Iconic Evolution: Harsk

Huzzah!

Always want to play the ranger, never get the chance to :D Love dual wielding axes here :D

So will we no longer have an iconic that uses a bow/crossbow as a primary weapon? That's lame.

So will we no longer have an iconic that uses a bow/crossbow as a primary weapon? That's lame.

You'll have to wait till they redo the Inquisitor.

So will we no longer have an iconic that uses a bow/crossbow as a primary weapon? That's lame.

The crossbow is still there, on his back. Maybe he is a switch hitter to the point that both the handaxe pair and the crossbow can be considered primary weapons.

I like the art mostly but I must say that I don't like this dwarvish weapon design !!

I know the need to have cool weapons featured in the pictures, and I can forgive the fact that several iconics have weapons that are way too thick or too broad to be pratical (like PF1 Valeros swords).

But the axe in Harsk's right hand is totally unpratical to use : the flat cutting edge is less effficient and very hard to use with this strange angle compared to the pole ; moreover, the lower part of the head has a good chance of stabbing yourself in the thigh if you are not careful.

Make a quick google search on a tomahawk, a franscica and a viking axe. Save for the size, only a few details on the head will differ, because when people make weapons, their first goal is effciency, and that means you end up with weapons that can be very similar even from different cultures.

And when those cultures want to put some fancy features on their weapons, they will make some engravings on the metal or light decorations on the pole, nobody is crazy enough to double the weight of his weapon just to make it look cool.

So why not just put some dwarvish runes/symbols on weapons to give them a less generic look while keeping it usable ??

Completely impractical weapons are a well-loved fantasy trope, though.

As far impressions on the artwork: The first thing that jumped out at me is a sense of uncanniness - Harsk's facial structure is odd angles, it doesn't look human.

Then I realized oh right, he's a dwarf, and immediately approved of this. :)

I get your point Noir, but PF Dwarves are not really known for their culture of doing things the "easy" or "right" way, I mean just take a look at the Boulder Helmet and Headbutt attacks in general.

I for one and glad to see that some NON-Human cultural stuff is getting baked into the new Edition, I always felt that many of the core Races/Ancestries were rather boring and same-y compared to the dozens of distinct and well defined Human Nations and Cultures.

Also, the idea that weapons have to look practical has LONG since passed in that 90% of people I've queried have no idea that a Scythe Weapon actually looks NOTHING like the iconic Scythe a farmer or DEATH carries and when they're corrected I've found they'd prefer to keep their head cannon fixed on the idea of swinging around an L shaped implement that would almost certainly get them killed if they tried wielding it in actual combat.

I am digging Harsk's new physical proportions... he doesn't just look like a short, stocky dude, he looks like something that isn't human.

I see he's officially gone to strawberry blonde, rather than the more yellowish look he used to sport.

As a tomahawk/hatchet afficionado, I like the dual axes look here, while still keeping that crossbow near at hand.

As I've come to expect, the facial expression is a step up as well- old Harsk looked like someone had told him his tea was weak. New Harsk looks like he's about to tell <i>you</i> that the tea you just tried to serve him was weak, and he's got Views on the subject.

I'm not really sure about just how hard this leans into the whole Dwarf = Scottish aesthetic.

I like him for the most part. I'm not sure about the green sash bit (though it is in his gear in the original picture), but I'm a big fan of the dual hand axes, and think the more defined hair color is probably a better fit for an Iconic (who need to be drawn by a lot of people and thus benefit from clear visual signifiers...his previous hair color was nice, but a bit 'neither one thing nor another', something I could see causing difficulties).

Doggan wrote:

So will we no longer have an iconic that uses a bow/crossbow as a primary weapon? That's lame.

The crossbow is still there, on his back. Maybe he is a switch hitter to the point that both the handaxe pair and the crossbow can be considered primary weapons.

Except the video talks about his focus on dual wielding.

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Doggan wrote:

So will we no longer have an iconic that uses a bow/crossbow as a primary weapon? That's lame.

The crossbow is still there, on his back. Maybe he is a switch hitter to the point that both the handaxe pair and the crossbow can be considered primary weapons.

Except the video talks about his focus on dual wielding.

It took 2 feats to be good with a crossbow in the playtest and 1 to effectively dual wield. Harsk can easily do both. The only issue I see is splitting his Hunter's Edge between flurry and precision.

