Save the Date!

Yes. I'd forgotten about that feat.

Edit: I was more looking for some focus spells with the rage trait, or a class arcehtype that modified your rage enough to allow spellcasting while raging, to avoid that kind of action cost. Moment of clarity works, I guess, but it isn't really good enough to build a character around.

I really, really don't want guns to be handicapped for everyone except one class, then that class's thing is just to remove that handicap. That's what they did with the gunslinger in 1e and it was butts. I'd much prefer it if any martial class could effectively use guns, if they happen to get their hands on one, and "gunslinger" turn into "drifter" who just happens to have abilities that synergize with guns.

Guns aren't a problem if they're balanced along the lines of other weapons, as they should be.

I agree, though I honestly don't see that as a problem that the drifter is any better at solving.

My personal feeling is the gunslinger shouldn't just be a way to play a gun-shooting character, however it turns out... it should be a way to interact with firearms differently. So a gunslinger being able to create and more importantly augment firearms (as well as other things, including a small amount of alchemy) would give them options with their guns that other classes simply wielding pistols could do. Less entirely combat-focused and more spread out, ideally.

But my big thing is alchemy and alchemists are really cool, but they could use a companion. Every other class is steeped in magic but the alchemist has found some ways around that with science. I think the inclusion of another intentionally and specifically amagical class chassis would be a big boon to the game.

But I'm also aware that the drifter concept is a bit of a darling on this forum specifically, and I do think there are many great ideas in there. So I am pretty sure that Paizo could do great work playing off that set of ideas. Who knows.

It's Monday morning and I'm spouting opinions, because.

Yeah while I 100% support the Drifter concept, I have to admit it is something the forum zeitgeist came up with, not Paizo, which is why I've been pushing the inventor class as an alternate theory.

Yeah while I 100% support the Drifter concept, I have to admit it is something the forum zeitgeist came up with, not Paizo, which is why I've been pushing the inventor class as an alternate theory.

I just found that thread five minutes ago!

It's funny how these work... You go on any of the reddit discussions of hopeful new classes, and the drifter carries minimal weight but a tech-oriented class gets folks excited. "Zeitgeist" is the right word, as different groups want different things.

The one thing I do know is that a gunslinging class absolutely needs to be added to the game, as that is probably one of the best marketing moves Paizo can do. Critical Role's gunslinger conversion when they moved to 5e has a ton of pull still, and I think a real, viable, interesting gunslinger or thereabouts will be a big boon in dragging in intrigued 5e players. Whether or not that comes now, I don't know and am pretty content not to worry about. :)

I really, really don't want guns to be handicapped for everyone except one class, then that class's thing is just to remove that handicap. That's what they did with the gunslinger in 1e and it was butts. I'd much prefer it if any martial class could effectively use guns, if they happen to get their hands on one, and "gunslinger" turn into "drifter" who just happens to have abilities that synergize with guns.

Guns aren't a problem if they're balanced along the lines of other weapons, as they should be.

Yeah, I'd like it to lean more into the special tricks, like 1e Ricochet Shot (which, while awkwardly worded, the ability to basically ignore cover while shooting and spend grit to negate concealment too - straight up ignoring things like invisibility as a result - was cool but not required to fix anything). The charisma archetype had the damage-on-miss special shot? Things like that. A fighter should still be able to use a gun well, but they won't synergize with it as much (for instance, many of their ranged feats don't work with crossbows either).

I'd like the class to absolutely lean heavily into that mystique of the western. Impossible shots. Can't hit em/won't stay down. Etc. And as noted, it aligns strongly with similar character archetypes in samurai film, so a single class that can be built either for ranged weapons (which might be guns, or crossbows, etc depending on setting) or melee weapons would be neat.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Yeah while I 100% support the Drifter concept, I have to admit it is something the forum zeitgeist came up with, not Paizo, which is why I've been pushing the inventor class as an alternate theory.

I just found that thread five minutes ago!

It's funny how these work... You go on any of the reddit discussions of hopeful new classes, and the drifter carries minimal weight but a tech-oriented class gets folks excited. "Zeitgeist" is the right word, as different groups want different things.

