Iconic Evolution: Harsk

PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

I think that was the point. It doesn't work well for the mechanical class. It works well, in their opinion, for the basic concept of "ranger".

PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

Certainly in 1e Rangers were more of a Wis/Con class, since Wisdom affected their spellcasting and the skills they were "expected" to be good at - Perception, Survival, Sense Motive, Heal - were all Wis based. And the popular image of Rangers as "tough survivalists" implied a decent Con.

I can see that being a lot less true in 2e. That said, I'm avoiding speculating too much about 2e Rangers because it was a class I hated in the playtest and I'm hoping it's very different. :)

Those weapons are ludicrous...but that's Wayne Reynolds. I didn't expect anything different.

Malk_Content wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

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.

I think that was the point. It doesn't work well for the mechanical class. It works well, in their opinion, for the basic concept of "ranger".

Which is my point. The popularity of it in 5e surveys likely has nothing to do with elves being conceptually iconic rangers and much more likely to be because they are one of the mechanically better options. Thus the iconic ranger being a dwarf in Pathfinder isn't necessarily bucking what people "want" in the ranger.

Same goes for the human fighter. Free feat is really nice for the fighter, less so for classes with actual class features.

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.

Yes, non-professional cosplay is ok. We love it. Let me look into releasing the sketches...

I have to say, my favorite depictions of dwarves from across the various D&D-inspired franchises have almost always been dwarven rogues, rangers, or similar tropes, as opposed to the stereotypical dwarf fighter.

In Eberron I liked that there were House Kundarak dwarves who broke into banks to test their security.

In Dragonlance there was a shady dwarf rogue who ends up (not entirely intentionally) helping some draconians secure their race's existence.

In Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance II there's a dwarf "rogue" who also has a bunch of pseudo-alchemist abilities, I absolutely loved him.

Ultimately, I think it's really smart for Paizo to have their own iconics who aren't shackled to tropes D&D has used a hundred times. Make the nature-warrior a dwarf instead of an elf. Make the elf the gritty, street-smart rogue. Do whatever makes sense to preserve the clear message that this is a fantasy roleplaying game while finding ways to make the characters and options distinct, interesting, and different. It's part of the same reason why goblins as core make so much sense to me; you can drop almost any other Pathfinder iconic into any fantasy RPG and there'd be very little to differentiate them. Pathfinder goblins are unique and readily identifiable as belonging to Pathfinder, which is a great way to remind people that Pathfinder isn't just an alternate rules-set for D&D; it's a robust franchise with unique character options, a massive and lore-filled campaign setting, and an unrivaled array of adventure material for GMs to use in their games.

I love that he has a pronged bolt and an incendiary bolt.

(But I may be biased haven written that section of the Ranged Tactics Toolbox.)

Fumbus didn't exist in First. You and us were talking about Second Edition stuff in a Second Edition thread.

No, I'm I'm talking about how the PF1 Core Classes are represented in PF2. Alchemist is not a core class in PF1, as such, there are less stereotypes/associations the average player will have with the Alchemist. This is not true for the Ranger, which is a core class.

You're attempting to create an issue out of nothing. An attempt to "win" a debate.

Then you shouldn't have brought up Fumbus/Alchemist.

So now you're telling me I shouldn't talk about the things that I want to talk about? LOL. Fumbus is critical to the point, because it represent a non-standard interpretation of a class that works, imo, because the class isn't core to the game. The alchemist doesn't have much baggage.

Uh, someone else rightfully pointed out that Alchemist is a Core Class for Second Edition, which is what every one here (we) is conversing about.

I didn't say the Alchemist wasn't a core class in "Second Edition." It's irrelevant what "everyone else" was talking about. What I am taking about is what matters for what I say. Trying to insist I have to be having the same discussion you are having so that you can argue that I'm wrong, comes off as harassment.

You called it their "signature" weapon, and didn't like that it wasn't an axe or hammer.

No, that's not what I said. But you're obviously trying to start fight, so you're ignoring what I actually said and misrepresenting it so you can claim it's wrong. This is something I've seen yo do with me on numerous occasions.

I said the hammer or axe is typically a signature weapon for the Dwarf, which is in fact what Harsk is carrying. My comment was about what is considered the "Clan" weapon. You seemed to have not understood that aspect of my post but felt the need try and ridicule me with an all caps assertion.