I get your point Noir, but PF Dwarves are not really known for their culture of doing things the "easy" or "right" way, I mean just take a look at the Boulder Helmet and Headbutt attacks in general.

I for one and glad to see that some NON-Human cultural stuff is getting baked into the new Edition, I always felt that many of the core Races/Ancestries were rather boring and same-y compared to the dozens of distinct and well defined Human Nations and Cultures.

Also, the idea that weapons have to look practical has LONG since passed in that 90% of people I've queried have no idea that a Scythe Weapon actually looks NOTHING like the iconic Scythe a farmer or DEATH carries and when they're corrected I've found they'd prefer to keep their head cannon fixed on the idea of swinging around an L shaped implement that would almost certainly get them killed if they tried wielding it in actual combat.

Ooo, I'm curious, what's a real one look like? Tried looking it up but only found the fantasy ones lol

Doggan wrote:

SheepishEidolon wrote:

Doggan wrote:

So will we no longer have an iconic that uses a bow/crossbow as a primary weapon? That's lame.

The crossbow is still there, on his back. Maybe he is a switch hitter to the point that both the handaxe pair and the crossbow can be considered primary weapons.

Except the video talks about his focus on dual wielding.

It took 2 feats to be good with a crossbow in the playtest and 1 to effectively dual wield. Harsk can easily do both. The only issue I see is splitting his Hunter's Edge between flurry and precision.

You're missing the point. It's not a complaint about Harsk specifically. Just the fact that there will no longer be a character with a focus on iconic fantasy weaponry. Sucks for folks like me who enjoy that.

Oh good, I like all the explanations that've been forthcoming. Can't wait to see the story about him.

warscythe

Ooo, I'm curious, what's a real one look like? Tried looking it up but only found the fantasy ones lol

I got ninja'd by Mr Izkrael, this time but you can find more by googling War Scythe in general, but from what I can tell Paizo has left the actual style of the Sycthe as generically described and it implies the farm-tool version because of that, and as a consequence it would seem all the PF artists ALSO took the traditional tool-style form as reference for what it looks like.

I have no problem with all weaponized Scythes in PF looking like farm-tools, it's party of the fantasy of things, but yeah, historically speaking I'm willing to bet anyone actually fighting with an unmodified farm scythe probably ended up more wounded than their opponent 9/10 times.

I like the art mostly but I must say that I don't like this dwarvish weapon design !!

I am not a big fan of Harsk as a Pregen, but I think those axes are an order of magnitude improvement over Ver 1.0. The texture, the craftsmanship on the metal, brilliant work by Wayne Reynolds.

I've very glad Harks is no longer a Crossbow focus and now that he's dual wielder, I could actually consider playing the character.

I love the new Harsk art!

Harsk is a dwarf with a desire for the simple things in life. A warm fire coupled with a comfy bedroll and a good spot of tea splashed with a hint of venturing into foul infested lairs and slaying disgusting abominations that haunt the dreams of men. ;) :D

I do like the art as art, but do have a few issues, particularly with the game implications. Moving him from primarily using a crossbow to primarily using two weapons is unfortunate. I really liked the fact that the iconic ranger broke the stereotypes and used a crossbow. It showed that characters can break the standard molds and still fit in just fine. Harsk was the best in that regard. Unfortunately crossbows sucked mechanically and apparently still do (the slightly larger damage die size than bows doesn't make up for the dramatic loss in rate of shot and no stat bonus to damage). I'd have liked there to be a niche for crossbows to be a viable primary weapon, but with a different focus than standard bows. But by moving him to being a two-weapon wielder, they shoved him into the more stereotypical niche for the ranger. This seems to go with a narrowing of the focus of classes, and I'm not a fan.

Other than that, I'm also not thrilled with the vaguely tartan sash. I'm so tired of the Dwarves are Scottish trope. But at least the dagger isn't a dirk. Instead it looks like he's got a saex and a migration period sword, which is cool. And while the face-axes might be impractical (like practically all fantasy art weapons) I do like the look of them. They make the term Bearded Axe a bit more literal.

Not sure why his hair-color needed to change. It's probably the most jarring change in look. It does stand out more, which might be the reasoning.