The one thing I do know is that a gunslinging class absolutely needs to be added to the game, as that is probably one of the best marketing moves Paizo can do. Critical Role's gunslinger conversion when they moved to 5e has a ton of pull still, and I think a real, viable, interesting gunslinger or thereabouts will be a big boon in dragging in intrigued 5e players. Whether or not that comes now, I don't know and am pretty content not to worry about. :)

To be fair, I think the "wanderer" concept is making a lot of solid returns in Popular culture right now (not that it ever really stopped being a thing), just look at Mandalorian.

In fact, I'd argue the announcement and the Season Finale of Mandalorian were really close together, so it's an interesting coincidence.

Now, sure, a technology class would definitely be amazing. I wouldn't fight even a gun specialist within it.

But I also think there's something there that sets it apart and the "want" is also there.

It might be just a forum zeitgeist thing, but I definitely feel like in general the concept is flourishing generally right now so giving people an outlet to take on the "Drifter" vibes that are present right now might be in the best interest of Paizo.

And given that Paizo was the first one to come up with Gunslinger (Let's face it my homebrew and Cozzymandias are heavily influenced by it and the Swashbuckler panache system), even though they "didn't come up with it", they sort of did come up with it even if others took it a step further.

15 days and counting folks :)

I know I'm in the minority, pretty sure jason buhlman basically confirmed gunslingers would be a class in pf2, but I don't think they should be a class. I think it would be cool to have a book where there's a bunch of gun options, like equipment and feats for each martial class. That way all the 'styles' guns could be used would be covered, from super long range (ranger), fast six shooter (fighter maybe), single shot pistol (swashbuckler), even concealed silencer style (rogue/investigator). Personally think the drifter persona that most refer to is more of a background/personality than anything, and any class could adopt it.

Personally think the drifter persona that most refer to is more of a background/personality than anything, and any class could adopt it.

Although I don't want to open the can of worms, I think you could make the same argument for Rogue, Champion, Swashbuckler (I did make this argument before I saw the PT version), Monk, and Investigator.

Investigator is just Rogue + Investigating things

Monk is just Fighter + Wuxia things

Champion is just Fighter + a Chivalrous code

Swashbuckler is just Fighter + Bravado

Rogue is just Fighter + Skillful actions (heck you could argue Legendary proficiency against FF AC triggers Crits so much it might as well be a form of "sneak attack").

Now I wouldn't really argue the above, but it is a perspective one could take to be exclusive of new Class concepts (and in the same vein as the Drifter IMO).

All of the above are heavily influenced by their "personality" as it were, but that personality comes through in the Class itself.

Now all of the things you mention for adding Guns to other Classes, all for that type of thing, but just like there are Fencers or Bravado-ish types outside the Swahsbuckler so too can things exist in that light IMO.

I personally don't think "Gunslinger" is a good idea as a standalone class but having a new thematic Class that can HEAVILY lean into the themes and "do it best" is probably the most appealing option on the table at the moment, ala the Drifter.

Other Classes really should only need to add support for firearms in the form of Class Feats, Class Archetypes, and Class "Paths" (Doctrine, Instinct, Racket, etc) so that most classes can get Access to these since they should almost certainly be Uncommon in general.

Other Classes really should only need to add support for firearms in the form of Class Feats, Class Archetypes, and Class "Paths" (Doctrine, Instinct, Racket, etc) so that most classes can get Access to these since they should almost certainly be Uncommon in general.

Honestly, a Gun-user Archetype ala Martial Artist would be pretty much all you needed to do to accomplish this IMO. Move any Drifter specific Gun feats to live under that umbrella much the way the Monk feats live under MA.

I'm not so invested in guns in my fantasy, so much as "I want the tropes that the gunslinger interacts with" in my fantasy. Give the character a crossbow or a katana and it's fine, I'm just here for the mysterious taciturn stranger.

I'm not so invested in guns in my fantasy, so much as "I want the tropes that the gunslinger interacts with" in my fantasy. Give the character a crossbow or a katana and it's fine, I'm just here for the mysterious taciturn stranger.

And while MT's drifter class concept is really clever and creative, the general truth is things like "mysterious," "taciturn," and "stranger" are really tough to both mechanically represent and reasonably approach as a member of a party.

I want the Mysterious stranger class, AND separate systems for firearms (ideally with different advancements, from cannon to flintlock to musket to revolver) so that people who want to have guns in their PF2 adventures can be happy.

Alkenstar is part of Golarion after all.

Note that I say this as a French citizen who really dislikes firearms in real life :-)

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm not so invested in guns in my fantasy, so much as "I want the tropes that the gunslinger interacts with" in my fantasy. Give the character a crossbow or a katana and it's fine, I'm just here for the mysterious taciturn stranger.

