Advanced Player's Guide playtest announced for October!


Paizo Products

201 to 250 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, the Ranger doesn't have favored enemy or spells anymore, so the Inquisitor doesn't require "solo tactics."

It does have Hunt Prey, which fills some of the same flavor as favored enemy. That's what I would look for, not a direct translation of the ability to PF2, but something to update it into the new paradigm while retaining similar flavor.

What form that would ultimately take, I'm not certain.

The Ranger actually does have a Favored Enemy Feat. Just for the record.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Witch, Oracle, Swashbuckler, and Investigator are back!

60 Archetypes.

Multiple new Ancestries and Heritages, Planar Scions, Dhampir, Changelings, Orcs, Kobolds, and more

(from the Gencon Twitch)

I have not looked particularly deeply again at the rules, but making the swashbuckler a class absolutely seems like the promises of crazy options and customizablity with this new 2e system have failed horribly. It's not particularly hard to imagine the swashbuckler in 1E as a fighter archetype. This is my playtest feedback look at your stated design principles. If I remember a few other posts warpriests were made into a cleric archetype and they certainly are a lot more distinctive then the fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I can imagine a lot of things as "an alternative version of an existing class"- Magus as an arcane thesis, Inquisitor as a variant of Cleric -or- Champion, etc.

But people like classes more than subclasses or archetypes, so more classes is more fun for more people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What do you think our odds are of guns in the book?

Liberty's Edge

6 people marked this as a favorite.

100% if Gunslinger is now part of Swashbuckler (as, say, a Class Path) or an Archetype in the book. 0% otherwise. They'll include some way to use them along with them, I'm sure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Deadmanwalking wrote:
100% if Gunslinger is now part of Swashbuckler (as, say, a Class Path) or an Archetype in the book. O% otherwise. They'll include some way to use them along with them, I'm sure.

Honestly? Having “the Deed class” makes a lot of sense - and it gets me guns back sooner.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I figure guns are either in this book, the "Ultimate Combat" analogue if they are doing one, or at the latest the meta-region book which contains Alkenstar.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'm hoping for guns sooner rather than later, since they're very common in my home-brew setting.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think it's pretty likely that gunslinger and swashbuckler could be the same class now. They basically operated on the same chassis before, and occupied incredibly similar thematic space. I don't see why PF2 would need both classes, and I also doubt Paizo would choose not to port the gunslinger over in some fashion, when it was such an iconic part of 1st edition.

Guns are kind of a hot button issue in fantasy, so it also makes sense to make the gun-using class capable of doing a few other things. That way you don't devote resources to developing a class that will be banned at a number of tables because their weapon of choice doesn't exist in the setting.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
That description of the flaws of the PF1 swashbuckler suggests a lot of reasons for Paizo to revisit that class and make it better in PF2.

Well to get rid of the flaws, you need a backhoe, some explosives and... well, I'm not sure what's left other than a name: I wonder if there'd going to be enough left of the PF1 class to appeal to those that liked it.

Vidmaster7 wrote:
That's the problem they couldn't get the Kobolds to promise to be on best behavior. nor could they get them to focus for more then 10 seconds at a time.
Are you sure you aren't talking about goblins? :P

WELL! We are still cuter!


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
keftiu wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
100% if Gunslinger is now part of Swashbuckler (as, say, a Class Path) or an Archetype in the book. O% otherwise. They'll include some way to use them along with them, I'm sure.
Honestly? Having “the Deed class” makes a lot of sense - and it gets me guns back sooner.

According to JJ there will at least be an example of a gun on an NPC in part 2 of Age of Ashes. Hoping that we get playable guns sooner rather than later as well.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Mark Moreland wrote:
Joana wrote:
Rysky wrote:
It'd probably be Freiya if I have to guess, but then I'm not happy since design wise I love her, but then I love all of them.
They specifically said Feiya was safe, so that leave Quinn, Lirianne, and Alahazra and her huge hat.
What would you say if I told you that we've already illustrated the new iconic and you've all seen them? And no, we're not updating an existing NPC to iconic status.

The unnamed Antipaladin is the new iconic ?

Or are you talking about the red dragon on the cover of the CRB ?

Or one of the kobolds on the cover of the Bestiary. Unless the troll hails from Kaer Maga and becomes the new Oracle iconic :-D


7 people marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Mark Moreland wrote:
Joana wrote:
Rysky wrote:
It'd probably be Freiya if I have to guess, but then I'm not happy since design wise I love her, but then I love all of them.
They specifically said Feiya was safe, so that leave Quinn, Lirianne, and Alahazra and her huge hat.
What would you say if I told you that we've already illustrated the new iconic and you've all seen them? And no, we're not updating an existing NPC to iconic status.

The unnamed Antipaladin is the new iconic ?

Or are you talking about the red dragon on the cover of the CRB ?