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'm having deju vu of saying X and having someone come along, like MaxAstro, and claim I said something completely different and then having posters like Rysky, want to dog pile on that.

Case in point:

Me:

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

Max Astro

Like... Dwarves can't be Rangers?

Me

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?

MaxAstro

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

Do I say that Dwarves can't be Rangers? Do I even suggest that? No. It's disingenuous to even present my statement in such a fashion. This gets old.

A clan dagger is a lot more useful in daily life than a clan axe, it can be given at a younger age and still be functional for an adult, it can be taken more places, it can be used by more classes, and as mentioned earlier, it is used for a basic medical function (cutting the umbilical cord when the dwarf is a baby). Daggers are also cheaper, so it makes it a little more practical for it to be something that traditionally every dwarf gets (at least in the region where this cultural practice is common).

I love that he has a pronged bolt and an incendiary bolt.

I didn't realize what types of bolts those were, but I was impressed that Wayne had included non-standard bolts in the quiver. As I've said, I love the attention to detail. The art is such fertile kickstart to one's visualization when playing.

No, I'm I'm talking about how the PF1 Core Classes are represented in PF2. Alchemist is not a core class in PF1, as such, there are less stereotypes/associations the average player will have with the Alchemist. This is not true for the Ranger, which is a core class.

1) Alchemist is a Core Class.

2) the stereotype/associations you keep bringing up apply only to you, they didn’t exist in First Edition, where Harsk was still a Ranger.

You're attempting to create an issue out of nothing. An attempt to "win" a debate.

So now you're telling me I shouldn't talk about the things that I want to talk about? LOL. Fumbus is critical to the point, because it represent a non-standard interpretation of a class that works, imo, because the class isn't core to the game. The alchemist doesn't have much baggage.

I didn't say the Alchemist wasn't a core class in "Second Edition." It's irrelevant what "everyone else" was talking about. What I am taking about is what matters for what I say. Trying to insist I have to be having the same discussion you are having so that you can argue that I'm wrong, comes off as harassment.

You called it their "signature" weapon, and didn't like that it wasn't an axe or hammer.

No, that's not what I said.

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?

But you're obviously trying to start fight, so you're ignoring what I actually said and misrepresenting it so you can claim it's wrong. This is something I've seen yo do with me on numerous occasions.

I said the hammer or axe is typically a signature weapon for the Dwarf, which is in fact what Harsk is carrying. My comment was about what is considered the "Clan" weapon. You seemed to have not understood that aspect of my post but felt the need try and ridicule me with an all caps assertion.

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?

Gorbacz wrote:

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'm having deju vu of saying X and having someone come along, like MaxAstro, and claim I said something completely different and then having posters like Rysky, want to dog pile on that.

Case in point:

Me:

NN wrote:

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

Max Astro

Quote:

Like... Dwarves can't be Rangers?

Me

NN wrote:

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?

MaxAstro

Quote:

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

Do I say that Dwarves can't be Rangers? Do I even suggest that? No. It's disingenuous to even present my statement in such a fashion. This gets old.

That’s not what’s happening. You’re making statements to the effect of “I wish the Ranger wasn’t a dwarf/I don’t like the clan weapon not being axe.”

Max has been asking “Why not?” Why can’t they be Dwarves? Why can’t they be daggers? That’s what they were asking, not saying you were claiming something else.

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?

You seemed to be confused by this statement.

I've interpreted the "Clan" weapon to be some family heirloom whose value is more ceremonial than practical.

However, the dwarf typically uses an axe or a hammer as a signature weapon.

Ergo, why not make the "Clan" weapon an axe or a hammer. Why not make it a hammer or axe that is given at birth and leverage/reinforce the axe and hammer as iconic in the dwarven culture.

I can't quite understand what your confusion is here.

Max has been asking “Why not?” Why can’t they be Dwarves? Why can’t they be daggers? That’s what they were asking, not saying you were claiming something else.

And I didn't say they "can't" be Dwarves nor did I say that "can't" be something else. My statement is about what I prefer and asking why they went with swords instead of axes.

Presenting the question in this manner misrepresents my statements as asserting that they can't be dwarves or something else. It's a form of ad hominem he used repeatedly in the Ranger debates. Attempting to ascribe a belief or philosophy to me that looked ridiculous on its face..