And while MT's drifter class concept is really clever and creative, the general truth is things like "mysterious," "taciturn," and "stranger" are really tough to both mechanically represent and reasonably approach as a member of a party.

Absolutely true.

In fact, while I was writing a lot of that Class I found myself plucking concepts from quite a few different Classes (Ranger, Champion, Investigator, Rogue, and Fighter all had at least some influence or a direct Class Feat being ported).

So ultimately, the way I see Paizo building Classes (or the way they feel to me now at least) is the complimentary amalgamation of a set of "flavors" much the way you would comprise a dish.

Drifter has the je ne sais quoi of wanderer/protector/rugged or whatever we imagine the Drifter as.

And the big concern I had while building it was do not make the Ranger/Fighter lose their identity in the process, or at least that was one of my primary goals.

Ranger I feel successful on, and Fighter I do as well, but to a certain degree.

Fighter, in my mind now, is more like a "vehicle for sauce" if you follow the "dish" analogy.

It is the best place to start for "I want to be the best at fighting first, and then whatever else I want comes next"

So a Fighter can still evoke themes a Drifter can, but they might go about it a slightly different way (and has the option to go in a completely different direction than a "Drifter").

Investigator and Rogue have a similar relationship.

Also Thank You :), that's nice of you to say (again though, this community/Paizo deserves a lot of the credit).

I mean similarly "daring, dashing, and ostentatious" are tricky to establish with mechanics, but nonetheless we have the Swashbuckler (and they did a great job with it!)

The monk is also a huge amount of thematic space that doesn't necessarily suggest mechanics.

I mean similarly "daring, dashing, and ostentatious" are tricky to establish with mechanics, but nonetheless we have the Swashbuckler (and they did a great job with it!)

The monk is also a huge amount of thematic space that doesn't necessarily suggest mechanics.

That's fair. Though monk is a very known property with a lot of years of D&D behind it. Swashbuckler is a good example, though I'd say "daring, dashing, and ostentatious" really doesn't sum up the class much at all, with concepts like "precision" or "mobility" really taking up the bulk of the design space. Not a bad thing--it evolved beyond the Flynnic origins a good amount.

Really just all boils down to what Paizo want such a class to cover and how to push forward with it.

I look forward to arguing about gunslingers for a long time yet, even if they are not announced as part of this playtest. :)

Yeah while I 100% support the Drifter concept, I have to admit it is something the forum zeitgeist came up with, not Paizo, which is why I've been pushing the inventor class as an alternate theory.

I feel like an Inventor class would be a difficult needle to thread, especially since we already have another tinkering/mad scientist (pretty sure those were both archetype names in PF1 even) crafting-focused class that also happens to be one of the most contentious in the game when it comes to its design and balance.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Yeah while I 100% support the Drifter concept, I have to admit it is something the forum zeitgeist came up with, not Paizo, which is why I've been pushing the inventor class as an alternate theory.

I feel like an Inventor class would be a difficult needle to thread, especially since we already have another tinkering/mad scientist (pretty sure those were both archetype names in PF1 even) crafting-focused class that also happens to be one of the most contentious in the game when it comes to its design and balance.

To be fair, alchemist is largely only rough because of heavily conservative math, not because of the functions of the class. If they were curved to master proficiency in unarmed and bombs, I think people would largely love them to death. The feats are a bit restrictive maybe too, but it's mostly that the class fantasy is hard to achieve when your ability to positively impact enemies is sort of unlikely.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Yeah while I 100% support the Drifter concept, I have to admit it is something the forum zeitgeist came up with, not Paizo, which is why I've been pushing the inventor class as an alternate theory.

I feel like an Inventor class would be a difficult needle to thread, especially since we already have another tinkering/mad scientist (pretty sure those were both archetype names in PF1 even) crafting-focused class that also happens to be one of the most contentious in the game when it comes to its design and balance.

Well, like I said in the other thread, holding yourself to what many consider to be the weakest class in the game is foolhardy. Decide where the powerlevel of the alchemist should be. Design a class aiming for that, don't shackle yourself to the power curve of a class that so many dislike the power curve on.

If it makes the alchemist class look even worse to people that already dislike it, so be it. Next big errata pass, you have a rough draft to draw on in the form of the other class. Or we get a Pathfinder Unchained (second edition), then this would be a candidate for revision.

