Hrrm... I have reservations about couching the concepts as hybrids of classes, though admittedly the ones we have seen so far are decent ideas outside of that (be it full attacking arcane caster, martial divine caster without paladin/antipaladin alignment restrictions, and really the swashbuckler's hybridization almost sounds like an excuse). Given the precedent of the Magus I guess they're OK, but really I feel like conceiving of them that way is more of a limitation on originality and a path toward at least partial redundancy than a way of opening out to new concepts. I believe paizo can pull it off decently though.
Maybe a less difficult to use summoner mix in there somewhere?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Might be good, I think all of the mixed classes could use something like that, I happen to really like spell combat. And divine casting has lots of interesting touch spells to go with spell strike.If only they were to redefine spell combat as a full-attack action and then share the mechanic with few new hybrid classes.You mean something that operates outside the normal action economy? I mean there is precedent for that (magus) but I would imagine it would still need to conform to standards. Advanced class doesnt mean 'ignores the need for consistency within the system. THough a divine magus might be interesting.A multi role class would be cool.
Like a melee class that heals as it deals damage, or something like that. These are advanced classes, let's think outside the box a bit.
I was thinking along the lines of as they deal damage, x% or portion (like maybe a flat amount, or an amount based on WIS or CHA +3) of that damage is leeched and spent in healing (or could be) to a target or at later levels targets of the character's choosing. Possibly even himself.
This wouldn't be a full bab class, so hopefully max output wouldnt dwarf a dedicated healer, and damage wouldnt out do a dedicated damager.It's be an intermediate healer role. Something for someone who wants to play a meele healer, and not be stuck as a heal bot.
Access to limited spells like an Inquis...
Might be good, I think all of the mixed classes could use something like that, I happen to really like spell combat. And divine casting has lots of interesting touch spells to go with spell strike.If only they were to redefine spell combat as a full-attack action and then share the mechanic with few new hybrid classes.You mean something that operates outside the normal action economy? I mean there is precedent for that (magus) but I would imagine it would still need to conform to standards. Advanced class doesnt mean 'ignores the need for consistency within the system. THough a divine magus might be interesting.A multi role class would be cool.
Like a melee class that heals as it deals damage, or something like that. These are advanced classes, let's think outside the box a bit.I was thinking along the lines of as they deal damage, x% or portion (like maybe a flat amount, or an amount based on WIS or CHA +3) of that damage is leeched and spent in healing (or could be) to a target or at later levels targets of the character's choosing. Possibly even himself.
This wouldn't be a full bab class, so hopefully max output wouldnt dwarf a dedicated healer, and damage wouldnt out do a dedicated damager.
It's be an intermediate healer role. Something for someone who wants to play a meele healer, and not be stuck as a heal bot.
Access to limited spells like an Inquis...
Yea I understand what you are saying, I just think it needs to fit within the space of pathfinder. That means expending some kind of 'reasource' to do supernatural things. If for instance, when he attacked he could also cast a spell and that spell was a healing spell or maybe attack and channel, your need would be achieved and it sits neatly within the pathfinder space. Attacking and healing just because you say so is a disassociative mechanic, and not something I want to see creep into pathfinder.
Maybe something like spell combat where you could attack with one hand, channel with the other and automatically exclude the target of your attack (with further exclusions using the feat). That would work for me. But like I said there has to be some kind of expenditure of resources to do something like that.
Perhaps. Although 'fitting within the space of pathfinder' is only defined as it currently exists. If this mechanic could be made to work without being over powered, then it would fit within the space of pathfinder. Coming up with ideas, or "how would I.." isn't going to hurt the product, only implementing crappy ones without thought will do that.
And I did mention thinking outside of the box...
Perhaps. Although 'fitting within the space of pathfinder' is only defined as it currently exists. If this mechanic could be made to work without being over powered, then it would fit within the space of pathfinder. Coming up with ideas, or "how would I.." isn't going to hurt the product, only implementing crappy ones without thought will do that.
And I did mention thinking outside of the box...