Or one of the kobolds on the cover of the Bestiary. Unless the troll hails from Kaer Maga and becomes the new Oracle iconic :-D

Red Dragon is the new Swashbuckler Iconic. We’ve cracked the code.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
WELL! We are still cuter!

You're not really setting the bar very high there...


7 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
WELL! We are still cuter!
You're not really setting the bar very high there...

I have a practically infinite str score I'll set the bar wherever I WANT!


Pun-Pun wrote:
graystone wrote:
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
WELL! We are still cuter!
You're not really setting the bar very high there...
I have a practically infinite str score I'll set the bar wherever I WANT!

As low as that bar is, you'd better be able to breathe underwater too... [or learn to dig]


3 people marked this as a favorite.
graystone wrote:
Pun-Pun wrote:
graystone wrote:
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
WELL! We are still cuter!
You're not really setting the bar very high there...
I have a practically infinite str score I'll set the bar wherever I WANT!
As low as that bar is, you'd better be able to breathe underwater too... [or learn to dig]

I think we both already know I can do both those things very well o_O


Pun-Pun wrote:
graystone wrote:
Pun-Pun wrote:
graystone wrote:
Definitely NOT a certain Kobold wrote:
WELL! We are still cuter!
You're not really setting the bar very high there...
I have a practically infinite str score I'll set the bar wherever I WANT!
As low as that bar is, you'd better be able to breathe underwater too... [or learn to dig]
I think we both already know I can do both those things very well o_O

Cool, cool... let me know when you've found that bar: here is your shovel!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Misko wrote:
According to JJ there will at least be an example of a gun on an NPC in part 2 of Age of Ashes.

OK, that settles it IMHO, they wouldn't put one in AoA if they weren't already working on guns. And JJ followed the statement on AoA firearms NPC with "Player facing rules for firearms will need to wait a bit longer" not standard "we will certainly release complete PC-usable rules at some point in future". If they are doing guns, they will certainly design Swashbuckler with them in mind, even if core Gun mechanics are in Archetype (there's plenty of ways a Class could facilitate Archetype usage, including Duelist Archetype or other combat styles, so I think such Archetypes may even be core to Swashbuckler if not necessarily required).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Davor Firetusk wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Witch, Oracle, Swashbuckler, and Investigator are back!

60 Archetypes.

Multiple new Ancestries and Heritages, Planar Scions, Dhampir, Changelings, Orcs, Kobolds, and more

(from the Gencon Twitch)

I have not looked particularly deeply again at the rules, but making the swashbuckler a class absolutely seems like the promises of crazy options and customizablity with this new 2e system have failed horribly. It's not particularly hard to imagine the swashbuckler in 1E as a fighter archetype. This is my playtest feedback look at your stated design principles. If I remember a few other posts warpriests were made into a cleric archetype and they certainly are a lot more distinctive then the fighter.

Can I ask if you have read the core book and the lists of what is due to be reduced?

There are loads of feats for fighter where you wield a weapon in one hand with the other empty including ones where you parry

So you can already create a “swashbuckler” using fighter feats. No archetype needed. And fighters can pick acrobatics as a trained skill or get it easily

Then the next book will have aldori swordlord as a archetype (a type of duelling character) and the APG has listed duelist . So the premise hasn’t failed at all it seems

Swashbuckler the class seems like it would be very different and involve some kind of bravado. If they go with weapon pathways then it could be rapier/duelist, guns and bows (for Robin Hood style)

I get uncomfortable about the clamour for guns especially as I prefer fantasy to be escapism from the real world where they are (too) prevalent . But that is approaching a line
They are marginal in this setting so shouldn’t be too high on the list in my view.

But if one is showing up in age of ashes then I assume they will come sooner than later. That said it is just going to be an NPC block so won’t have to reflect what they look like

(To be honest guns just seem like a case of applying the appropriate weapon attributes and loading times and be done with it, as touch AC is not a thing and can’t be with degrees of success)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Quandary wrote:
Rysky wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:

Why would the Shaman be a spontaneous caster? That class is mostly a prepared caster in PF1.

It just feels like how they would go, I started thinking that after the overhaul to Bard.

Edit: Also I always thought they were a spontaneous caster in 1e so bias in mindset right there lol

:-) ...FYI, Shaman's casting was Prep except it basicaly had Domain Slots which it could spontaneously from various Spirit lists (which it could swap between), including Metamagicking or otherwise casting lower level Spirit spell in higher level Spirit Spell slot. So it had an element of Spontaneity in regards to those (more than Cleric Domains), but was mostly Prep in terms of majority of it's spells.