That's fair. I just think that releasing a class that potentially ends up doing a lot of the really cool things PF1 Alchemists can do and eating into their design space could be bad optics and extremely frustrating for players who have been waiting for Alchemists to get substantive new options and tools. The hypothetical Inventor would need to keep that in mind at every step of its development, which is why I think it'd be tricky to implement.

That's fair. I just think that releasing a class that potentially ends up doing a lot of the really cool things PF1 Alchemists can do and eating into their design space could be bad optics and extremely frustrating for players who have been waiting for Alchemists to get substantive new options and tools. The hypothetical Inventor would need to keep that in mind at every step of its development, which is why I think it'd be tricky to implement.

Do people here feel that the Alchemist should be the crafting class? I always figured their niche was specifically crafting alchemical things... potions, bombs, poisons, etc. Another class building firearms, gadgets, armors, and so on doesn't really seem to be the same design space.

Gadgets and armors not so much, but building golems was an alchemist thing in PF1 and black powder alchemist with an emphasis on firearms seems like a really reasonable design space.

Seeing another class drop with all that kind of stuff while the Alchemist is still so lacking in the interesting, inventive stuff that made the PF1 Alchemist as cool as it was would leave a pretty bad taste.

Personally, I'd rather see a new class focus on crafting permanent items and modifying the traits of those on a temporary basis, like making a sword a trip weaponry that deals bludgeoning damage in addition to its slashing. That would be a new niche that wouldn't step on the alchemist.

An alternative would simply be making an Inventor that is a class archetype for the alchemist, modifying Quick Alchemy, Advanced Alchemy, and Infusions so that they allow for different forms of consumable crafting than just alchemy. Talismans, oils, and ammunition are obvious additions, but I'd like to see scrolls and potions added as well. Heck, even feather tokens.

On a related note, if the Gunslinger does wind up part of a different class that is more thematic than just "guns and those who love them", I would want to see the Gunslinger name be attached to the inevitable gun-fighting archetype, in the style of the ones from APG.

Edit:

Gadgets and armors not so much, but building golems was an alchemist thing in PF1 and black powder alchemist with an emphasis on firearms seems like a really reasonable design space.

Seeing another class drop with all that kind of stuff while the Alchemist is still so lacking in the interesting, inventive stuff that made the PF1 Alchemist as cool as it was would leave a pretty bad taste.

To remphasize this point, currently, the alchemist cannot be this class. The way the rules are written preclude its abilities working with any other kind of crafting other than alchemy. That can be changed, but it will require more work than just adding a research field.

Gadgets and armors not so much, but building golems was an alchemist thing in PF1 and black powder alchemist with an emphasis on firearms seems like a really reasonable design space.

Seeing another class drop with all that kind of stuff while the Alchemist is still so lacking in the interesting, inventive stuff that made the PF1 Alchemist as cool as it was would leave a pretty bad taste.

As someone who hasn't gotten to play or run 1e, that feels pretty flimsy to me.

Just because in the last edition the Alchemist was a giant umbrella under which they united a bunch of concepts, some of them particularly not very alchemical in nature at all... they should continue to do so to respect the class name? Who does it hurt if the class is broken into two with a new edition? Allowing some nominal cross-crafting would seem to cover enough overlap to keep them cousins, while both introducing a significant amount of equipment, tinkering, inventing, and modification rules.

I just don't understand how that would be a shot across the bow for anyone based on a previous class connection in a prior edition. As long as firearms, golem-crafting, or weird tinkering makes it into the game in a very playable way, wouldn't it be better to allow variable degrees of overlap with alchemy itself (via multiclassing or the archetypes) so that a golem-builder wouldn't be saddled with having to rely on throwing bombs as their own in-combat contribution?

Just thinking out loud. Apologies if this one came across aggressively. It feels a little aggressive, but I can't point out where so I can't smooth it up.

I'm reasonably certain/feel pretty confident that gunslinger will be an archetype - a la vigilante.

I guess my question for people who want like a "commander" class is- what is it you would want to do with the class that you couldn't do with the Marshal archetype (possibly with more feats printed for it.)

I guess my question for people who want like a "commander" class is- what is it you would want to do with the class that you couldn't do with the Marshal archetype (possibly with more feats printed for it.)

