Completely out of left field, I'm wondering about Aldori Swordlords (and Ladies).I'm hoping that Paizo will include builds the way they do in Starfinder in PF2. Basically, a bit that says "If you want to play your fighter as a swashbuckler, start by choosing features A and B, and as you go higher in levels you might want to check out C, D, and E as well."
PF2 seems to be build with customizability in mind, and while that is nice it is also nice to have some paths staked out through the jungle of options.
I'm not certain which feats will support an Aldori build more than any other TWF build, but the devs mentioned there will be weapons that work well when paired. It's fuzzy, but I believe the Red Mantis & Aldori weapons were mentioned.
Even if they just work as longswords that count as agile when paired, that'd be a good boost in die-type.I don't recall if they were Exotic or otherwise required investment to use.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Completely out of left field, I'm wondering about Aldori Swordlords (and Ladies).I'm hoping that Paizo will include builds the way they do in Starfinder in PF2. Basically, a bit that says "If you want to play your fighter as a swashbuckler, start by choosing features A and B, and as you go higher in levels you might want to check out C, D, and E as well."
PF2 seems to be build with customizability in mind, and while that is nice it is also nice to have some paths staked out through the jungle of options.
I'm not certain which feats will support an Aldori build more than any other TWF build, but the devs mentioned there will be weapons that work well when paired. It's fuzzy, but I believe the Red Mantis & Aldori weapons were mentioned.
Even if they just work as longswords that count as agile when paired, that'd be a good boost in die-type.
I don't recall if they were Exotic or otherwise required investment to use.
Well, they only use 1 single weapon. But the Aldori Exotic sword is probably gonna be pretty strong, likely with Agile and Finesse built in. You'd just need the EWP feat to be using it at peak efficiency, and that's probably not even a class feat. Fighters can probably get some defense thing that only works with empty hand and light armor as a class feat, not to mention the Aldori sword might have cool crit effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aldori Swordmasters will probably be an Archetype (feat-chain), it might even be in the playtest/core rulebook considering their place in Golarion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aldori Swordmasters will probably be an Archetype (feat-chain), it might even be in the playtest/core rulebook considering their place in Golarion.
Most likely a prestige archetype.
Yep, that's what I'm counting on. An archetype or prestige archetype - maybe a more generic duelist archetype and Aldori Swordlord prestige - which among other things conditionally raise AC.
The Aldori sword sounds about right with finesse and agile, maybe more powerful crits too if that's not too much. I don't know whether fighters will start out with feats giving them extra AC when wielding a one-handed weapon and wearing light armor... there's a lot of combat styles in the playtest and they also need room for the combos... that said it'd be nice to have them in it already. But archetypes would probably be the place where I think they'll appear most easily, and I'm not expecting bunches of them in the playtest.
I'm also curious about whether and how swashbucklers will be implemented. But that's quite a way to go, right now.
I really like fighters in general, heavy armor and a nice shield to block attacks, but I'm also interested in duelist/swashbuckler tropes. Agile combatants who parry attacks with their swords (Aldori, rapiers...) and bucklers (or parrying daggers/main gauche), very mobile, with reduced need of armor.
Anyways, yeah, there's time for that - the basics, first. I think fighters are already in a good place as far as we know (I also like the other martials - rogues, paladins, monks, rangers) and I'm looking forward to see the big picture in the playtest. I think this modular approach to classes is extraordinarily interesting and promising.
Non spellcasting classes would be quite easy to do as an archetype, but semi Spellcasters would not. They can only get a half spell list if it's a class feature. If you make them an archetype, then what's to stop a wizard of sorcerer taking it alongside 9 (or 10) spell levels?
So a couple of blogs have impacted martial characters, and with only one week to go too!
A typical Druid using Wild Shape w/ their highest spell slot can be a 1st or 2nd string combatant for 1 minute. The increase in mobility & special attacks (like grab) can cover for the lack of combat feats. Since the stats are set (and not based on the PC's), you could avoid raising some, but Wild Shape is still a limited resource that can take a round to set up.
A Druid built for Wild Shape can gain extra Wild Shape based on their Str modifier (so less dumping), but with the spread of stat boosts, it isn't too costly to get several extra uses.
Another feat (I believe at 10th?) lets you hold Wild Shape for an hour (or hours?), but at below max, so you'd be a 2nd string combatant, but then again would still have lots of mobility & attack options w/ lots more top spell slots open. If there's the ability to cast while transformed, this could be a good feat for non-martial Druids too.
Note that there are likely some spell buffs available plus companions, so a Druid can add a lot to martial combat.
The new multiclass rules hit the boards too. One doesn't multiclass anymore so much as pick up another class's abilities via one's own class feats. These start at level 2 and minimum stat for entry appears to be 16 in the class's main one, so these require some forethought. And PCs are locked in for 3 feats before they may take another archetype, which these are. (You can stop at one feat if other archetypes don't interest you.) See blog post for more details, though Wizard is the only one expanded upon. For now there are four options (w/ others to be in the CRB if these pass muster in the playtest.)
1: Cleric: An easy way to nab some healing or buffs. If you can get your go-to combat options anyway (and have a 16 Wis!), then Cleric spells can be useful.
2: Fighter: Grants proficiency in martial weapons & all armor w/ just the entry feat so this really opens up the martial potential of all the non-martial classes. With BABs being equal, we'll have to see if a Fighter's class abilities and quicker access to weapon proficiency give them enough advantage not to simply go w/ another class + this feat. A reminder that a +3 attack advantage comes out to +50% damage when facing standard opponents (who can be crit), so the other class would have to match that worth as best it can (if trying to be as martial that is).