Stop with the back and forth quote arguing. If you want to debate each other (respectfully) take it to a new thread or PMs, but don't continue to derail this thread.

Dwarves don't do ceremonial knick knacks, if it doesn't have an every day use it's not part of the gear.

A young dwarf can't whittle a stick with an axe (yes, I've tried).

Growing up in the Midwest, we were given a pocket knife at an early age, seems like daggers would also be a fairly common weapon kids on Golarion are given at an early age, no matter your ancestry.

So to me, "dagger" implies this is a pointed weapon with two sharp edges suitable for stabbing. Are Dwarven clan daggers different? I would imagine the sort of knife you'd want to give to a kid and/or take with you into the wilderness is more like a single edged hunting knife, which is what it looks like Harsk has at his belt.

So if he has to gut a deer wants to whittle, that's what he uses.

This may be off-topic, but I've always found it weird that the 'stereotypical' dwarf weapons were axes - given that so much of an axe is wood, while dwarves are famed for their metal-smithing. (And wood doesn't exactly grow well underground, either.)

It's always seemed to me that the typical dwarf weapon should be a sword or knife, which are about the only weapons almost entirely made of metal. So I heartily approve of the clan dagger :)

But I digress - great drawing, and I love the evolution from Harsk 1.0. Also the point made in the video about him being not just a dwarf, but a Pathfinder Dwarf: I think that comes across really well in the new illustration.

This may be off-topic, but I've always found it weird that the 'stereotypical' dwarf weapons were axes - given that so much of an axe is wood, while dwarves are famed for their metal-smithing. (And wood doesn't exactly grow well underground, either.)

Yes, but dwarves hate trees :).

All seriousness aside, I think the answer might be in the mindset that an axe or hammer is a weapon that is leveraged by brute strength as opposed to skill. Where a sword is more of a skill weapon rather than a raw strength weapon. I'm not saying that there isn't skill required to use an axe or hammer in combat, but that from a visual perspective, the axe/hammer lends itself to strength more than a long sword.

I'm kind of curious about when the brutish dwarves with axes trope really got locked in to how people interpret fantasy. I don't think it was Tolkein; Thorin Oakenshield used a sword as did several other dwarves, and dwarves have been considered skilled craftspeople across a broad range of franchises.

Was it Gimil from the Lord of the RIngs, the dwarf in green from Golden Axe, or is it something that's just kind of slowly gained momentum a piece at a time because of how the classic portrayal of dwarves meshed with D&D mechanics?

I'm all for new concepts and broader categories. If the ranger being a dwarf is a clear signal that Pathfinder is not the same game as D&D, great. If Paizo gets a little weirder and wilder as they embrace their own brand, even better. Maybe we'll get a CG Halfling Champion (Liberator) iconic who wears full plate and wields a slingstaff. I legitimately think that would be sweet.

Dwarves went to a lot of trouble to get where the trees are. I imagine "hey, we can make these weapons lighter if we make the part you hold out of trees!" held quite a bit of novelty to Dwarves.

Plus there are whole forests and jungles in the Darklands.

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

This may be off-topic, but I've always found it weird that the 'stereotypical' dwarf weapons were axes - given that so much of an axe is wood, while dwarves are famed for their metal-smithing. (And wood doesn't exactly grow well underground, either.)

Yes, but dwarves hate trees :).

All seriousness aside, I think the answer might be in the mindset that an axe or hammer is a weapon that is leveraged by brute strength as opposed to skill. Where a sword is more of a skill weapon rather than a raw strength weapon. I'm not saying that there isn't skill required to use an axe or hammer in combat, but that from a visual perspective, the axe/hammer lends itself to strength more than a long sword.

Hammer would make sense - smith's hammers and the like.

I'm kind of curious about when the brutish dwarves with axes trope really got locked in to how people interpret fantasy. I don't think it was Tolkein; Thorin Oakenshield used a sword as did several other dwarves, and dwarves have been considered skilled craftspeople across a broad range of franchises.

But in the film, did they have their weapons to start out with? I thought they found the weapons in the troll cave and thus had to use whatever they found.

As an aside, shouldn't it be a Clan shovel or pickaxe?

I'm kind of curious about when the brutish dwarves with axes trope really got locked in to how people interpret fantasy. I don't think it was Tolkein; Thorin Oakenshield used a sword as did several other dwarves, and dwarves have been considered skilled craftspeople across a broad range of franchises.