Its more then just what already exists. Its a concept. 3.x and pathfinder all favor the mechanics fiting in cohesively with the world. They are as much a storytelling/world building tool as they are a game. What you are recommending is a 'power' that strongly connected to the in world effects it has. That is called a disassociative mechanic. For me at least that isnt a good thing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's only dissociative at the moment because there hasn't been an attempt to fit it into the setting. (Same with the Summoner class. There was resistance to giving it a 'place' in the setting, so it felt a bit off-theme, until recently, when Summoners were given a 'place' in the Sarkorian nation, and now, bang, it fits.)
If the 'my attacks heal peeps' class is tied to a Gebbite or Urgathoan or vampiric theme, a blade-wielding warrior causing blood to boil and turn into a reddish vapor that flows back towards him and revitalizes him, then that works pretty much right out of the box.
A Pharasman version could be seen as reclaiming spiritual energy from those who have defied the natural order or whatever, and might receive healing *when she damages undead,* blasting them apart with flashes of positive energy that also provide small amounts of healing to nearby living allies.
An Asmodean version could smash someone with his mace, causing a blast of hellish fire that does a bit of fire damage and a bit of 'unholy divine power' damage, and brings a rush of warmth to the bellies of himself and his evil allies, bolstering them with infernal healing.
A Zon-Kuthonite would be *very* suitable in this role (or even a Calistrian), with every lash of the spiked chain (or scorpion whip) bringing a shuddersome rush of pleasure and healing to the wielder as it brings pain and harm to the target struck. Sadism is obviously a rich vein for this particular 'my attacks heal me' theme.
But sadism is hardly the only way to go. A hunter of Erastil might draw upon the spiritual connection between a true arrow shot striking home and the feeding of the family that will follow as a result, to draw 'spiritual sustenance' from a 'successful hunt.' (I.e. he gets a small bit of healing when an arrow strikes home, metaphorically 'feeding' from his 'kill.') An Iomedan could similarly be rewarded for valorous acts on the field of battle by receiving a rush of divine reward, her own wounds closing as she opens new ones upon the wicked and corrupt.
And that's just going with religion. The vampire theme could take it in a monstrous direction (and vampires are hardly the only monsters that gain health by causing damage). The Gebbite theme could take it in a nationalistic direction. To take it in a class-based direction, a monk could learn to 'balance his ki' by punishing the bodies of others and throwing their own ki out of whack. As he damages their body, and so 'unbalances their ki,' his own body's ki is more tightly brought into balance (healing his injuries). Is he leeching life-energy from them, or simply finding it easier to impose order upon his own life-energies by disrupting the balance and order of another beings? Hard to say, and different schools of thought have fought bloody battles to resolve these philosophical matters, but the effect is that he punches people, and as bruises form upon them, they vanish from him.
Many 'gamist' mechanics can be easily worked into a setting's themes.
For instance, some games have the notion that you do a bunch of 'builder' attacks to build up combo points that you can later use to unleash a can of whoopass. (Champions Online used that concept, which, as I understand it, is not uncommon in console games.) That's totally 'gamist,' and yet, in a setting with gods like Gorum, it's totally 'on-theme' for a war-crazed servant of Gorum to gain some sort of rush for every time he strikes a foe, that he can later unleash for a more impressive result. Pharasma might reward an undead fighting follower the same way, so that every time she smashes apart a lesser undead, she gains a 'point' of something for every HD worth of undead discombobulated, up to a certain 'max,' and can unleash them later as an immediate action as a bonus against undead (to a single attack role, to a single damage roll, to her AC for 1 round, to her saving throw vs. a single attack). If she doesn't use them up by the end of the day, they go away, making her favorite encounters those that involve an evil cleric or necromancer with a bunch of skeletons, so that she can smash them up to 'fill her smite battery' and then commence to a supercharged beatdown rampage on the necromancer.
From gamist and disassociative to 100% on-theme, just like that.
Yep. Pretty much what I had in mind, without the specific Golarion references. They make great examples for the concept, though.
It's only dissociative at the moment because there hasn't been an attempt to fit it into the setting. (Same with the Summoner class. There was resistance to giving it a 'place' in the setting, so it felt a bit off-theme, until recently, when Summoners were given a 'place' in the Sarkorian nation, and now, bang, it fits.)
