, Snatch, Soulless Gaze *The Black Seraph Style feats are found in "Path of War: Expanded" by Dreamscarred Press
Skills Disguise +18 (using western star), Fly +20, Intimidate +54, Knowledge (planes) +10, Perception +36, Stealth +12, Use Magic Device +19

Alternate Racial Traits Variant Ability (+2 Charisma)
Traits Fate's Favored, Reactionary

Gear
+1 furious cruel amulet of mighty fists, +3 mithral breastplate, belt of physical perfection +4, headband (+2 int, wis, +4 cha), cloak of resistance +5, ring of counterspells (greater dispel magic, CL 16), ring of protection +5, amulet of the blooded (abyssal), boots of speed, eyes of the eagle, fleshwarped scorpion's tail (attached), gauntlets of the skilled maneuver (grapple), jingasa of the fortunate soldier, longarm bracers, cracked dusty rose prism in wayfinder, cracked pale green prism x2, luckstone, wand of mage armor, wand of shield, western star, 20,300 gp

I think you'll agree "Batman Bob" here has, on top of his excellent defenses and awesome senses, both out-of-combat utility abilities (26 evo points and access to more evos than an eidolon, such as Diminutive size, 4 hours/day) and action-efficient, highly reliable and versatile combat debuff/control capabilities far beyond what any natural attacker or even any martial can achieve using only Paizo options. Nevertheless, he wouldn't have been much more of an "OP rocket tag" build during early levels than your average weapon wielding barbarian, not even remotely close to an optimized natural attacker using Paizo options.

Personally, I consider it insulting to customers to include trap options deliberately. We end up paying for things which are less than useful, in the believe that we pay for the talents and effort that the rules are balanced enough to play without having to worry about ending up with characters which can't pull their weight. Obviously, the mechanics are complex enough that you always can create a subpar character, but I expect that at least an attempt in good faith was made to filter these things out. Or I can just homebrew stuff myself with the same results (compared to including trap options).

I have a few questions to you regarding this:

1. Does this mean you think it's perfectly OK and balanced to other PCs in your typical games if your 5th level PC can make at least 5 primary and 3 secondary attacks with every full attack?
2. Would you consider it insulting if new options for natural attackers were introduced that couldn't improve the DPR capacity of this 5th level build?
3. Would you consider new options for natural attackers as traps unless they increased the number of build combos able to achieve at least a comparable early level DRP result?

[Elricaltovilla]

The existence of new options, by the mere fact of their existence, raises the inherent power level of the game. Unless those options are so unfeasible to use that they are made a non-issue. That's the nature of game design, especially in the case of adding new material. Variety is power.

What you are asking for upho is only feasible if we have the ability to change the core assumptions of the game. Since this is DSP, not Paizo, we don't have that ability. It's out of our hands. Let me walk you through this:

1. Is early level natural attack spam a problem?

Maybe. Some people consider an issue, others don't.

2. Was early level natural attack spam a problem before LotW?

Yes, it probably was.

3. Does the existence of LotW make the problem worse?

Possibly. New options for natural attacks were added, though the vast majority were things that were already available (see above).

4. Will changing LotW make the problem go away?

No, it probably won't.

5. Ultimately, is this a problem that DSP has the ability to fix?

Given the issue is present to a significant degree in the core game, no.


Low level natural attack spam exists, and it is beyond the scope of authority of DSP to make it go away. Balancing our material around the assumption that it doesn't exist means that people who use natural attacks will not use LotW because the existing options are both more accessible and more powerful.

What you want to happen would be nice if it could happen. But it's not something that DSP can do. I cannot state this any other way. The problem already exists, it will continue to exist, and we do not have the authority to fix the problem.

Quite frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree. I appreciate your support and enthusiasm, but I can't give you what you want.

[upho]

What you want to happen would be nice if it could happen. But it's not something that DSP can do. I cannot state this any other way. The problem already exists, it will continue to exist, and we do not have the authority to fix the problem.

Quite frankly, you're barking up the wrong tree. I appreciate your support and enthusiasm, but I can't give you what you want.

I understand, and see that I've still not managed to get my message across. But I'm OK with not sharing the views of "the tree" on this particular issue, and hopefully my worries will be proven to have been largely unfounded once things have seen more play and been bent into final shapes, so I'll quit barking. And regardless, it's the least I can do to show my gratitude for the patience and respect you have shown me when discussing this, despite my persistent nagging in derailing wall of texts. You have my sincere thanks.

*wags tail and trots off to investigate the new-smelling stuff on other side of tree*

[EldritchWeaver]

While I don't want to reopen the discussion, I feel should at least give some open points a closing they deserve. I noticed that I didn't quite describe my opinion in a way that would allow others to pick up on the intended meaning. The "stronger" in "makes builds overall stronger" actually refers to "makes niche builds viable" and "creates more variety". To some extent there is always the risk of overlooking a particular combination, where you add another piece to rocket tag. Considering the number of options it is impossible to filter everything out and two options - which are completely fine on their own - are grounds for banning them from being used in combination.

I have a few questions to you regarding this:

1. Does this mean you think it's perfectly OK and balanced to other PCs in your typical games if your 5th level PC can make at least 5 primary and 3 secondary attacks with every full attack?
2. Would you consider it insulting if new options for natural attackers were introduced that couldn't improve the DPR capacity of this 5th level build?
3. Would you consider new options for natural attackers as traps unless they increased the number of build combos able to achieve at least a comparable early level DRP result?

1. Considering the existing Martial/Caster disparity, this is somewhat of a trick question. You can always create builds which vary in their effectiveness. It doesn't matter what options you use, but if the GM has to create an enemy, so a certain character is challenged, but the rest of the party would be one-hit killed instead, that group has already a problem. You need to set a baseline around the characters aren't allowed to deviate much to avoid to run into that problem or be able to creatively with such an outlier, so the other players don't feel left out.
2. I would consider it insulting if a new option implies that it improves something, but instead makes it worse. I'm fine with keeping the DPR as it is, or even lowering, if it provides then something interesting in return.
3. See answer above.

[Elricaltovilla]

I try not to be the kind of person that begs for feedback, but we did put out two new PrCs on Wednesday and I'd love to get some opinions on them. The Greater Werewolf and the Formless Master.