But spontaeneous vs prep aside, I question why they would be associated with exact same tradition as Druid in first place. Their list was clearly pushed towards Witch or Cleric with spells that were way off standard Druid tropes of elemental blasts and 'overt' effects, it was much more invisible spiritual effects and the like. Elsewhere, responding to discussion on Essences, I proposed Shamans using unique Spirit+Matter tradition (along with Occultist and Medium, who have similar dynamic with Spirits/Implements) with "Matter" of course including many immaterial effects like Force and other Transmutations etc, but even barring that interpretation I think something like Occult would be better base, of course Spirits tending to expand oevre in various directions off-list.

I do definitely see Witch going Occult, which is a further reason why I see Shaman having distinct tradition as a good thing (it would basically be half-way between Druid and Witch/Cleric, which also describes it's 1E list).

My reasoning was going off thematics, not mechanics or the Essences. Shamans are about nature and spirits, so they fit closer to Druids/Primal than the others.

Prepared any could be interesting, but I rather that be the Arcanist (renamed most likely lol)


I agree that PF1 Swashbucklers and Gunslingers would make sense as the same class, though it was useful having them separate as it made it easier to ban guns (Despite being a fan of the Bolt Ace). With swashbucklers being about mobility, I’m wondering if that will still be the case, as gunslingers obviously benefit far less from mobility than a primarily melee class.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Being on the move and away from combatants is a definite boon for Gunslingers, Shot on the Run style shootin would be popular.

But yeah I can see Gunslinger's Deeds and Panache and other non gun abilities being combined with Swashbuckler and then all the gun stuff being relegated to an Archetype.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The gun deeds could just become ranged option feats for the Swashbuckler that work with any ranged weapon. Like there isn't a reason why you shouldn't be able to do Utility Shot with a bow.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ramanujan wrote:
I agree that PF1 Swashbucklers and Gunslingers would make sense as the same class, though it was useful having them separate as it made it easier to ban guns (Despite being a fan of the Bolt Ace). With swashbucklers being about mobility, I’m wondering if that will still be the case, as gunslingers obviously benefit far less from mobility than a primarily melee class.

Depends on how they end up making them. Early Firearms had rather short range compared to alternatives 1e. If they want to fuse Gunslinger into Swashbuckler, high mobility may actually be needed where as crossbows can keep at a range of 60ft and 120ft respectively. This would have guns occupy a mid range reach that would be good in melee, but easily out done if the enemy switches to ranged or decides to high tail it; making high mobility almost a necessity.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:

Being on the move and away from combatants is a definite boon for Gunslingers, Shot on the Run style shootin would be popular.

But yeah I can see Gunslinger's Deeds and Panache and other non gun abilities being combined with Swashbuckler and then all the gun stuff being relegated to an Archetype.

Or perhaps even as a class path, like how the warpriest was folded into Cleric?

Carry on,

--C.


Psiphyre wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Being on the move and away from combatants is a definite boon for Gunslingers, Shot on the Run style shootin would be popular.

But yeah I can see Gunslinger's Deeds and Panache and other non gun abilities being combined with Swashbuckler and then all the gun stuff being relegated to an Archetype.

Or perhaps even as a class path, like how the warpriest was folded into Cleric?

Carry on,

--C.

That is what I would want to see which I think i mentioned. Swords, bows and guns as swashbucklering options

Probably charisma as key stat for all as grit with wisdom never fully made sense to me (I am sure there is a good reason )

I do hope they make the early fire arms really poor if not all but useless past a certain range. Even as late as the 18th century there were ranges you simply didn’t even bother shooting from no matter how good you were

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Psiphyre wrote:
Rysky wrote:

Being on the move and away from combatants is a definite boon for Gunslingers, Shot on the Run style shootin would be popular.

But yeah I can see Gunslinger's Deeds and Panache and other non gun abilities being combined with Swashbuckler and then all the gun stuff being relegated to an Archetype.

Or perhaps even as a class path, like how the warpriest was folded into Cleric?

Carry on,

--C.

An Archetype that would make guns available to all classes would replace a big number of PF1 archetypes. Which is why I think it is more likely in PF2 than something exclusive to a class.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I could easily see it being both a Class Path and an Archetype. The two aren't mutually exclusive, after all.

I do think there'll definitely be an archetype.

Sovereign Court

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Considering Modern Gunslingers in popular media, tend to be fairly agile and of course full of "Bullet Time" actions. The Swashbuckler is actually quite a perfect fit for the modern gunslinger.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I agree that PF1e Swashbuckler can easily be remade with existing options in 2e.

I don't think PF2e Swashbuckler will look very much like PF1e Swashbuckler mechanically, though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
An Archetype that would make guns available to all classes would replace a big number of PF1 archetypes. Which is why I think it is more likely in PF2 than something exclusive to a class.

I kind of hope there isn't an archetype to make guns work

"Spend X feats to let you use this weapon" just puts us right back into the horrible PF1 baggage that PF2 was supposed to be able to get away from.