If the 'my attacks heal peeps' class is tied to a Gebbite or Urgathoan or vampiric theme, a blade-wielding warrior causing blood to boil and turn into a reddish vapor that flows back towards him and revitalizes him, then that works pretty much right out of the box.
A Pharasman version could be seen as reclaiming spiritual energy from those who have defied the natural order or whatever, and might receive healing *when she damages undead,* blasting them apart with flashes of positive energy that also provide small amounts of healing to nearby living allies.
An Asmodean version could smash someone with his mace, causing a blast of hellish fire that does a bit of fire damage and a bit of 'unholy divine power' damage, and brings a rush of warmth to the bellies of himself and his evil allies, bolstering them with infernal healing.
A Zon-Kuthonite would be *very* suitable in this role (or even a Calistrian), with every lash of the spiked chain (or scorpion whip) bringing a shuddersome rush of pleasure and healing to the wielder as it brings pain and harm to the target struck. Sadism is obviously a rich vein for this particular 'my attacks heal me' theme.
But sadism is hardly the only way to go. A hunter of Erastil might draw upon the spiritual connection between a true arrow shot striking home and the feeding of the family that will follow as a result, to draw 'spiritual sustenance' from a 'successful hunt.' (I.e. he gets a small bit of healing when an arrow strikes home, metaphorically 'feeding' from his 'kill.') An Iomedan could similarly be rewarded for valorous acts on the field of battle by receiving a rush of divine reward, her own wounds closing as she opens new ones upon...
Its not about flavoring them appropriately. That is simple enough. I am talking about how the mechanics WORK. You can explain anything, but the way the mechanics 'feel' as you play with them are important. Your explanations as to why a certain rule would fit the world is adequate, that isnt what I am worried about. I am talking about the mechanics being connected to the game world without the flavor test explanation. A monks Ki pool, makes sense, its a reserve of spiritual energy, it has theme and works mechanically. It is a resource that has limitations and fits into the rules both mechanically and thematically.
I am not saying you cant create a class that attacks and heals at the same time, all I am saying is that the way it is done should make sense that doesnt require direct divine intervention. Because pharasma is pleased with you for hitting undead isnt a good way to tie mechanics to the world in my opinion. Its one of the reason I like the 'points' mechanics that so many classes have in pathfinder. You can do something outside the norm, but it requires expending some form of energy, or reserve of strength.
At will abilities like there are in 4E are entirely too gamist for me, and while as you demonstrate, they can be explained, it leaves me with a feeling of disconnect. 4E powers all had adequate explanations as to why the worked in world, but their mechanical effects didnt reflect those explanations, that is the sort of effect I would be concerned about. If I am going to be a warpriest that heals while he lays the smackdown, I want something in the way the mechanics work to tie the ability to the game world, not the explanation for why I have the ability in the first place.
That doesn't make any sense. You have crunch, and you have fluff. I'm more concerned about the crunch, the fluff can be whatever fits in the world. The crunch needs to be good, no matter what game world or campaign setting you're playing in.
Unless I'm totally missing your point, Kolo.
That doesn't make any sense. You have crunch, and you have fluff. I'm more concerned about the crunch, the fluff can be whatever fits in the world. The crunch needs to be good, no matter what game world or campaign setting you're playing in.
Unless I'm totally missing your point, Kolo.
Its not an easy one to explain, I will admit that. But basically, the crunch needs to be good yes. The fluff also should be good. But more importantly the crunch should imply and related directly to the fluff. When I play a 'monk' I want to 'feel' like I am playing a monk. I want to be able to pick up the class with all the instances of 'monk' removed and know that I am playing a kunfu master. That is what I mean by connecting the mechanics to the world. It doesnt matter if the monk is part of a monestary in the mountains from kingdom x. Thats setting. When it comes to rules I want those rules to tell me about what kind of character this is and how it functions simply by how the rules work.
Example. The Magus is supposed to be a fighter wizard mix. He has weapons and armor profficiencies, great. He has spells and a spell book, also great. Spell combat brings the two together. If I had no idea what a magus was supposed to be, I would know that this was a character meant to attack while casting spells. If the magus could just do 2d6 extra electricity damage every time attacked, that doesnt tell me anything about where that is coming from, or why he is able to do such things. Its just a power inconsistent with the rest of the rules. Spell combat, and spell strike instead blend the existing rules together to make the feel of the magus very coherent (in my mind ofcourse).
