Save the Date!

As a Western European the obsession with guns in the states largely confuses and frightens me. And so when I see a loud clamour for them in an escapist fantasy game (despite being able to own and fire them in real life unlike say - casting a spell) I have always got a bit confused

The same could be said for swords. You can own them in real life and swing them at things. Why isn't that enough? Because...

We like the thing. We like the game. We'd like to see the thing we like in the game we like. It's not mysterious at all.

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Unless there’s a feat or ability that lets you cast spells with a verbal component while raging, no. You’re pretty much missing the central mechanic and main point of the class.

Doesn't Moment of Clarity handle this?

It does, but it eats an action (and I didn't see an Improved Moment of Clarity or something that doesn't), so it's not ideal.

Lanathar wrote:

As a Western European the obsession with guns in the states largely confuses and frightens me. And so when I see a loud clamour for them in an escapist fantasy game (despite being able to own and fire them in real life unlike say - casting a spell) I have always got a bit confused

The same could be said for swords. You can own them in real life and swing them at things. Why isn't that enough? Because...

We like the thing. We like the game. We'd like to see the thing we like in the game we like. It's not mysterious at all.

Alternatively: if you guys get to romanticize your rich genocidal maniacs then so do we

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.)

The Marshal is pretty neat, and even includes two "sub-classes". My main beef with it is one I also have with some of the bard stuff - tying buffs to rolling skill checks against a DC set by your own level or a close proxy thereof. I'd rather see abilities like these work automatically, and if you want to connect it to a skill you do something like "If you're a master of _______, then _______ instead."

Kinetecist would be cool but I'm also pretty happy with legendary games version of the 2e kinetecist untill we get a paizo one. A drifter or a warlord class would be cool. An Occultist class would be cool, tbh i'm just excited to see what they come up with.

We can always hope for something completely new. If we want. Or you. Me. Someone. Maybe.

Nevermind.

Come on! Entertain us! Eh. Wotevs.

I gotta say, I know people have fallen in love with the idea of a drifter class, but it seems a bit too vague for me to fully work as a standalone class. I'm personally rooting for a true Gunslinger class, and a firearms related archetype akin to the martial artist archetype.

The idea of using focus points for a martial character (as some have stated could work for a warlord-esque class) sounds like it could work perfectly with a Gunslinger, spending grit to pull of impossible shots with "reload 1+" weapons, to let gunslingers specialize in crossbows too if they feel like it (in which case a "Marksman" class name would also feel appropriate).

Feats and features of the class would separate it enough to make it worthy to compete with just "fighter with a gun" similar to how a monk is different from a fighter with Martial Artist, or a dex fighter from a swashbuckler.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

I wouldn't mind a gunslinger, but I like the idea of a more open ended version simply because PF2 class design tends to be kind of confining in how you build a character.

A bespoke gunslinger means that's all you're getting out of the class, whereas a class with the flavor and mechanics we want to see from a gunslinger but a more open-ended chassis allows you to squeeze more ideas out of the same design space. That's a good thing, imo.

I guess the way I view a gunslinger class would be very similar to a monk.

When choosing a monk, most people's primary goal is "I want to punch stuff, but in a cool way". So they mostly focus on punching, but with different stances to switch things up. Are there other options such as monastic weaponry and the bow stance? Of course! It's good to give different flavors to it, that way it becomes less confining and it allows you to play into the themes of monks.

For a gunslinger class (or marksman class), your goal would be focus on "reload 1+" weapons (allowing for crossbows and guns alike). This is where I think we might get subclasses, either specializing in specific types of firearms, or in a certain application of firearms (similar to swashbuckler gaining panache). Maybe you want to be really good at shooting from long distance so you never have to get within reach. Maybe you want to be the best at point blank shots, running into combat with a gun in each hand so you can fire at multiple adjacent targets.

In-between these features of the class would be feats that tailor to certain play-styles with weapons, and also feats that focus on maybe pistol-whipping, or using a gun in one hand and a blade in the other.

There are multiple paths to take it down (my examples are not a full list of ideas a game designer could create with better knowledge of the system), but similar to a monk the thought process that likely goes through your head is "I want to shoot things, but in a cool way".

I feel like even just a name change from "drifter" might help me better imagine a class similar to a gunslinger better, as I have a hard time thinking of a whole class out of what, to me, is a backstory decision (currently have a barbarian and a ranger who are drifters in my campaign).