I feel that there's a strong consistency amongst the works we've seen so far to have this 'dirty cloth/old paper' look for a considerable swath of the character's outfits. Harsk, Ezren, and Amiri all three have really dull armor on their limbs, leaving attention to those things to be additionally difficult in scenes, when those should be the focus of scenes, given that they're where the 'action' of a body happens.

I don't know, to me they just feel... drab, or dingy due to those portions of their gear. Given that character books usually have that as the background, they might 'sink into the page' unless you make the effort to give them a colored (or stark white) backdrop.

Are you worried that your iconics won't really stand out very well on any background that isn't a bright, unnatural color?

I genuinely prefer this design to 1e's! I wasn't really a fan of 1e Harsk, because he looked like a bundle of weapons stuck on a desaturated dwarf. This one gives off personality! I look at this and I KNOW what he's like. Massive improvement!

I do like the art as art, but do have a few issues, particularly with the game implications. Moving him from primarily using a crossbow to primarily using two weapons is unfortunate. I really liked the fact that the iconic ranger broke the stereotypes and used a crossbow. It showed that characters can break the standard molds and still fit in just fine. Harsk was the best in that regard. Unfortunately crossbows sucked mechanically and apparently still do (the slightly larger damage die size than bows doesn't make up for the dramatic loss in rate of shot and no stat bonus to damage). I'd have liked there to be a niche for crossbows to be a viable primary weapon, but with a different focus than standard bows. But by moving him to being a two-weapon wielder, they shoved him into the more stereotypical niche for the ranger. This seems to go with a narrowing of the focus of classes, and I'm not a fan.

Other than that, I'm also not thrilled with the vaguely tartan sash. I'm so tired of the Dwarves are Scottish trope. But at least the dagger isn't a dirk. Instead it looks like he's got a saex and a migration period sword, which is cool. And while the face-axes might be impractical (like practically all fantasy art weapons) I do like the look of them. They make the term Bearded Axe a bit more literal.

Not sure why his hair-color needed to change. It's probably the most jarring change in look. It does stand out more, which might be the reasoning.

A ranger can make crossbow damage quite competitive with shortbows, actually. They can add half WIS instead of half STR to damage. The precision edge adds a nice damage boost on top of the higher damage dice. And running reload means you can sneak or hide to get an enemy flatfooted between shots which makes you more likely to crit. And they can do this from 240 feet away without penalty. A halfing crossbow sniper is at the top of my list of things I want to play.

While I don't have a dog in the fight of Harsk being crossbow or two-weapon, I don't think that "he can mechanically be good at both" is addressing the complaints of the people who don't like the change. Said people seem to be more saying "I liked the flavor and style of a Ranger whose primary focus was crossbow", which is not a complaint that mechanics can answer.

Doktor Weasel wrote:

I do like the art as art, but do have a few issues, particularly with the game implications. Moving him from primarily using a crossbow to primarily using two weapons is unfortunate. I really liked the fact that the iconic ranger broke the stereotypes and used a crossbow. It showed that characters can break the standard molds and still fit in just fine. Harsk was the best in that regard. Unfortunately crossbows sucked mechanically and apparently still do (the slightly larger damage die size than bows doesn't make up for the dramatic loss in rate of shot and no stat bonus to damage). I'd have liked there to be a niche for crossbows to be a viable primary weapon, but with a different focus than standard bows. But by moving him to being a two-weapon wielder, they shoved him into the more stereotypical niche for the ranger. This seems to go with a narrowing of the focus of classes, and I'm not a fan.

Other than that, I'm also not thrilled with the vaguely tartan sash. I'm so tired of the Dwarves are Scottish trope. But at least the dagger isn't a dirk. Instead it looks like he's got a saex and a migration period sword, which is cool. And while the face-axes might be impractical (like practically all fantasy art weapons) I do like the look of them. They make the term Bearded Axe a bit more literal.

Not sure why his hair-color needed to change. It's probably the most jarring change in look. It does stand out more, which might be the reasoning.

A ranger can make crossbow damage quite competitive with shortbows, actually. They can add half WIS instead of half STR to damage. The precision edge adds a nice damage boost on top of the higher damage dice. And running reload means you can sneak or hide to get an enemy flatfooted between shots which makes you more likely to crit. And they can do this from 240 feet away without penalty. A halfing crossbow sniper is at the top of my list of things I want to play.