Ahh...
Well not having come up with any mechanics for it yet, I can see your problem ;)
I'm guessing you have not seen the blog yet :)
No, what.
OMG, a Swashbuckler! It is for real.AND! I had fear that if we got a Swashbuckler it would be a fighter/rogue concept or a fighter/duelist concept (I really dislike the duelist), but those fears are blown away.
It is “blending the powers of the fighter and the gunslinger”, to get the job done! Awesome.
As for your rewrite of mechanic (2), that violates Paizo's naming convention for point pools. As far as I can tell, all point pools in the Pathfinder game have descriptive names (arcana pool, ki pool, mythic power, rounds of rage).So it's Paizo's convention to have fluff embedded in the mechanics.
Please understand I only have a contention with your assertion that adding in phrases like "life drain point" isn't a fluff point. To my POV, it certainly is, as it isn't a keyword that's defined elsewhere, unlike fire, for example. It's being used to narrate the mechanics of the effect, and is thus fluff.
I think the idea was that life drain would be defined somewhere else in the class, or possibly as a general ability in the rule book. Which is where we are coming from. The point is that the rules themselves should be descriptive. There is an ability that is called 'Drain Life', what does it doe? It hurts foes and grants you life draining points. What are life draining points? They are a pool of points you can use to heal yourself and your allies.
That is connected and starts to build a picture. Where as Just saying, Life Drain, you attack a target, and an adjacent ally heals 1d6 damage doesnt build that picture. Its the interconnection of different abilities that start to make things make sense.
Since these are all supposed to be hybrid classes, what two classes would it make sense to combine for this "reaver"?
If it has a ki-like pool (leech pool?) would that mean that ninja or monk is necessary?
Or more like a magus, with an arcana-like pool?
If there's enough interest, a new thread?
That is connected and starts to build a picture. Where as Just saying, Life Drain, you attack a target, and an adjacent ally heals 1d6 damage doesnt build that picture. Its the interconnection of different abilities that start to make things make sense.I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. A lot of it depends on the "mechanical fluff" you use. If I have an ability that lets me make a melee attack and heal a close range ally for 1d6, and I call it "Stab", then yea, that's a problem. If I call that ability "Empowering Thrust", that's a little better, with the understanding that it will be too dependent on created narrative for many folks. Call it "Spread the Sanguineous Essence", and we're closer to an ability that's created its own rationale.
Add in rules to the attack that it doesn't work on undead creatures or constructs, due to lack of blood, and I think we've created enough rationale for the ability to satisfy most people.
Except that the 'empowering thrust' is still a stand alone ability that sits outside of the rest of the game rules. Its not just about how descriptive ability, its how it connects with rest of the rules. Again the best example is the magus. If spellstrike just did an extra 5d6 electric damage, it would have been a disassociative mechanic. The fact that spellstrike allows you to cast a TOUCH SPELL (existing game term) and deliver it through a melee attack [existing game term], there is a rational integration of this rule to magically stab someone and the rest of the game space.
For the example you are giving, attack and heal someone within close range, the similar process would be:
1. Class x has the ability to use healing spells.
2. Class x may use healing spells at close range by (expending some sort of additional resource or increasing the spell level ALA metamagic)
3. Class x may use spell combat or something like it to cast a spell and attack in the same turn.
Mind you 1 doesnt actually have to be spells, it could be something like channel or lay on hands. Either way you have rules interacting with eachother to develop a picture of the concept the character is supposed to represent.
A base shapeshifter class is my high hopes.
Not sure if someone caught this (9 pages is a decent hunk to read.) but the War Priest is a P-Class. Classic Fighter 1/Cleric 5 healing tanker. Also, wasn't ninja a total-replacement archetype for the rogue?
Onto the actual book itself, I have a few concerns.
1) It sounds a lot like combining the 3.5 splat books into one book. On the one hand, cool. On the other hand, lots more stuff. Might be useful. I wonder how many wacky build will appear next year for PFS.
