| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
probably can't use blackguard, as that is WotC IP. But they already have names for some of these. LE is a Tyrant.
probably can't use blackguard, as that is WotC IP. But they already have names for some of these. LE is a Tyrant.
Blackguard is in the d20 SRD, so Paizo could use it if they wanted to.
But I agree that Tyrant is more likely here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, blackguard is something of a general term. I don't see how they could make it IP anymore than they could the word "wizard" or "human."
It is also a prestige class for a lawful good paladin turned evil. Paizo never opted to use anything like that.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like the Witch is the Pick-a-List prepared caster after all.
Dhampir looks pretty cool as well! Can't wait to see Shadow Dancer
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*sadly hands Midnightoker a jar of cookies*
Congratulations for ya XD
I’m glad Oracles aren’t deity locked anymore either.
I hope the dedicated Prepared Occult caster, when they do arrive, is everything you've dreamt of Rysky <3
The oracle changes look AWESOME. So excited for Storm Oracle!
|
*sadly hands Midnightoker a jar of cookies*
Congratulations for ya XD
I’m glad Oracles aren’t deity locked anymore either.
I hope the dedicated Prepared Occult caster, when they do arrive, is everything you've dreamt of Rysky <3
The oracle changes look AWESOME. So excited for Storm Oracle!
Thankies ^w^
And Ye!
Where is all this stuff being confirmed?
Where is all this stuff being confirmed?
https://www.alliance-games.com/downloads/243.pdf
Written by Mark Seifter, made available this morning for us all to read! Very cool stuff, including the whole Dhampir entry. :)
Where is all this stuff being confirmed?https://www.alliance-games.com/downloads/243.pdf
Written by Mark Seifter, made available this morning for us all to read! Very cool stuff, including the whole Dhampir entry. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could not help but notice “Eldritch Archer” as one of the archetypes. If it’s “Arcane Archer” but for all traditions, that might be cool. Especially if they retain the Imbue Area ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could not help but notice “Eldritch Archer” as one of the archetypes. If it’s “Arcane Archer” but for all traditions, that might be cool. Especially if they retain the Imbue Area ability.
I'm not sure about Imbue Area, but it is usable with all four traditions. And since it was included in a list of other 'old-school archetypes' I'm sure that it is the new version of Arcane Archer. I'm really excited about this.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could not help but notice “Eldritch Archer” as one of the archetypes. If it’s “Arcane Archer” but for all traditions, that might be cool. Especially if they retain the Imbue Area ability.I'm not sure about Imbue Area, but it is usable with all four traditions. And since it was included in a list of other 'old-school archetypes' I'm sure that it is the new version of Arcane Archer. I'm really excited about this.
This really has me wondering if some Spellstrike or magus type class feats slip into this book so the magus as it was is fully realized, kinda how you could make the old swashbuckler with Fighter, and eventually they release the magus as the master of the blending.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to the Witch, I just hope Cackle was changed. Either removed, made so it actually does something aside from change a couple traits, or made less prominent in the class description. In the playtest, the formatting made it look as important as a Rage is to a Barbarian.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where is all this stuff being confirmed?https://www.alliance-games.com/downloads/243.pdf
Written by Mark Seifter, made available this morning for us all to read! Very cool stuff, including the whole Dhampir entry. :)
Ooh, looks like 17th level ancestry feats are starting to roll out now, maybe they'll flesh out the higher level general feats a bit too.
This really has me wondering if some Spellstrike or magus type class feats slip into this book so the magus as it was is fully realized, kinda how you could make the old swashbuckler with Fighter, and eventually they release the magus as the master of the blending.I could not help but notice “Eldritch Archer” as one of the archetypes. If it’s “Arcane Archer” but for all traditions, that might be cool. Especially if they retain the Imbue Area ability.I'm not sure about Imbue Area, but it is usable with all four traditions. And since it was included in a list of other 'old-school archetypes' I'm sure that it is the new version of Arcane Archer. I'm really excited about this.