My friend dipped into rogue and with the bird companion (for the work together) was able to do really nice big hits every turn.

While I don't have a dog in the fight of Harsk being crossbow or two-weapon, I don't think that "he can mechanically be good at both" is addressing the complaints of the people who don't like the change. Said people seem to be more saying "I liked the flavor and style of a Ranger whose primary focus was crossbow", which is not a complaint that mechanics can answer.

I guess I just don't really see the problem. He's probably going to be drawn more often holding the axes than the crossbow now, but he was drawn holding the axe sometimes in PF1 and will be drawn holding the crossbow sometimes in PF2. Mechanically, someone using the Harsk pregen should still be able to pick him up and focus on the crossbow just fine. And narratively, just the fact that he carries a crossbow instead or a shortbow or longbow implies he's focused on it enough to make it a viable alternative to the martial ranged weapons.

I guess since this is purely a matter of aesthetic opinion so I don't really need to "get it." I can't prove anyone right or wrong on it. I've just seen this tendency for folks to say "oh, because this character is very obviously X, that means they aren't Y." Which is perplexing to me because characters can very easily be X and why, plus even Z and a little bit of W.

The change in hair color differentiates him a bit more from the 1e iconic skald, Hakon.

I really liked the fact that the iconic ranger broke the stereotypes and used a crossbow. It showed that characters can break the standard molds and still fit in just fine.

While I can empathize with the first part, the second part I have to disagree with.

I can understand someone wanting a crossbower as a viable Pregen. IMO, that has to be the Inquisitor (Van Helsing). Consider that the Iconic Ranger doesn't use a bow which results in none of the iconics being bow-focused.

As a crossbowdwarf, I thought Harsk was not enjoyable or satisfying in combat.. By switching Harsk to dual-wielding, I am optimistic that he will be fun to play in combat if Paizo fixed the inherent problems with the Ranger...big IF.

Harsk was the best in that regard. Unfortunately crossbows sucked mechanically and apparently still do

Exactly. And what makes this worse for me, personally, is that it's the Ranger class. If Harsk were an Inquisitor or an Investigator, I wouldn't care that he sucked mechanically (though others might).

That aside, I would rather the Iconic Ranger be human. Half-elf if I had to yield. The "dwarven Ranger" is not what I would call an iconic trope and, for me, it's unfortunately that Paizo insisted on sticking a class that is supposed to be outdoors, above ground, nimble, and stealthy, with the dwarven race. Honestly, a Halfling Ranger would have made more sense.

I also don't agree that the Ionics should be experimental or fringe concepts, certainly not in the core classes. I think the Fumbus is great as the alchemist, but an Alchemist isn't a core class.

Other than that, I'm also not thrilled with the vaguely tartan sash. I'm so tired of the Dwarves are Scottish trope.

I can agree that the use of the Scottish trope undermines a sense of immersion in an alternate fantasy world. It's like NPCs using French idioms when speaking Common.

My one criticism directed at one of Mr. Reynolds comments was his decision to invoke a "clan" dagger/sword. Wow...shouldn't it be a clan axe or hammer?

In any event, I am generally a fan of Wayne Reynolds work. The attention to detail is seemingly unparalleled. I hope Paizo continues to use his work for all their publications and I can honestly say that his illustrations are a motivation for me to purchase material.

....Alchemist is a core class, though?

Also your post comes across a bit... stereotype-enforcing. Like... Dwarves can't be Rangers? Dwarves have to have clan axes, they can't have clan daggers?

Why can't dwarves use swords and daggers?

JB was actually talking a little about the Clan Dagger on his Kingmaker Twitch Stream.

The things are actually a bit of new Dwarven Lore, the idea is that it's a dagger/sword that is created for a specific Dwarven child before they're born (Or maybe passed down the family line) and is a cultural tool/implement that has significance to each individual because it is supposed to be what the Doctor/Nurse/Priest/Whoever used to cut that dwarfs umbilical cord separating them from their mother, the dagger is then kept safe and given to the dwarf at some point later in their life.

Each Clan Dagger is a ancestral memento, an item that is supposed to be viewed sentimentally as representative of their family. Pretty cool stuff actually, and I'm really glad to see more flavor injected into the non human ancestries.