2) No mention of psionics. Will this be it's own book, or will Paizo keep their hands away from it, letting 3rd party teams go for it?
3) No mention of new feats that are not specifically for the new classes.
4) Could this be the intro of "gestalt" characters?
5) Will the training rules apply here for someone who created a character as a particular type (Ranger/Rogue) who would work better as one of the new (Slayer)? Or will this be a "new character, same concept" roll?
6) Simplified rules for Word Magic? Or a new magic system that moves away from slots?
7) Additional gear/materials?
I am concerned that this will add far more complexity to the system, perhaps driving people away. Yes, they only ever have to use the Core, but already I've heard people grumble at all the "weird stuff" in the new books (Magus, inquisitor and gunslingers specifically) and that might drive some away. I have no problem, just don't use the books if I don't want to, (They're optional anyway.) I have a perfectly working core only character, and he's damn good at what he does (Kill humans.)
|
I want an Artificer style wizard/alchemist blend for Eberron reasons.
But I'm actually the happiest about the War Priest. I love this concept. I use to play Fighter/Clerics for ages, except for the sucky caster penality that use to hit me. Frankly, I don't want to play a Paladin. They're too restricted in both style and function. Someone who matches my need for the heavy combat cleric is going to make me giddy.
I am all for a divine full BAB 6th level caster (if that's what the war priest is)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who else here has wondered if the good folks at Paizo only came up with ideas for maybe 7 or 8 classes initially, knowing darn well threads like this would pop up so they could pick the 2 or 3 most popular requests and then announce those exact classes as the remaining ones in the book as if those were the ones all along? ;)
Come on, I bet we've all thought it at least once! They're clever and tricksy like that!
I suspect they keep watch of other older threads (like the ones for artificer, or swashbuckler, etc).
I would be pretty shocked if they had not had all ten classes figured out by the Gencon announcement. They want to do a playtest in a few months. Can't see them pulling that off if they didn't know what ten classes they were putting in it.
A base shapeshifter class is my high hopes.
Agree. That would be nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who else here has wondered if the good folks at Paizo only came up with ideas for maybe 7 or 8 classes initially, knowing darn well threads like this would pop up so they could pick the 2 or 3 most popular requests and then announce those exact classes as the remaining ones in the book as if those were the ones all along? ;)
Come on, I bet we've all thought it at least once! They're clever and tricksy like that!
The thought had occurred to me too. There are at least three active threads discussing the new classes :)
The Advanced Player's Guide new classes are among the more interesting Paizo crunch for me, and I like hybrid characters in general, but many of the specific combinations seem a bit underwhelming:
bloodrager = sorcerer + barbarian: could be awesome!
hunter = druid + ranger: ranger is already sort of fighter + druid, so this sounds a lot like... just a slightly different ranger
shaman = oracle + witch: okay
slayer = ranger + rogue: but ranger is already sort of fighter + rogue, so... another slightly different ranger?
warpriest = cleric + fighter: but, but... cleric is already sort of godly spellcaster + fighter!
swashbuckler = fighter + gunslinger: seriously!? isn't the gunslinger explicitly a fighter variant, so much so that you cannot even multiclass the two?
The gunslinger is no longer a fighter variant. That was dropped sometime between the first and second playtest, I think.
The gunslinger is no longer a fighter variant. That was dropped sometime between the first and second playtest, I think.
I stand corrected in the specific, but in general my point stands.
|
|
jasin think of them as this:
Bloodrager = Casting + Rage Power...agreed awesome.
Hunter = The Shapeshifter Ranger Archtype taken up to the next level. Focused more on pet bonuses and I'll bet a hint of summoner tricks too.
Shaman = Buff Focused Witch with Oracle style abilites in the 'hex' tree.
Slayer = No terrain bonus, no companion options, sprinkle in some assassin thinking and you get a (maybe) full BAB + sneak attack tree.
Warpriest = Inverted Inquisitor or the non-allignment locked Paladin option.
Swashbuckler = Melee GRIT!!!!!!
The Gunslinger's Grit mechanic was different enough to break the idea away from the Fighter class.
Bloodrager- a rage mage but as a class not prestige class.