I'm sort of curious how you would structure a "uses unusual weapons" archetype. Would you actually grant proficiency past expert through the archetype, or would you peg proficiency to like "martial weapon proficiency"?

I mean guns are advanced weapons, a thing only the fighter and people with a feat for "treat as martial for purpose of proficiency" can excel at now.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Squiggit wrote:
The Raven Black wrote:
An Archetype that would make guns available to all classes would replace a big number of PF1 archetypes. Which is why I think it is more likely in PF2 than something exclusive to a class.

I kind of hope there isn't an archetype to make guns work

"Spend X feats to let you use this weapon" just puts us right back into the horrible PF1 baggage that PF2 was supposed to be able to get away from.

Well Fighter is the only one Trained in Advanced Weapons, which I'm guessing is what Firearms would fall under so everyone else would still need to spend feats.

I rather have an archetype than a class since Gunslinger is just way too niche.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

For guns as someone mentioned earlier, will probably be the rarity system used with guns as uncommon weapons. I imagine there would be rules to make them common or rare in homebrew settings.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

An archetype would also mean that your gunslinger can't use guns for the first level of play.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
An archetype would also mean that your gunslinger can't use guns for the first level of play.

I wouldn't at all be surprised if there is a general "gun-user" archetype anyone can take, but then also a Gunslinger class archetype for Swashbuckler.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think a gun archetype will be how you get guns, it will just have options to let any class be better at using guns. I suspect guns will be uncommon but not advanced. I mean part of the point of guns is that they require less training than like a composite longbow, etc. So they shouldn't have a more difficult level of proficiency.


Rysky wrote:

Witch, Oracle, Swashbuckler, and Investigator are back!

60 Archetypes.

Multiple new Ancestries and Heritages, Planar Scions, Dhampir, Changelings, Orcs, Kobolds, and more

(from the Gencon Twitch)

I am curious if the swashbuckler going in if that just takes the place of the gunslinger. If it adds in the grit/gun stuff anything else could be done by adding in some multiclass feats it would seem.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean guns are advanced weapons

Given that rarity is now a game mechanic I wouldn't be surprised to see guns as uncommon simple rather than advanced.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean guns are advanced weapons
Given that rarity is now a game mechanic I wouldn't be surprised to see guns as uncommon simple rather than advanced.

I think advanced is less about "how hard they are to use" here and more about maintenance, reloading, and ammunition being much more involved than other weapons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

By that logic crossbows should be advanced. The only thing that makes a weapon Advanced in PF2 is being better than martial weapons.

Dataphiles

Arachnofiend wrote:
By that logic crossbows should be advanced. The only thing that makes a weapon Advanced in PF2 is being better than martial weapons.

But guns are better than martial weapons. It's why police carry guns rather than longswords now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Guns aren't better than longswords in a setting where you can run 25 feet in the same amount of time it takes for a bullet to travel to its target.

For the record, I'm not saying guns won't be advanced. I'm saying that if they are, it's because they're a clear upgrade over bows if you invest into the proficiency.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I suspect we'll see something similar to PF1e, where pistols/muskets are martial weapons and revolvers/rifles are advanced weapons. I don't think there's any reason to assume all guns will be the same proficiency level any more than all swords are.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Chetna Wavari wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
By that logic crossbows should be advanced. The only thing that makes a weapon Advanced in PF2 is being better than martial weapons.
But guns are better than martial weapons. It's why police carry guns rather than longswords now.

No no no. That’s a logical fallacy. Police can carry nightsticks and spray mace, but that doesn’t make them better than longswords in a lethal sense.

Modern guns have far better accuracy and lethal potential than early firearms, but in a close quarters fight, about 5’ distance, a gun becomes much less useful than a knife. A modern gun shines in its range, fire power, and rate of fire.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love that lineup, except for the investigator which I always felt should not have been a character class in the first place; it makes much more sense as an archetype, and I just love how those can be accessed by all classes in 2E. That way a city watch captain could actually be an investigator who specializes in homicides. Likewise a rogue-type character could work as a freelancing "private eye" and yet be mechanically an investigator. Likewise, I don't think we need a class called "cavalier" when the new 2E archetype system could handle them more elegantly and enable rangers, champions and fighters (for example) to work as "warlord-ish" leader types.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Way the PF2 classes are built, a class is a specific set of mechanics with accompanying features and feats. If you want the set, you have to get the class. If a toned down version is enough for your needs, the MC dedication will work.

The Inspiration mechanics will be what defines the Investigator. Hexes for the Witch. Curses and revelations for the Oracle. Panache for the Swashbuckler.

At least that's my take on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am a bit worried that the presence of the Investigator means that a lot of great skill feats are going to be locked behind a specific class (and not, y'know, Legendary in the appropriate skill). We've already seen this problem begin with Hidden Paragon.

201 to 250 of 295 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Paizo Products / Advanced Player's Guide playtest announced for October! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.