Why can't dwarves use swords and daggers?

Copyright issues. Gotta make sure to defend it.

....Alchemist is a core class, though?

No, it's not a core class. PF2 isn't out yet. In Pf1, where the class was introduced, it was not a core class.

Also your post comes across a bit... stereotype-enforcing

Uh yeah...that's exactly what a class description is: a stereotype. Dwarves, elves, goblins, are all given a stereotype.

Like... Dwarves can't be Rangers?

Uh what now? Where have I said that Dwarves can't be Rangers? Is it your MO to intentionally misrepresent what I post?

The D&D 5e survey showed the Elven Ranger was the 2nd most popular class behind the human fighter. Paizo got the human Fighter part correct, but the Dwarven Ranger is going against the flow. An Iconic pregen may be the first experience many new players have with Pathfinder 2. Why not give them something that they want to play...the Elven Ranger. Why not leverage that statistically identified association/pairing?

Harsk seems like Paizo's attempt to go against the grain just to be contrary, just because. Again, I wouldn't care except it's the Ranger and if I wanted to just play a pre-gen Ranger in PF1, Paizo gave me something that doesn't at all feel like what I am looking for. The Cleric, the Fighter, the Rogue, the Wizard, even the Investigator seem to fit the stereotype to a much better degree than Harsk. And my understanding is that Harsk is considered the worst pre-gen in PF1.

Dwarves have to have clan axes, they can't have clan daggers?

This is all 100% made up/contrived. Dwarves can have "Clan" soup spoons if Paizo wants to go that route. But the stereotypical Dwarf wields an axe or a hammer as a signature weapon. I don't think I've seen a PC dwarf that used a sword. Why not make it an axe and leverage the trope?

Whatever.

Any chance these sketches being released somewhere? I've been meaning to do a Harsk cosplay for some time and these sketches would be invaluable to something like that.

I think Paizo is okay with Cosplay of their characters, right?

I know WAR puts pics of them on his Facebook.

The D&D 5e survey showed the Elven Ranger was the 2nd most popular class behind the human fighter. Paizo got the human Fighter part correct, but the Dwarven Ranger is going against the flow. An Iconic pregen may be the first experience many new players have with Pathfinder 2. Why not give them something that they want to play...the Elven Ranger. Why not leverage that statistically identified association/pairing?

The elven ranger isn't because Elves are iconic rangers in players minds. Its because 5e mechanics promotes picking up the one best race for your class. When you get so little modifiers from your class and level you better be sure your stats line up to maximize your what you class does, and when you have to choose between stats and actually making fun feat choices you really have to start that at level 1 with race.

We have no way of knowing how many people actually want to play an elven ranger vs how many people want to play a Ranger and elf is basically they way you do that.

Wouldn't the Wis/Con ancestry be more suited for "Ranger" than the Dex/Int one anyway?

When I think "ranger" I think "woods-person" and when I think "woods-person" I think "tough and wise".

No, it's not a core class. PF2 isn't out yet. In Pf1, where the class was introduced, it was not a core class.

Uh yeah...that's exactly what a class description is: a stereotype. Dwarves, elves, goblins, are all given a stereotype.

The D&D 5e survey showed the Elven Ranger was the 2nd most popular class behind the human fighter. Paizo got the human Fighter part correct, but the Dwarven Ranger is going against the flow.

An Iconic pregen may be the first experience many new players have with Pathfinder 2. Why not give them something that they want to play...the Elven Ranger. Why not leverage that statistically identified association/pairing?

Harsk seems like Paizo's attempt to go against the grain just to be contrary, just because.

Again, I wouldn't care except it's the Ranger and if I wanted to just play a pre-gen Ranger in PF1, Paizo gave me something that doesn't at all feel like what I am looking for.

The Cleric, the Fighter, the Rogue, the Wizard, even the Investigator seem to fit the stereotype to a much better degree than Harsk.

And my understanding is that Harsk is considered the worst pre-gen in PF1.

This is all 100% made up/contrived.

Dwarves can have "Clan" soup spoons if Paizo wants to go that route. But the stereotypical Dwarf wields an axe or a hammer as a signature weapon. I don't think I've seen a PC dwarf that used a sword. Why not make it an axe and leverage the trope?