Hunter- this could go a lot of different ways 1)fighter with animal companion 2) fighter based wild shape class 3) Wilderness hunter 4)Bounty Hunter or who knows.
Shaman- Oracle + witch? what I would really like to see is a spontaneous cha based caster with the druid spell list.
Slayer- If it is just a favored enemy+ sneak attack then just call it an assassin class or a psychopath.
Warpriest- I am curious about this one.
Swashbuckler- as long as it is a viable dex based fighter class then I will be happy.
Still 4 more unknown classes.
don't forget Arcanist people, the middle ground between wizard and sorcerer.
Yeah I don't see anything suggesting the Hunter will have an animal companion...I am thinking this will function more like a bounty hunter, but I could be wrong.
don't forget Arcanist people, the middle ground between wizard and sorcerer.So....what? Larger selection of spells but you can swap some out? Like spontainous casting of utility magic?
The Hunter could be a Inquisitor meets Ranger meets who knows.
I didn't hear mention of how many spells they get (i assume something like a druid or witch progression), but the idea is that they prepare a certain number of spells per level per day, then can spontaneously cast from any of those prepared.
|
|
Ah. I finally get it. That...sounds useful. I wonder. Hmmm. That plus a few scrolls/wands would very scary good. Especially if they get access to the FULL Sorc/Wiz pool of spells. I wonder what innate powers they get for the trade off. No bloodline power or Wizard schools obviously. Wonder if they are metamagic focused. Actually that would make sense. Apply X meta magic feat like a magus does as they level up. To work around the meta magic weirdness issues.
And that screams Archanist to me. I'd play one.
All these "hybrid" concepts which are actually basic D&D concepts with a new implementation (swashbuckler and arcanist especially, but the two ever-so-slightly-different rangers too) remind me of late 3E experimentation with ideas which made it into 4E. Maybe we're moving towards Pathfinder 2E?
When you get to the point where you're redoing the fighter and wizard concepts, that probably means you're feeling the core system as more of a limitation than an inspiration to explore new concepts, and that might be the time to rework the core system. And "a combination of a fighter, and a fighter with guns... but without guns!" seems a lot like a redoing of the fighter.
|
|
All these "hybrid" concepts which are actually basic D&D concepts with a new implementation (swashbuckler and arcanist especially, but the two ever-so-slightly-different rangers too) remind me of late 3E experimentation with ideas which made it into 4E. Maybe we're moving towards Pathfinder 2E?
When you get to the point where you're redoing the fighter and wizard concepts, that probably means you're feeling the core system as more of a limitation than an inspiration to explore new concepts, and that might be the time to rework the core system. And "a combination of a fighter, and a fighter with guns... but without guns!" seems a lot like a redoing of the fighter.
Paizo has made it pretty clear that 2E, if it happens, is years away. They have stated repeatedly that they feel there is plenty of design space available for them to play with.
I feel like your "summation" of the Gunslinger is horrifically inaccurate, and to me that negates your conclusion. The Gunslinger is more than just a fighter with guns. It seems almost like you haven't read the Gunslinger at all.
It is my impression that Paizo's design team is working on what, currently, inspires them.
Paizo has made it pretty clear that 2E, if it happens, is years away.
Sure. Tome of Battle was two years before 4E, and three years after Essentials 5E still isn't out.
They have stated repeatedly that they feel there is plenty of design space available for them to play with.
But a lot of the design space this specific book seems to explore is the reworking of core concepts rather than introducing new ones, much like the 3.5 Tome of Battle or the 4E Essentials.
I feel like your "summation" of the Gunslinger is horrifically inaccurate, and to me that negates your conclusion. The Gunslinger is more than just a fighter with guns. It seems almost like you haven't read the Gunslinger at all.
I've read it. How would you sum it up?
It is my impression that Paizo's design team is working on what, currently, inspires them.