Pretty good question, honestly. The Marshal already hits the high points of the concept (leadership aura, trade your actions to let party members Strike) so a Commander class would share several feats with it. Of course, that doesn't stop the Duelist from existing in the same space as the Fighter and Swashbuckler.

Some classes can be boiled down to archetypes if we can really isolate the core thesis of the class like "rides a horse" or "has a secret identity."

The Marshall's core of "you are a talented combat leader" seems to cover a lot of space here. So a full class would have to be something at least *different* than that.

As close as we've gotten to "a class and an archetype overlapping" thus far is the monk and the martial artist, but the monk's themes that are about "monastic tradition, mysticism, and legacy combat styles" aren't really reproduced in the archetype which does enable like "I'm an MMA style fighter". But generally the class has to be something thematically bigger than the archetype could be.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess my question for people who want like a "commander" class is- what is it you would want to do with the class that you couldn't do with the Marshal archetype (possibly with more feats printed for it.)

Pretty good question, honestly. The Marshal already hits the high points of the concept (leadership aura, trade your actions to let party members Strike) so a Commander class would share several feats with it. Of course, that doesn't stop the Duelist from existing in the same space as the Fighter and Swashbuckler.

Or the martial artist and the monk.

We could be looking at a new mechanic entirely from the focus spell, binary system, spells system in terms of a currency.

Then again, the Panache binary system applied to a Tactician class could be an interesting avenue, spend “acumen” to activate a “contingency” where contingency is some kind of buff or tactic change or reaction.

Or the first non magic focus point system

Lots of ways it could go honestly

One could argue there are a LOT of concepts exemplified in standard tactical leadership that can be explored. Even the Marshall archetype sort of does a twofer because it goes with the intimidating leader vs an inspiring leader.

I have a feeling the “martial inverse bard” has a lot of concepts all in its own. Think of all the legendary leaders over the centuries and their many approaches to leadership. To me, carve that up Class path wise in a similar vein as the Rogue (versatile goal that is accomplished by varying means dependent on path) and you’ve got a lot of different approaches.

Like the lightbulb, you only have to find one way for it to work for it to work and make sense. Ever since the Swashbuckler to me it’s never been “is it possible” it’s become “how is it possible”.

Yeah, I think y'all are spot on.

There is tons more design and play space in the "charismatic martial who bolsters his allies and controls the battlefield" beyond the Marshal archetype. Same way the Archer archetype isn't the be-all end-all of bow builds.

Personally, I'd be absolutely giddy to see another base class appear with a defensive or at least cooperative focus, heavy armor mastery, and some healthy shield feats. There's tons of damage, cc, buffing, healing, and all that out there right now... there's not a ton of tank options. This could be a perfect way to introduce a significant defensive class without being subject to the religiosity and anathema that champions carry as riders.

I guess my question for people who want like a "commander" class is- what is it you would want to do with the class that you couldn't do with the Marshal archetype (possibly with more feats printed for it.)

For one, the ability to manipulate ally actions at lower levels. With the Marshal, the earliest you can do that is level 6. Having some form of the Marshal's "To Battle!" feat at low levels would be ideal.

Basically, I don't want to just be a martial that can buff my allies. I want to be a character who uses their party members to attack.

You want to derive a tank with “taunt” mechanics I don’t hate? A Marshall type that grants benefits to allies as long as they aren’t taking damage both thematically makes sense (go for the leader!) but naturally makes intelligent creatures gravitate towards attacking them as a means to disrupt their buffing. Then have them thrive while targeted as well (ebb and flow, which can be rather tactical).

Anyways rant over but now I’m getting excited to see a warlord. A warlord would be that one place I could stomach taunt mechanics in some form at least, since non magical mental manipulation is kinda the whole theme.

I was thinking and I don't imagine Paizo can exactly release a "drifter" class that encompasses a gunslinger unless the gunslinger subclass is explicitly separated out as uncommon? Because the rest of the drifter stuff shouldn't be rarity-gated but firearms necessarily need to be.

I was thinking and I don't imagine Paizo can exactly release a "drifter" class that encompasses a gunslinger unless the gunslinger subclass is explicitly separated out as uncommon? Because the rest of the drifter stuff shouldn't be rarity-gated but firearms necessarily need to be.

You just do what the ancestries do, allow gunslingers access to uncommon firearms. Honestly same thing with samurai and the appropriate weapon

I don't really see why they'd need to make the subclass uncommon. Although I don't think anything like the Drifter is going to show up.