Was it Gimil from the Lord of the RIngs, the dwarf in green from Golden Axe, or is it something that's just kind of slowly gained momentum a piece at a time because of how the classic portrayal of dwarves meshed with D&D mechanics?

It's probably mostly the association with Norse myth filtered through Tolkien. Not all his dwarves used axes, but it was a thing - more so in LotR than the Hobbit - their battle cry was quoted as "Axes of the Dwarves". And of course Gimli.

Pretty sure it was there before D&D. There are no specific racial "axe" abilities for dwarves in AD&D (like elves got bonuses with longswords and bows), but I think there's art and the Axe of the Dwarven Lords as an artifact.

N N, I apologize for attacking your opinion. I forgot to do the thing I said I would do where I mentally preface "in my opinion" to each of your statements.

I continue to disagree with your opinion, but this is obviously not the place to air that disagreement, nor is there really any point to doing so.

N N, I apologize for attacking your opinion.

You weren't "attacking" my position. You were misrepresenting my position to such a degree that it looks ridiculous so that there is no need to "attack" it directly. I don't have a problem with you openly disagreeing or saying, "Hey, the dwarven ranger is iconic." You're 100% entitled to your opinion. What you are not entitled to do is take my statements and twist them into concepts that have nothing to do with what I am discussing. You did this repeatedly during the Ranger threads and it lead to widespread belief that I think there can only be one version of the Ranger, something I never said or believed. The thread got locked because I was constantly having to defend myself against that. You've done the same thing here.

I forgot to do the thing I said I would do where I mentally preface "in my opinion" to each of your statements.

That's because you weren't offering an opinion, you were intentionally trying to misrepresent mine. Putting in an "I think" or "In my opinion" wouldn't have made any sense.

I continue to disagree with your opinion...

I have no issue with you, or anyone else, thinking I'm wrong. You think Dwarven Ranger is a great Iconic? Great. You like Clan daggers. Wonderful. Go ahead and say that.

N N, please, just accept the apology. I was not intentionally trying to misrepresent your opinion. I probably did unintentionally misrepresent your opinion. Please employ Hanlon's Razor; I promise it applies here.

Yes, non-professional cosplay is ok. We love it. Let me look into releasing the sketches...

Awesome!! Thanks so much. I'll keep an eye out for them.

My SO might have convinced me to do Ezren instead. Either way, I'm about 2/3rds through with making her Amiri and now I'm not sure which version armor to base it off of.

Damn Wayne Reynolds for more awesome pictures I need to cosplay :)

This may be off-topic, but I've always found it weird that the 'stereotypical' dwarf weapons were axes - given that so much of an axe is wood, while dwarves are famed for their metal-smithing. (And wood doesn't exactly grow well underground, either.)

It's always seemed to me that the typical dwarf weapon should be a sword or knife, which are about the only weapons almost entirely made of metal. So I heartily approve of the clan dagger :)

Also, while this isn't reflected in the rules, a stabby short sword is really much more useful in cramped underground quarters than a swung axe.

As a nod toward this, the dwarves in the Swedish RPG Eon wield axes with spear points on them (sort of like short halberds).

I'm kind of curious about when the brutish dwarves with axes trope really got locked in to how people interpret fantasy. I don't think it was Tolkein; Thorin Oakenshield used a sword as did several other dwarves, and dwarves have been considered skilled craftspeople across a broad range of franchises.

Was it Gimil from the Lord of the RIngs, the dwarf in green from Golden Axe, or is it something that's just kind of slowly gained momentum a piece at a time because of how the classic portrayal of dwarves meshed with D&D mechanics?

I'm all for new concepts and broader categories. If the ranger being a dwarf is a clear signal that Pathfinder is not the same game as D&D, great. If Paizo gets a little weirder and wilder as they embrace their own brand, even better. Maybe we'll get a CG Halfling Champion (Liberator) iconic who wears full plate and wields a slingstaff. I legitimately think that would be sweet.

IIRC, 'The Hobbit' described Dain's army as being armed primarily with axes and mattocks.

Possibly also a nod to the race's origins in Norse mythology.

As far as my own critique goes, this new Harsk seems to lack kneecaps. The expression is interesting too my first thought was some kind of mind-control, but maybe just Dwarven stoicism?

Yeah, I always figured dwarves use axes because they take the same sort of a swing as a pickaxe, and since their muscles are often developed for mining, axes make sense.