I don't disagree, but it is my contention that looking at the fighter and the wizard and being inspired to make a different fighter and a different wizard is the first sign of edition fatigue.
|
|
I think gunslinger sums it up nicely. That is not snark or sarcasm or even trite. I really think Gunslinger is the best word/phrase to sum up the Gunslinger. I don't look at the old westerns and see Fighters with guns, I see Gunslingers. If I were to use D&D classes in that way. Just like I don't watch old Three Musketeers movies and see a Rogue or a Fighter. I see a Swashbuckler. And I see more in common between various heroes of westerns and the various swashbucklers of moviedom, than I see in common between them and Fighters.
I don't see the Swashbuckler as being a different Fighter. The Swashbuckler is a new class that has been, probably, the most requested new class since the APG. They are now, finally, answering that request with a class that draws on pieces of the Fighter class and pieces of the Gunslinger. I will say it again, The Swashbuckler is not the Fighter re-imagined, it is its own thing that draws useful bits from the Fighter and other places, as well as having its own unique parts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how I feel about a grit like thing being part of the Swashbuckler as I'm not all that familiar with the class or it's mechanics. But I very much want a lightly armored martial class that emphasizes and utilizes Int, Cha, and Dex. Not REPLACING Str, and Con for the things they do, mind you, but allowing the class to perform and compete with a Fighter.
Also I doubt these 'hybrid' classes will be just reworking concepts. The Magus is by no means a reworked Fighter or a reworked Wizard. It is an archetype common in fiction that is mechanically different from both of its parent classes. As mentioned the Gunslinger is a common archetype in much film and literature that is different from the Fighter (if anything I would think it conceptually closer to a Ranger). The same can be said for Swashbucklers. Hopefully this is what these new classes will be.
I think gunslinger sums it up nicely. That is not snark or sarcasm or even trite. I really think Gunslinger is the best word/phrase to sum up the Gunslinger.
That's... not very enlightening.
To me, the expression conjures up the image of a primarily (but not exclusively) Old West type of character who fights with guns. Translating it into a D&D context, there seems to be precious little conceptual difference between a person whose primary skill is fighting with guns and a character of the fighter class who uses guns.
Can you expand a bit, how would you sum up the PF gunslinger, what sort of character does the class represent, if not a dedicated warrior who uses guns?
I will say it again, The Swashbuckler is not the Fighter re-imagined, it is its own thing that draws useful bits from the Fighter and other places, as well as having its own unique parts.
That seems like a rather decisive claim with little to back it up. We still haven't seen the class. Do you have some information beyond the short paragraph on the announcement page?
|
To me, the expression conjures up the image of a primarily (but not exclusively) Old West type of character who fights with guns. Translating it into a D&D context, there seems to be precious little conceptual difference between a person whose primary skill is fighting with guns and a character of the fighter class who uses guns.
You know, there's preciously little conceptual difference between Ranger , Barbarian and Fighter either. Or between Sorcerer and Wizard. Or between Cleric and Druid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know how I feel about a grit like thing being part of the Swashbuckler as I'm not all that familiar with the class or it's mechanics.
I think it should be fine, "spend renewable points to do cool stuff" is a universally applicable mechanic, just call it "ki" for ninjas, "grit" for Western gunfighters, "panache" for foppish duelists, "mana" for mages...
Also I doubt these 'hybrid' classes will be just reworking concepts. The Magus is by no means a reworked Fighter or a reworked Wizard. It is an archetype common in fiction that is mechanically different from both of its parent classes.
Exactly! And in that the magus is quite unlike the swashbuckler, arcanist, hunter, or slayer. Unlike those, the magus combines two radically different character types, both mechanically and, more importantly, conceptually.
As mentioned the Gunslinger is a common archetype in much film and literature that is different from the Fighter
How is a movie gunslinger different from a PF/D&D fighter, once you account for the differences in setting? Both are the primary, purest warriors of their setting. What more is there to the archetypes, and what are the differences?
The gunslinger makes sense as a different class because guns are peripheral enough a feature in most PF/D&D settings that just giving a fighter a gun isn't very well supported.
But removing guns from the gunslinger and combining what's left with the default fighter pretty much gives you... a fighter, reimagined.
Now, a fighter reimagined is not an unworthy goal, I'm just saying that when the designers are reimagining the fighter, it's a sign that they're starting to chafe under the limitations of how the current fighter works.
Well, we know how the Gunslinger looks, which is very different from the Fighter, so that's that.