Sporkedup wrote:

I was thinking and I don't imagine Paizo can exactly release a "drifter" class that encompasses a gunslinger unless the gunslinger subclass is explicitly separated out as uncommon? Because the rest of the drifter stuff shouldn't be rarity-gated but firearms necessarily need to be.

You just do what the ancestries do, allow gunslingers access to uncommon firearms. Honestly same thing with samurai and the appropriate weapon

But that doesn't gate access behind GM approval, which for something like guns is pretty vital.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I guess my question for people who want like a "commander" class is- what is it you would want to do with the class that you couldn't do with the Marshal archetype (possibly with more feats printed for it.)

Pretty good question, honestly. The Marshal already hits the high points of the concept (leadership aura, trade your actions to let party members Strike) so a Commander class would share several feats with it. Of course, that doesn't stop the Duelist from existing in the same space as the Fighter and Swashbuckler.

If nothing else, the Marshal has 14 feats. Being able to get all of them on the same character would take a class that allows you get get some of them as part of the core chassis.

And I feel confident Paizo can come up with another 20-30 feats that also manipulate your allies actions. Especially if they open up the skills that it keys off of it, like using Arcana to give a spell save boost. Or go really wild and make it so the Fighter can give up her third action to sustain a spell for the summoner, as long as they're both inside the aura.

Also, a feat or class ability that expands the range of the aura seems like an obvious feat.

One of my favorite 3.5 classes (in concept if not quite in execution) was the Dragon Shaman, which seems to have been their attempt to make a support/healer analogue to the Warlock. So all of the abilities from that class, especially its various auras, seem like reasonable additions.

I guess my question for people who want like a "commander" class is- what is it you would want to do with the class that you couldn't do with the Marshal archetype (possibly with more feats printed for it.)

It’s my homebrew, but there’s definitely design space for a full Marshall like class. I did that for my Warlord class inspired by the 4E warlord class. You can have charismatic warlords, tactical (intelligence), or wisdom based warlord.

Midnightoker wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

I was thinking and I don't imagine Paizo can exactly release a "drifter" class that encompasses a gunslinger unless the gunslinger subclass is explicitly separated out as uncommon? Because the rest of the drifter stuff shouldn't be rarity-gated but firearms necessarily need to be.

You just do what the ancestries do, allow gunslingers access to uncommon firearms. Honestly same thing with samurai and the appropriate weapon

But that doesn't gate access behind GM approval, which for something like guns is pretty vital.

I'm confused, are you saying that when rules explicitly state "you have access to uncommon weapons" they don't get them?

Like I'm not saying they get Proficiency with those weapons, I think Guns should just be Martial weapons that happen to be uncommon (thus being hard to access for others) but that the Gunslinger path specifically states "You get access to uncommon weapons of the Firearm group" or even for a specific Firearm.

Focus spells are also uncommon, but no GM worth their salt is going to disallow a Class Feat that grants access to a Focus spell simply because it says Uncommon. If a Class specifically grants you access to something uncommon, you get it.

And if it's uncommon, you can't just expect it to be available (and you can't just buy it generally). At least in Golarion it would likely be Uncommon, some regions it might not be and that's probably intended.

Other way around I think. I think he's saying that a subclass giving automatic access to firearms, bypassing the GM, might be a problem.

I...don't really see how that might be the case, given a GM can ban a common item if the mood strikes them, including the heal spell or the entire Diplomacy skill. But I do think that's what they meant.

Sporkedup wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

Sporkedup wrote:

I was thinking and I don't imagine Paizo can exactly release a "drifter" class that encompasses a gunslinger unless the gunslinger subclass is explicitly separated out as uncommon? Because the rest of the drifter stuff shouldn't be rarity-gated but firearms necessarily need to be.

You just do what the ancestries do, allow gunslingers access to uncommon firearms. Honestly same thing with samurai and the appropriate weapon

But that doesn't gate access behind GM approval, which for something like guns is pretty vital.

I'm confused, are you saying that when rules explicitly state "you have access to uncommon weapons" they don't get them?

Like I'm not saying they get Proficiency with those weapons, I think Guns should just be Martial weapons that happen to be uncommon (thus being hard to access for others) but that the Gunslinger path specifically states "You get access to uncommon weapons of the Firearm group" or even for a specific Firearm.