3: Rogue: Does it allow Dex to damage?!? The biggest question, but even Sneak Attack can make the feat worth it if your martial already aims to make opponents flat-footed or likes a Rogue combat feat or two. And who knows how many skills it'll open up, or even Evasion. If you want to play a Dex martial you should jump right to this page in the CRB.
4: Wizard: For one feat (and 16 Int) you can get access to lots of magic items, and cantrips which scale with level. While it's neat for a martial to have an energy attack as backup (and ranged at that), "Shield" is the cantrip martials should consider if going w/ two-handed fighting. "Shield" may even make up for the lower secondary stats from having a 16 Int, but that still leaves you those bonus skills. :) Unlocking higher spell slots can lead to much more mobility & utility, and a surprise AoE or debuff can balance one's martial offense too.
Hope that helps, even if it throws your PC plans askew like it did mine!
I think that Shield will be more useful to gish warrior-mages wielding one-handed weapons; as they'll need the hand free to cast attack spells, and thus cannot carry a physical shield. Support Fighter/Wizards will prefer to precast longer lasting spells with a weapon hand so that they can carry a more reliable physical shield or wield a two-handed weapon with the maximum benefits of all their magical aids (like Haste).
I think that Shield will be more useful to gish warrior-mages wielding one-handed weapons; as they'll need the hand free to cast attack spells, and thus cannot carry a physical shield. Support Fighter/Wizards will prefer to precast longer lasting spells with a weapon hand so that they can carry a more reliable physical shield or wield a two-handed weapon with the maximum benefits of all their magical aids (like Haste).
If the warrior/MC mage wants to spam cantrips for offense (which is a viable use of those iterative attacks) that can be just as valid as getting up a good defense depending on the battle. But using slots offensively will quickly burn them out, with buffs being a better route.
I wouldn't necessarily recommend taking the feats to get slots until one gauges the party's composition & needs.I also wouldn't recommend a physical shield for somebody who casts from slots unless they have Quick Draw or something (or even are using the shield as their main weapon). Many slotted spells (it seems) need somatic actions to get the most effect.
I think a mage/MC warrior could freely blast away though, having many more slots and spell point abilities too. But with PF2 cantrips being a nice go-to backup attack, why are they developing 2nd string martial skills too on a PC with lower h.p.?
I fear that trying to balance the two facets too much would lead to a sub-par PC.
I think that Shield will be more useful to gish warrior-mages wielding one-handed weapons; as they'll need the hand free to cast attack spells, and thus cannot carry a physical shield. Support Fighter/Wizards will prefer to precast longer lasting spells with a weapon hand so that they can carry a more reliable physical shield or wield a two-handed weapon with the maximum benefits of all their magical aids (like Haste).
Mark mentioned that some weapons (specifically the bastard sword) have a 'switch handed' property, and can remove AND add a hand with no action.
So two-handed fighting casters are apparently fine with the right weapon. I'm completely unclear what makes a bastard sword easier to grip than a greatsword, but there we are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that Shield will be more useful to gish warrior-mages wielding one-handed weapons; as they'll need the hand free to cast attack spells, and thus cannot carry a physical shield. Support Fighter/Wizards will prefer to precast longer lasting spells with a weapon hand so that they can carry a more reliable physical shield or wield a two-handed weapon with the maximum benefits of all their magical aids (like Haste).Mark mentioned that some weapons (specifically the bastard sword) have a 'switch handed' property, and can remove AND add a hand with no action.
So two-handed fighting casters are apparently fine with the right weapon. I'm completely unclear what makes a bastard sword easier to grip than a greatsword, but there we are.
Prety sure Marks comment does not say that. Link
Looks like it is always free to take a hand off a weapon and always costs an action to put a hand back on. The difference with the bastard sword is that if you don't have the actions left in your turn to re grip it two handed you can still use it one handed, as opposed to the great sword which you cannot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To add a hand, yes, but not to drop the weapon out of one or both hands. That's why the bastard sword is great here. If you could switch hands around willy-nilly, being a switch-handed weapon doesn't matter because you always just freely take a hand off, do the hand thing, freely put the hand back.
:facepalm
yeah, all right. I was attaching 'switch handed' to 'freely put the hand back' as its bonus, because freely take a hand off is default for everything. Not sure why I have consistent problems decoding Mark's writing style. Probably just missing context for rules he's referring to and I haven't seen.
But anyway, that's...decidedly less useful. Just a standard two handed weapon until you cast, and then its one-handed or you burn the action anyway. And that takes up a weapon property.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yah I'm not thrilled about either. I keep thinking they need a swift action or something for some things which shouldn't take up a full action but then again that defeats the purpose of their simplified action economy. I'll see how it works in play I guess.
Yah I'm not thrilled about either.
Yeah, that's going to be in my comments for sure when we playtest. I have a hard time imagining putting a hand on a weapon takes the same time as attacking or moving 25'. I can't think of a in [or out] of game reason for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if 3 actions a round isn't about the amount of time they take exclusively, but about how much mental thought it takes to do the action without risk of doing something bad? Grabbing the hilt of a sword while moving into position and planning your attack against an enemy could be one round's worth of mental energy?
Edit: It also seems like this is the perfect thing for their to be a fighter class feat for, as they train with their weapon enough to grab a two-handed weapon again as a part of some other action, either a move or an attack.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A poster on that other thread offered an explanation centered on the idea that you were not just standing still and putting your hand back where it was, but whirling around while getting your weapon back into an efficient 2-handed grip. Which is admittedly more difficult than letting your hand drop from your handle.
And I guess the bastard sword's balance would be designed so that you can still use it with only one hand, whereas the greatsword's balance would be designed at being most efficient 2-handed, and thus too unbalanced to even use it 1-handed.