I’m starting to think this is the case. Given kingmaker, it would sense to push an archetype out as a compromise, see if that satisfies everyone, and if not plan to circle back and do a full class later.
Hmm given that archetype is "Eldritch Archer" and not "Arcane Archer". I would say that there is a decent chance of it not having Imbue Arrow and instead be the first look at a potential Magus.
Then again, it did say it works for every tradition, and so having "Arcane" in the name would be kind of weird.
I'm kind of hoping it's both. I was always disappointed the ranged magi archeyptes didn't pick up Imbue Arrow.
That turns an aoe into a single target spell. Which, don’t get me wrong, is cool and useful, but I’d like an ability to shoot a burning hands at a target and have the 15’ come start from them.
Granted, it’s pretty limited in use (most spells you’d probably be better off just casting the spell), so they may have opted to not bother with the word count for something so niche.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to the Witch, I just hope Cackle was changed. Either removed, made so it actually does something aside from change a couple traits, or made less prominent in the class description. In the playtest, the formatting made it look as important as a Rage is to a Barbarian.
Well, this thread got a response thanking it's participants for ideas on the matter, so they at least acknowledged its a problem, and that this "coven as cackle" solution was giving them ideas.
Whether that's what they did, or went with something else is hard to say, but I'm willing to hope for it.
Has anyone compiled a list of known archetype names yet?
Far as I know the only three sources are the product page, APG playtest retrospective, and the newer preview that just recently came out. If anyone knows another source that would be cool.
Four new multiclass archetypes, cavalier, dragon disciple, shadowdancer, vigilante, familiar master, iron wall, Eldritch Archer, pirate, archeologist, assassin, Archer, dandy, diva, armored sentinel, and beastmaster.
I should also note that the gmt preview does say there is over 40 new archetypes, but it was written before things were totally finalized (release date is wrong and devs have said that dhampir has changed a bit from what was shown).
Oh cool! I always watch those on YouTube as I'm not always available to watch the initial stream. Looking forward to watching that!
The Band of Bravos stream is showing off a bunch of APG stuff.
Dandy and Diva Archetypes being the latest.
Any details you could tell us about those two? I've been trying to watch the latest VOD, but things keep coming up for me.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any details you could tell us about those two? I've been trying to watch the latest VOD, but things keep coming up for me.The Band of Bravos stream is showing off a bunch of APG stuff.
Dandy and Diva Archetypes being the latest.
Nope sorry, haven't been able to watch it myself either, this info comes from James Jacobs who is playing it (he gave Shensen the Diva archetype).
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care what is in it just so long as it is complete data on whatever is in it. I buy the PDF and hard copies from here and I have to buy the PDF again for Hero lab.... I am learning not to make mistakes but Hero Lab keeps me right. If I get into Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds I have to buy it again! This is getting expensive.
Stop putting out products that are not complete Paizo.
Blaming Paizo because you are spending money at other companies is weird.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... if they publish something in one book they should never expand on it in a future book?
That sounds awful.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
How are they not complete? Are you wanting Paizo to make every VTT give you a copy for free within their system for buying from Paizo or what’s going on? Paizo doesn’t own those other companies.Okay, How many books do I need to make a Hellknight?
World Guide and Character Guide for Hellknight.
If you put something in a book make it complete
As to the other companies I am quite aware Paizo does not own them... Don't muddy the water with talk of free copies of PDFs for VTT. My complaint is having to buy 2 books to complete a build. WHICH also increases my cost with other programs. No reason for this.
Uh, you made no mention of builds in your first post, your whole complaint was about having to buy a copy from Paizo and then from the VTT. No Muddying from me.
As others point out, never expanding on content is a horrible idea, and Archives of Nethys does a wonderful job letting you hook your ideas and mechanics all together.