Focus spells are also uncommon, but no GM worth their salt is going to disallow a Class Feat that grants access to a Focus spell simply because it says Uncommon. If a Class specifically grants you access to something uncommon, you get it.

And if it's uncommon, you can't just expect it to be available (and you can't just buy it generally). At least in Golarion it would likely be Uncommon, some regions it might not be and that's probably intended.

No, because rarity exists to give GMs control over some of the more divisive entries to their game. Firearms and anything that grants access to them are very much not welcome at plenty of tables (and you can see evidence of this in this thread even). The whole point of the rarity system is giving GMs control over elements that may or may not be welcome at their table, like Domination spells or firearms. I'm just thinking a class that has no rarity boundary but offers access to guns would be significantly unwelcome in the current game space for enough people to cause Paizo to think about it.

Does that make sense? My estimation is one way or another, gunslingers will be the first example of rarity-locked classes (unless they get pipped to it next month), and if you are tying the other concepts like samurai or peacemaker behind that same rarity too, it's gonna get a little messy?

Other way around I think. I think he's saying that a subclass giving automatic access to firearms, bypassing the GM, might be a problem.

I...don't really see how that might be the case, given a GM can ban a common item if the mood strikes them, including the heal spell or the entire Diplomacy skill. But I do think that's what they meant.

I mean but aren’t these classes designed for Golarion this edition? So guns definitely exist if you’re going by that.

Changing the rarity on an item you don’t want in your games is all it really takes, but I see nothing wrong with Paizo saying “hey if you don’t want to introduce guns to your campaigns, raise the rarity to rare or nonexistent but in our world they’re uncommon”

shrug I guess I just don’t see the difference between this or any other thing with the uncommon trait.

Bombs are canon so I don’t really see the issue. Mechanically Id expect them to be appropriate to their level of proficiency requirement (advanced or martial), not necessarily overpowered or too strong, so the issue would only be with themes being “off” for those that don’t like firearms in fantasy.

I mean even in my homebrew, the Gunslinger path still does really well with a crossbow since it’s cycle is tied to reload. It just also gets access to uncommon weapons of the firearms group and firearm proficiency. If a GM precluded access to those weapons, the whole thing still functions. Now in my homebrew maybe I’ll add an aside for Gunslinger that says “if you choose to disallow guns, allow the Gunslinger to exchange the craft ammunition skill feat for another skill feat of their choice and refer to the path as ‘marksman’”

It’s just not something I’d be altogether concerned about. And besides there’s already a Rare Class Path in Baba Yega for the Witch.

Maybe I'm just crazy. It could be that the common use for rarity rules is not exactly the point of them. I dunno!

No, it is. But they're mostly guidelines. Not even PFS fully follows them.

I really wish we could get the actual names of the playtest classes, so I don't have to keep spending brain cycles on "well, what if they made this class" for things that might never be.

arcanist doesn't make sense, since they already said that masters of magic will include non vancian magic system options, unless they are more classes than summoner and magus in the book.

Gunslinger and occult classes make the most sense, because they bring with
them lore that is a major part of PF1 but not yet included in PF2.

I think mysterious stranger should be an arctype because you can find them being also every type of class in literature and popular culture, from rogues, fighters, archers, soldiers, mages, gun slingers, it doesn't make any sense to me to make it's own class, rather it seems tailor made for the archetype system.

Warlord and Inquisitor.

That is my best guess.

Rarity is there so that GMs do not face an uphill battle to say No when a player asks for having a non-Common option available right away.

Because it is always easier and also more easily accepted by others to say Yes rather than No.

Making guns easily available would put GMs who refuse guns in their games in the very same perilous place that rarity is supposed to help them avoid.

Which is why many here want a Drifter class / archetype / concept set apart from using guns. And using guns as a not easily available option so that GMs who do not want them can easily not use them while still giving access to the Drifter to interested players. After all there is nothing in the Drifter concept that actually requires guns.

And then GMs who are ok with guns in their game get the pleasure to say yes to eager players :-)

For the Commander, I would like them to have a reaction they can use so that when an ally makes a stupid decision they can help the ally cancel it after thinking it through.

The kind of "can I take back my action?" that GMs know well, but supported by rules.

Not sure what the mechanics would look like though.

Concerning the Commander type class, I want them to being back cavalier stuff sans the mount. The challenge mechanics, banner, tactics, and even the order. They have a lot of cool stuff to flesh out without completely stepping on Marshal's toes and not being so limited by mounts.