I guess the way I view a gunslinger class would be very similar to a monk.

When choosing a monk, most people's primary goal is "I want to punch stuff, but in a cool way". So they mostly focus on punching, but with different stances to switch things up. Are there other options such as monastic weaponry and the bow stance? Of course! It's good to give different flavors to it, that way it becomes less confining and it allows you to play into the themes of monks.

For a gunslinger class (or marksman class), your goal would be focus on "reload 1+" weapons (allowing for crossbows and guns alike). This is where I think we might get subclasses, either specializing in specific types of firearms, or in a certain application of firearms (similar to swashbuckler gaining panache). Maybe you want to be really good at shooting from long distance so you never have to get within reach. Maybe you want to be the best at point blank shots, running into combat with a gun in each hand so you can fire at multiple adjacent targets.

In-between these features of the class would be feats that tailor to certain play-styles with weapons, and also feats that focus on maybe pistol-whipping, or using a gun in one hand and a blade in the other.

There are multiple paths to take it down (my examples are not a full list of ideas a game designer could create with better knowledge of the system), but similar to a monk the thought process that likely goes through your head is "I want to shoot things, but in a cool way".

I feel like even just a name change from "drifter" might help me better imagine a class similar to a gunslinger better, as I have a hard time thinking of a whole class out of what, to me, is a backstory decision (currently have a barbarian and a ranger who are drifters in my campaign).

The problem I see with having a Class too defined by a kind of weapon is what happens if these weapons are unavailable in the setting or campaign ?

Then a whole Class is just useless.

And it can easily happen with guns that many GMs just do not want to see at their table.

An equivalent would be the caster classes in a setting where casting spells does not exist. Or a Monk in a setting where unarmed attacks are not possible.

This is why I want the Class (whether they are Drifters, weaponslingers or whatever) separated from the weapons.

I gotta say, I know people have fallen in love with the idea of a drifter class, but it seems a bit too vague for me to fully work as a standalone class. I'm personally rooting for a true Gunslinger class, and a firearms related archetype akin to the martial artist archetype.

The idea of using focus points for a martial character (as some have stated could work for a warlord-esque class) sounds like it could work perfectly with a Gunslinger, spending grit to pull of impossible shots with "reload 1+" weapons, to let gunslingers specialize in crossbows too if they feel like it (in which case a "Marksman" class name would also feel appropriate).

Feats and features of the class would separate it enough to make it worthy to compete with just "fighter with a gun" similar to how a monk is different from a fighter with Martial Artist, or a dex fighter from a swashbuckler.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

I encourage you to checkout the Homebrew I made to get an idea of what could go on.

It serves as the inverse of the Swashbuckler/Fighter relationship with respect to the Champion.

I'm not saying it's perfect or even the direction they will go, but I think it certainly demonstrates how a full Class could definitely live in that space given the right attention.

I feel like even just a name change from "drifter" might help me better imagine a class similar to a gunslinger better, as I have a hard time thinking of a whole class out of what, to me, is a backstory decision (currently have a barbarian and a ranger who are drifters in my campaign).

I just grabbed the most appealing one word name from the "Mysterious Stranger" associated tropes list on TVTropes, and the forum ran with it. Ronin, Knight Errant, Cultivator, and Wuxia are all alternates if any of them work better.

Also, there are a number of people, myself included, who liked the Grit system of the gunslinger but did not necessarily want it limited to Guns, or even ranged reload weapons. So part of the idea was to make a name that can fit a gunslinger, but also allow for a bastard sword-ronin if you picked the right feats/class path.

Even though I personally feel gunslinger would be better suited as an archetype or just class feats, if it does become a class I have no doubt paizo will do cool things with it. There will be mechanics that set it apart from just being a class that's good with guns. I hope no one actually thinks paizo would do that, they wouldn't make a class that's so one dimensional.

Even though I personally feel gunslinger would be better suited as an archetype or just class feats, if it does become a class I have no doubt paizo will do cool things with it. There will be mechanics that set it apart from just being a class that's good with guns. I hope no one actually thinks paizo would do that, they wouldn't make a class that's so one dimensional.

As long as the abilities do not require guns, or even ranged weapons, then I'll be satisfied. Its the idea that they'll make a class that is focused on using guns or reload ranged weapons that I dislike, however interesting the abilities are.