For the reason you just said, the stereotype of a dwarf is wielding an axe or a hammer. OH BUT WAIT. WHAT ARE THOSE SIGNATURE WEAPONS HARSK IS WIELDING IN HIS ART? Rapiers, perhaps?

Doktor Weasel wrote:

Other than that, I'm also not thrilled with the vaguely tartan sash. I'm so tired of the Dwarves are Scottish trope.

I can agree that the use of the Scottish trope undermines a sense of immersion in an alternate fantasy world. It's like NPCs using French idioms when speaking Common.

For me it's not so much about immersion. Just that it's been done to death and I find it really tiresome. The entire fantasy concept of Dwarf has been reduced to: Bad Scottish Accents, Beards, Beer, Axes, Hammers, Smithing and Mining. That's the essence of dwarvenness across a large number of games and settings. It feels more like a collection of stereotypes than an actual race. And rather boring at that.

JB was actually talking a little about the Clan Dagger on his Kingmaker Twitch Stream.

The things are actually a bit of new Dwarven Lore, the idea is that it's a dagger/sword that is created for a specific Dwarven child before they're born (Or maybe passed down the family line) and is a cultural tool/implement that has significance to each individual because it is supposed to be what the Doctor/Nurse/Priest/Whoever used to cut that dwarfs umbilical cord separating them from their mother, the dagger is then kept safe and given to the dwarf at some point later in their life.

Each Clan Dagger is a ancestral memento, an item that is supposed to be viewed sentimentally as representative of their family. Pretty cool stuff actually, and I'm really glad to see more flavor injected into the non human ancestries.

Now this is actually rather cool. I'm not thrilled with the stats of the thing: puny d4, Piercing, versatile: blunt? Does it have no cutting edge and is like a weighted ice-pick or something? That really doesn't fit the rather large choppy looking sword that Harsk has (or is the smaller knife supposed to be the clan dagger?). I also hope they're a bit easier for Dwarfs to start with, if they're such a big part of their culture. 25sp is a big chunk of starting cash for something that makes sense for the character to have, but will very rarely see use.

I do really like the flavor of it though.

Any chance these sketches being released somewhere? I've been meaning to do a Harsk cosplay for some time and these sketches would be invaluable to something like that.

I think Paizo is okay with Cosplay of their characters, right?

I know WAR puts pics of them on his Facebook.

They've put Cosplay pictures on the Paizo blog too, so I'm pretty sure they're more than ok with it.

I mean, an axe is a more useful think to have with you in the woods than a sword or a dagger, since you might need to like cut up a deadfall to make a fire. If you wanted to give him a non-dwarvy weapon, I would give him a machete but we don't have rules for those (though I suppose an IRL falchion is basically a machete, but not the Pathfinder falchion.)

And we’re talking about Second Edition, not First, where Alchemist is a Core Class.

I'm talking about 1st addition with regard to the Alchemist. You can talk about whatever you choose. My statement is about the core classes in PF1 and how they are represented in PF2. As I'm the one who brought up the Alchemist in the discussion of mine that you quoted, there is no "we."

Quote:

Dwarves can have "Clan" soup spoons if Paizo wants to go that route. But the stereotypical Dwarf wields an axe or a hammer as a signature weapon. I don't think I've seen a PC dwarf that used a sword. Why not make it an axe and leverage the trope?

For the reason you just said, the stereotype of a dwarf is wielding an axe or a hammer. OH BUT WAIT. WHAT ARE THOSE SIGNATURE WEAPONS HARSK IS WIELDING IN HIS ART? Rapiers, perhaps?

I don't know why you're using all caps, but I'm talking about the "Clan" dagger/sword concept as being some Dwarven family heirloom instead of an axe or a hammer. You seem to be screaming about something else.

I've noticed you have a history of attacking me in the forums.

The elven ranger isn't because Elves are iconic rangers in players minds. Its because 5e mechanics promotes picking up the one best race for your class.

While I am open to the idea that this explains some of the data, it can't explain enough of it;

1) It requires that the majority choices are, in fact, based on that rationale rather than what class they are most interested in playing.

2) It mandates that Human is really the best class for a Fighter, above all others to such an overwhelming degree. That seems unlikely.