With the description of the Assassin archetype, I don't think we're getting a slayer any time soon.
|
With the description of the Assassin archetype, I don't think we're getting a slayer any time soon.
Until we got the playtest for the Investigator, would have told you that the new archetype system makes the old hybrid classes kinda redundant.
But, since they are rolling with them anyway, I don't think we need to worry about classes being ruled out by archetypes as a whole.
As we saw with the Investigator, they seem to be giving the classes more of their own depth and personality, rather than just a rogue with the ranger archetype thrown on top.
That said, in the short term, maybe a Rogue with the ranger and assassin archetypes will capture everything you need!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
With the description of the Assassin archetype, I don't think we're getting a slayer any time soon.
I agree, but if we are being fair, the Slayer was really just a fix for the terrible core rogue, which isn't a problem in P2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean in a lot of ways 2e ranger is pretty close to 1e slayer, isn't it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. Slayer, along with brawler, is probably the most flavorless of all the 1E classes, both being basically extremely intense archetypes.
I agree, but if we are being fair, the Slayer was really just a fix for the terrible core rogue, which isn't a problem in P2.
The Swashbuckler was pretty much just a fix for how bad that combat style was in PF1 too.
That said, I agree with Gaulin. Stripping away the spells and making Hunt the core mechanic arguably makes the PF2 Ranger closer to the PF1 Slayer than its namesake.
Might be more accurate to say that we're probably never getting the Ranger in PF2.
Yeah. Slayer, along with brawler, is probably the most flavorless of all the 1E classes
I'd give that one to the Fighter. Rogue and Wizard probably get honorable mentions too.
Rogue I consider mechanically unfulfilling - at least the general idea like, can use a class.
Wizard, while I desperately wish it had actual cool class features - well, it's a wizard. They're the magic guys. That's *something* while slayer and brawler are just "this same class but with different mechanics and no special flavor".
But yeah, flavorless classes in general have been an issue.
With the description of the Assassin archetype, I don't think we're getting a slayer any time soon.Until we got the playtest for the Investigator, would have told you that the new archetype system makes the old hybrid classes kinda redundant.
But, since they are rolling with them anyway, I don't think we need to worry about classes being ruled out by archetypes as a whole.
As we saw with the Investigator, they seem to be giving the classes more of their own depth and personality, rather than just a rogue with the ranger archetype thrown on top.
That said, in the short term, maybe a Rogue with the ranger and assassin archetypes will capture everything you need!
Oh, no, I didn't mean it was unnecessary. I'm actually the opposite; I think all classes can be moved to PF2 if they find a good mechanical hook to explore. I meant that the Slayer's main mechanics seem to have been appropriated by the Assassin archetype.
If we do get a full class, and we may well eventually, I would expect that class to make an even fuller use of the archetype's mechanic of marking a target and getting additional damage/weapon effects/status effects when attacking that target.
The investigator is a great example to bring up, since it hardly feels like the same class as PF1, aside from the "Take the Case" emphasizing the "On a case" qualification to investigator talents. I don't object to taking the class in new directions, but I do think it's important to acknowledge that that's what happened. This is opposed to Oracles and Witches, which attempted to be slightly more faithful to the PF1 source, or the swashbuckler, which found an even better way to feel like what it tried to do in PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, but if we are being fair, the Slayer was really just a fix for the terrible core rogue, which isn't a problem in P2.The Swashbuckler was pretty much just a fix for how bad that combat style was in PF1 too.
That said, I agree with Gaulin. Stripping away the spells and making Hunt the core mechanic arguably makes the PF2 Ranger closer to the PF1 Slayer than its namesake.
Might be more accurate to say that we're probably never getting the Ranger in PF2.
Yeah. Slayer, along with brawler, is probably the most flavorless of all the 1E classesI'd give that one to the Fighter. Rogue and Wizard probably get honorable mentions too.
Spells Ranger *is* confirmed for the APG, Focus Spells I imagine, so we're getting the ranger?