For a gunslinger class (or marksman class), your goal would be focus on "reload 1+" weapons (allowing for crossbows and guns alike). This is where I think we might get subclasses, either specializing in specific types of firearms, or in a certain application of firearms (similar to swashbuckler gaining panache). Maybe you want to be really good at shooting from long distance so you never have to get within reach. Maybe you want to be the best at point blank shots, running into combat with a gun in each hand so you can fire at multiple adjacent targets.

The problem with that is that we already have a weapon specialist class, and it's called the Fighter. If you want something that's all about weapon tricks, those are better done as fighter feats and possibly an archetype. To work well as a class, the gunslinger needs something more, and the easiest path is to lean into the Western tropes as well as associated ones (ronin etc.).

If guns are merely hard to use and require special training, the class for them is fighter.

If guns are simply extremely rare outside of Alkenstar, and someone wanting to use a gun has to make their own which is finicky and requires constant maintenance that's something like an inventor/artificer class.

If we want to use the tropes from Westerns etc., that class does not require guns in order to be identifiable.

If guns are merely hard to use and require special training, the class for them is fighter.

If guns are simply extremely rare outside of Alkenstar, and someone wanting to use a gun has to make their own which is finicky and requires constant maintenance that's something like an inventor/artificer class.

If we want to use the tropes from Westerns etc., that class does not require guns in order to be identifiable.

I think that really well sums this up. Pretty much gonna just be a question of what Paizo are wanting to add.

In my opinion at this point, if a gunslinger class does not drop alongside massively expanded, buffed, and largely new equipment/tinkering/augmenting rules and items... I'm only a bit interested.

Frankly, the idea of the warlord has really grown on me via this thread. That would be such a cool thing. Plus entirely new content sounds really healthy to me at this point.

I mean, guns as a core rules option seem like they're already a done deal there's a great deal of art in the books that depict generic characters, and specific golarion lore figures, with guns-- including the knight reclaimant art, and I assume lastwall doesn't actually have much specifically to do with whatever specific area we're thinking of. I doubt guns are less common than say, a Katana, so at most, I'd expect them to be uncommon, but with certain rules options yielding direct access. For better or worse, mechanically balanced guns, seem like an assumed part of the Pathfinder milieu.

Personally, I'm eager to see what they have for us, I dig the drifter idea as a class that specifically has a resource they spend (grit) to do martial techniques, its a different feel from the swashbuckler, fighter, barbarian, ranger, rogue, and investigator, so it works in my book for the same reason the Swashbuckler does, and expanding it beyond firearms seems healthy as well. But then again, that idea is just a part of the forum zeitgeist, so I'm open to whatever else Paizo has in store for us.

Meanwhile a pf2e take on the Warlord would just be magnificent to me, the martial archetype is fine, but I'd love to be able to have a whole character based around the concept.

I'd love to see an official drifter type class. Bonus points if it gets incentives to be unarmored for that classic robe and sandals wandering samurai style or clothes and duster gunslinger like the old movies.

Class guesses aside, if we get an equipment focused book, I hope that grown-up versions of the new items from the Beginner's Box are included. At least 1 item probably should have the invested trait, for example. And I'd like higher/more examples of weapons like the Smoking Sword and Storm Hammer, or the acid axe that is described in "The Shroud of Four Silences."

One of the biggest places I'm feeling constrained as a GM is in giving out loot, so no mater what the classes end up being, a loot focused book would be VERY appreciated.

One of the biggest places I'm feeling constrained as a GM is in giving out loot, so no mater what the classes end up being, a loot focused book would be VERY appreciated.

I agree, handing out magic items has gotten a little repetitive for me (especially having seen a lot of low level play). A book focused on that would be great.

I guess the way I view a gunslinger class would be very similar to a monk.

That's fair, although for me personally, one thing I don't like about the monk is how specific its weapon restrictions are.

I've had a lot of character ideas that are like, 80% monk but don't use one of the Paizo Approved™ weapon choices so the whole concept falls flat and... that's a shame, imo.

And probably my least favorite thing about the APG is that both the swashbuckler and investigator are hard coded to use agile/finesse weapons.

To me, it seems better to apply a concept as broadly as possible and work from there, rather than start with a restrictive chassis and shut down a bunch of ideas.