3) It also requires that we believe that Human Fighter and Elven Ranger are the two best classes to play mechanically in 5e. And yet, Ranger was the sixth most popular class overall. I have a hard time believing that whatever mechanical advantage an Elf gets, it takes the Ranger from like 7th or 8th most popular (when we remove the boost from Elf) to number 2.

Working against your assertion are the tropes of Legolas and whoever that female Elven Ranger in the Hobbit movies.

The entire fantasy concept of Dwarf has been reduced to: Bad Scottish Accents, Beards, Beer, Axes, Hammers, Smithing and Mining. That's the essence of dwarvenness across a large number of games and settings. It feels more like a collection of stereotypes than an actual race. And rather boring at that.

I find the phrase "reduced to" to be an odd one. It suggests the stereotypical representation of dwarves is somehow doing the the real race of dwarves some injustice.

I've always viewed the D&D/Tolkein dwarf to be Bavarian influenced. I haven't picked up on the Scottish, but maybe those are the accents used by the actors that portray them?

Paizo has already explained in one of those blogs why they chose not to create new iconics for the PF1 core classes.

I'm having a deja vu of one person having their idea what the ranger class is and refusing to accept anything that deviates from that idea.

It's almost like if we've done it in a few dozen other threads already...

I wouldn't have bought the Core Rulebook all those years ago (wow, nine years, holy shit!) if it didn't have Harsk.

Kudos to Wayne on the new art! He looks amazing, I definitely would not want to f*+% with that dude's tea supply.

Now, where's Drizz't? I hear he's got some new competition...

I mean, an axe is a more useful think to have with you in the woods than a sword or a dagger, since you might need to like cut up a deadfall to make a fire. If you wanted to give him a non-dwarvy weapon, I would give him a machete but we don't have rules for those (though I suppose an IRL falchion is basically a machete, but not the Pathfinder falchion.)

[tangent] I like the notion that some race (not necessarily dwarves) might use axes, hammers, spears, bows, daggers, etc. but avoid swords. All of these other weapons are adapted from tools, used for hunting, if not more mundane tasks like chopping firewood or forging horseshoes. But swords exist only for war, only for 'chopping' *other people,* and this hypothetical race finds that 'tacky,' although they are more likely to rationalize it as preferring weapons that have other practical uses, to hunt for game, if nothing else. [/tangent]

As for Harsk, I'm just totally conflicted, as usual. One the one hand, I see the point of 'Iconics' being kind of generic. The 'Iconic' Ranger should be a fairly traditional representation of the breed, and not use unusual weapon choices or be a 'non-traditional' race. On the other hand, I *like* that he's just snorting and pushing right past those expectations and doing his own dwarfy ranger crossbow thing, and not even drinking ale or mead, but preferring his cuppa tea.

On the gripping hand, I'm annoyed that it costs a single feat to replace a crossbow with a longbow, which is flat-out better in many ways, and it takes *three* feats to 'catch up' and be almost as capable with the crossbow as if he'd just chosen to use a composite longbow from the start. It should only cost *one* feat to 'catch up.' The crossbow doesn't have to be able to fire as fast, or become (boringly) mechanically identical to the comp. longbow, but that one feat should be sufficient to make it *competitive.* I love the idea that halflings might prefer slings and dwarves crossbows, but both weapons are craptastic compared to longbows, and it's only the difference between buying a Martial Weapon Proficiency (assuming that one's class doesn't already get them all!), so, IMO, it should only cost a single feat to 'catch up' and be able to hit harder enough with one of these 'sub-par' weapons to make up for the lack of rapid fire options, DPR-wise.

But I haven't had time to read the playtest. Perhaps they've updated things so that the sling and crossbow are no longer red-headed stepchild to the comp. longbow, and my point is moot!

Wouldn't the Wis/Con ancestry be more suited for "Ranger" than the Dex/Int one anyway?

When I think "ranger" I think "woods-person" and when I think "woods-person" I think "tough and wise".

Not really. Wisdom does pretty much nothing for the Ranger, although Con is obviously useful. All four of the class fighting styles choices work well/best with dex. Their class path options don't care about Wisdom and their Spell list has mostly spells that don't use a spell roll or save DCs.

Wisdom helps for some skills. Oh and Wood Elves add to Wisdom anyway.