Wandering Wastrel wrote:

This may be off-topic, but I've always found it weird that the 'stereotypical' dwarf weapons were axes - given that so much of an axe is wood, while dwarves are famed for their metal-smithing. (And wood doesn't exactly grow well underground, either.)

It's always seemed to me that the typical dwarf weapon should be a sword or knife, which are about the only weapons almost entirely made of metal. So I heartily approve of the clan dagger :)

Also, while this isn't reflected in the rules, a stabby short sword is really much more useful in cramped underground quarters than a swung axe.

As a nod toward this, the dwarves in the Swedish RPG Eon wield axes with spear points on them (sort of like short halberds).

One or two handed? If it's the latter, then that's classic European medieval pole-axe, very much meant for stabbing at your opponent. If it's the former there are several types of one-handed axe that have points, though stabbing with them is rather less desirable and generally only useful against a disabled foe.

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Also, while this isn't reflected in the rules, a stabby short sword is really much more useful in cramped underground quarters than a swung axe.

As a nod toward this, the dwarves in the Swedish RPG Eon wield axes with spear points on them (sort of like short halberds).

One or two handed? If it's the latter, then that's classic European medieval pole-axe, very much meant for stabbing at your opponent. If it's the former there are several types of one-handed axe that have points, though stabbing with them is rather less desirable and generally only useful against a disabled foe.

They have both versions - one one-handed, and the other is primarily two-handed, though a strong enough person can wield it one-handed. With a length of 85 cm even the two-handed version is significantly shorter than your typical pollaxe however.

The primary usage of both versions is chopping, but the point is there as an option in cramped quarters.

As sad as I am to see Harsk leave his crossbow on his back, I think it's good that at least one iconic is definitively a dual-wielder. Yeah Valeros could swing his shield, but we don't have the classic double blade warrior in him anymore.

I do hope they add some feats for crossbow. Crossbow Ace and Running Reload only go so far. During the playtest I was hoping for something like a feat that let you Reload as a reaction or free action when you fire so you could keep up with a bow if you invested enough. Just keep the momentum going, you know?

Overall the look of Harsk looks pretty rockin' in my opinion. He looks as fierce and cantankerous as expected. He's just here to drink tea and kick ass.

And he's all out of tea.

As sad as I am to see Harsk leave his crossbow on his back, I think it's good that at least one iconic is definitively a dual-wielder. Yeah Valeros could swing his shield, but we don't have the classic double blade warrior in him anymore.

I do hope they add some feats for crossbow. Crossbow Ace and Running Reload only go so far. During the playtest I was hoping for something like a feat that let you Reload as a reaction or free action when you fire so you could keep up with a bow if you invested enough. Just keep the momentum going, you know?

Overall the look of Harsk looks pretty rockin' in my opinion. He looks as fierce and cantankerous as expected. He's just here to drink tea and kick ass.

And he's all out of tea.

Preposterous!!

As sad as I am to see Harsk leave his crossbow on his back, I think it's good that at least one iconic is definitively a dual-wielder. Yeah Valeros could swing his shield, but we don't have the classic double blade warrior in him anymore.

I do hope they add some feats for crossbow. Crossbow Ace and Running Reload only go so far. During the playtest I was hoping for something like a feat that let you Reload as a reaction or free action when you fire so you could keep up with a bow if you invested enough. Just keep the momentum going, you know?

Overall the look of Harsk looks pretty rockin' in my opinion. He looks as fierce and cantankerous as expected. He's just here to drink tea and kick ass.

And he's all out of tea.

I dunno, with the precision edge the crossbow can deal really good damage and feels distinct as a one big hit style. Making reloading a free action would basically let you fire as many arrows as a shortbow, and would subsequently make the two weapons feel interchangeable. I'd rather they each have their own niche.

I think my biggest issue with crossbows right now isn't that they fire less shots per action, but that it harder to utilize Stalker's Shot. Running Reload really lends itself to sneaking as often as as possible which means there is a higher chance of an enemy needing to Seek you... But if the enemy failed to Seek and my weapon wasn't loaded to take the reaction I'd be pissed.

I love the new details to Harsk, for I see a mighty dwarf who will make certain that no Pointy Eared Elf will be out scoring him.

Lol

Truly love Wayne Reynolds work. The details are epic and inspiring.