Winkie_Phace wrote:

One of the biggest places I'm feeling constrained as a GM is in giving out loot, so no mater what the classes end up being, a loot focused book would be VERY appreciated.

I agree, handing out magic items has gotten a little repetitive for me (especially having seen a lot of low level play). A book focused on that would be great.

or like consistent formulae for building magic items.

I have the GMG and the Core and I still feel really uneasy about making my own magic items or trying to come up with player specific magic items (and honestly, I used to do a form of the "grows with you" magic item system in the GMG).

It used to be a part of the game I had a good grasp over in 3.5/Pathfinder and now that the meta has changed so much, I'm afraid of tarnishing balance (because the instinct was always grant some X bonus, but that's kinda not a good idea this edition).

If there are resources I'm just not aware of that help with this, I'd love a link or two, but holy goodness could I use help for varying loot.

Like I'm still used to the Christmas Tree effect and now outside of Striking weapons, I'm not really sure what I can give my players (I really hate generic magic items).

So far I've basically just gone with the bare minimum and wealth appropriate. Super super safe and it's not my norm or preferred.

And probably my least favorite thing about the APG is that both the swashbuckler and investigator are hard coded to use agile/finesse weapons.

That's really why I'm excited for a Warlord. Ready for another strength-based, defensive martial.

That said, I personally do appreciate some more specificity in class design, like those two. Too broad a concept gets us another (in my opinion) overextended and therefore weak class like the witch.

the anticipation is killing me!

I'm secretly hoping we get like an automated blog post tomorrow that reveals what the classes are, as a little happy holidays from paizo

I'm secretly hoping we get like an automated blog post tomorrow that reveals what the classes are, as a little happy holidays from paizo

Don’t do that. Don’t give me hope.

I just want others to share my pain

I doubt Paizo is interested in coming back from the holidays with the chaos that such a thing would create.

I do think that equipment is one part of the system that is just itching for expansion. Even putting guns aside, there is a lot of room for new weapons. We don't have very many advanced weapons right now and could use all the martial arts staples. We all want a kusari-gama.

That then leaves the door open for a Gunslinger/Drifter, Inventor/Artificer, or even the Occultist to come back. If I'm being honest, I haven't had as much fun shopping for equipment in the system and that is perfectly fair. They haven't done as much to expand it.

I do think that equipment is one part of the system that is just itching for expansion.

Yeah, more stuff would be nice. I was trying to add some loot to an adventure I was running (because we have more players than standard), and there are like 17 non-staff permanent items at level 6 (none of the PCs is an arcane caster so most of the level 6 staves didn't seem appropriate). That's... less variety than I would prefer.

I'll add that one of my favorite books for 3.5e was the Magic Item Compendium, precisely because it added a lot of variety for low-level items, and made using those items a matter of choice instead of just giving bonuses.

13th Age's best books are the wonderfully named Books of Loot. Wouldn't mind seeing such a thing take a bestiary release slot.

13th Age's best books are the wonderfully named Books of Loot.

*hissssss* XD

Aw c’mon Rysky...

GM: ”The variant twelve amoeba’d immodest squyterrathome lies vanquished, its troop subtype laid waste, and thanks to the failure of the aura modification reroll subsystem brought about by the interaction of your bestial detection motif feat with its brand new vicarious minion template, all of its loot projection graph enabled treasure lies at your feet.”

Players, variously: ”Way cool!!!”
”...love that new motif feat subsystem....”
”Yeah!!! That vicarious minion template can in no way stand up to my 12th level dwarven paladin....*snark* *snark*”
”That was some eh-pik shi...nanegans!!! Whadda we get!?!”

GM, looking every bit downcast, crestfallen and embarrassed...

”Well....lessee...um...a +3 mattock with a... greater striking rune ....um...ahhh...a ring of assurance: Diplomacy aaaaand a [i]subtle knife....of...greater striking...ness. Oh! And lots of gems and jewels. And gold. Actual gold. Not just the usual silver. But that creature was interesting....right?!?[/b]”

*Thanks to Dragon Magazine for the dwarf...

You know what, no one cares about what I'm going to say but I'm going to say it anyway; I actually think just posting the teaser of the playtest was a good idea. It really gives people (me for sure anyway, as someone who works in retail) something to look forward to after a stressful holiday season. And not saying which class it is gives me hope that it'll be my favorite. I'll be happy with whatever class it is, to be clear, but if it's kineticist I'll be euphoric for a month.

So thank you paizo for helping me get through the holidays.

You know what, no one cares about what I'm going to say but I'm going to say it anyway; I actually think just posting the teaser of the playtest was a good idea. It really gives people (me for sure anyway, as someone who works in retail) something to look forward to after a stressful holiday season. And not saying which class it is gives me hope that it'll be my favorite. I'll be happy with whatever class it is, to be clear, but if it's kineticist I'll be euphoric for a month.

So thank you paizo for helping me get through the holidays.

I Agree I think the tease is a nice enticing way to generate discussion and excitement.

I like monsters, Ocean, they give me ideas :3

I'm with Rysky here. Never stop the flow of monsters. We can get our equipment needs covered in the main line books, anyway.

The Bestiaries are main line books.

They've also said they have no plans to release more after Bestiary 3. I assume we'll still have monster books, but they'll be more like Libris Mortis or the Draconomicon from 3.5. Or like the NPC/Monster/Villain codices.

The Bestiaries are main line books.

They've also said they have no plans to release more after Bestiary 3. I assume we'll still have monster books, but they'll be more like Libris Mortis or the Draconomicon from 3.5. Or like the NPC/Monster/Villain codices.

Yeah, no more general or nonspecific bestiaries after this one, but still yearly bestiaries as far as they have said.

Yeah, no more general or nonspecific bestiaries after this one, but still yearly bestiaries as far as they have said.

Now THAT I don't remember. Do you recall when they said that? Entirely possible they said it in the same panel, but I thought he (Erik?) said IF they release more, they'll be more focused, not that they had solid plans to do so.

Edit: Note, I believe you that they said this. I'd like to hear them say it though, in case there were more details that accompanied that.

Sporkedup wrote:

Yeah, no more general or nonspecific bestiaries after this one, but still yearly bestiaries as far as they have said.

Now THAT I don't remember. Do you recall when they said that? Entirely possible they said it in the same panel, but I thought he (Erik?) said IF they release more, they'll be more focused, not that they had solid plans to do so.

Edit: Note, I believe you that they said this. I'd like to hear them say it though, in case there were more details that accompanied that.

I know its not evidence of anything, but my memory of the stream was that we're definitely getting more monster books, but Bestiary 3 is the last bestiary and future monster books (which were framed as definite, but not assigned a release pattern)would be themed.

I'd check my reddit write ups (those were notes taken during) for confirmation, but reddit is being bad at the moment and I can't pull it up.

Sporkedup wrote:

Yeah, no more general or nonspecific bestiaries after this one, but still yearly bestiaries as far as they have said.

Now THAT I don't remember. Do you recall when they said that? Entirely possible they said it in the same panel, but I thought he (Erik?) said IF they release more, they'll be more focused, not that they had solid plans to do so.

Edit: Note, I believe you that they said this. I'd like to hear them say it though, in case there were more details that accompanied that.

There was a recent interview with Logan Bonner on Know Direction going over some of Bestiary 3 and he confirms that future "Bestiaries" will be coming out, but they won't be numbered and they'll be more tailored to specific monster types to help people running those kinds of campaigns.

Appreciated, thanks!

grumbles some more about the pivot to video and podcasts have ruined the internet

Dragon Compendium sounds great :-D

He also confirms a good amount of things we'll see in the book, and there is one he goes into a bit more that I'm really excited for that I told my players to not look at in advance because I will be using it.

I would hope that if we get like a Dragon Compendium or a "big ol' book of fiends" that the whole thing wouldn't just be monsters (but there can and should be a big chapter of them.)

He also confirms a good amount of things we'll see in the book, and there is one he goes into a bit more that I'm really excited for that I told my players to not look at in advance because I will be using it.

Dammit, now I'm gonna have to go listen to it at some point, curse my library job and its necessary maintenance of a quiet environment.

Nugs-Not-Drugs666 wrote:

He also confirms a good amount of things we'll see in the book, and there is one he goes into a bit more that I'm really excited for that I told my players to not look at in advance because I will be using it.

Dammit, now I'm gonna have to go listen to it at some point, curse my library job and its necessary maintenance of a quiet environment.

Discussion on Bestiary 3 starts at 29:19, before that it's talking about the advanced GM screen and the beginner box