| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope that archaic stays optional. Speaking from real-life examples, Kevlar might be relatively effective at stopping bullets but knives and and other sharp, pointy things (like arrows of all things) tend to slice right through Kevlar. So...
I also hope so and it seems quite likely. Because even when we assume that it would be realistic, it's certainly not fun for everyone. A lot of people will want their Barbarian with a big, low-tech axe or something. Not to mention the problems that would cause for monsters - when bloody Excalibur has problems causing damage, why don't the teeth of a wolf?
All in all, this way people who want this aspect can have it and the rest don't have to worry about it. Best of booth worlds.
I hope that archaic stays optional. Speaking from real-life examples, Kevlar might be relatively effective at stopping bullets but knives and and other sharp, pointy things (like arrows of all things) tend to slice right through Kevlar. So...I also hope so and it seems quite likely. Because even when we assume that it would be realistic, it's certainly not fun for everyone. A lot of people will want their Barbarian with a big, low-tech axe or something. Not to mention the problems that would cause for monsters - when bloody Excalibur has problems causing damage, why don't the teeth of a wolf?
All in all, this way people who want this aspect can have it and the rest don't have to worry about it. Best of booth worlds.
There are weapons with the analogue trait assumably for this reason
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are weapons with the analogue trait assumably for this reasonI hope that archaic stays optional. Speaking from real-life examples, Kevlar might be relatively effective at stopping bullets but knives and and other sharp, pointy things (like arrows of all things) tend to slice right through Kevlar. So...I also hope so and it seems quite likely. Because even when we assume that it would be realistic, it's certainly not fun for everyone. A lot of people will want their Barbarian with a big, low-tech axe or something. Not to mention the problems that would cause for monsters - when bloody Excalibur has problems causing damage, why don't the teeth of a wolf?
All in all, this way people who want this aspect can have it and the rest don't have to worry about it. Best of booth worlds.
But you would have to either entirely throw out PF2's nearly 300 weapons or make a little section about "upgrading" them with the analogue trait (which the optional rule will probably do). In which case you are just solving an artificial problem. And it doesn't solve the problem of monster claws definitely not being made out of modern materials.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But you would have to either entirely throw out PF2's nearly 300 weapons or make a little section about "upgrading" them with the analogue trait (which the optional rule will probably do). In which case you are just solving an artificial problem. And it doesn't solve the problem of monster claws definitely not being made out of modern materials.There are weapons with the analogue trait assumably for this reasonI hope that archaic stays optional. Speaking from real-life examples, Kevlar might be relatively effective at stopping bullets but knives and and other sharp, pointy things (like arrows of all things) tend to slice right through Kevlar. So...I also hope so and it seems quite likely. Because even when we assume that it would be realistic, it's certainly not fun for everyone. A lot of people will want their Barbarian with a big, low-tech axe or something. Not to mention the problems that would cause for monsters - when bloody Excalibur has problems causing damage, why don't the teeth of a wolf?
All in all, this way people who want this aspect can have it and the rest don't have to worry about it. Best of booth worlds.
Bullet and laser proof alien monsters with claws made of some material that cuts steel like butter is a trope of the genre, idk. I'm personally fine with this. Barbarians in PF2 are using the state-of-the-art technologies, not sure why it would be different in the future
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would be quite sufficient to write some distinguishing game rules. (And yeah, as someone with an electrical engineering background, I'm going to say that not only is it not technically correct to call an axe analog, it's also vacuously idiotic. Like of course the axe doesn't use electricity. Why would it? So I'm left with, what was the point of this trait?)
Both Powered and Analog should be traits. And "Analog" as a trait is useful for any ability or mechanic that interacts with analog weapons, as that one word is easier and clearer to write out than "Weapons without the powered trait".
Think of it as the number of hands a weapon uses. They could have simply used 1+ and 2, leaving 1 as the assumed default with no entry there, but specifying 1 handed weapons are 1 handed gives them a bucket to be sorted into.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what non-electrically-powered weapons have to do here...but then again, I don't think axes are low-tech. Being a home owner I can think of all kinds of uses for an axe...(that don't involve murder durder). So I don't think the analog trait actually serves a purpose. Better if the electrically-powered weapons simply had a "powered" trait. That would be quite sufficient to write some distinguishing game rules. (And yeah, as someone with an electrical engineering background, I'm going to say that not only is it not technically correct to call an axe analog, it's also vacuously idiotic. Like of course the axe doesn't use electricity. Why would it? So I'm left with, what was the point of this trait?)
It is for this reason I mentioned that barbarians are using the state-of-the-art technologies of their time in using axes, and especially swords. Armor as well. I don't see why a barbarian would shirk the current form of weapons because they are "high tech" when they used weapons which were high tech for their time. Seems silly to me
***Edit***
Oh and on the analogue trait, it describes weapons immune to stuff such has hacking. Theoretically there are non-analogue axes in Starfinder with blades made of plasma or what have you
Both Powered and Analog should be traits. And "Analog" as a trait is useful for any ability or mechanic that interacts with analog weapons, as that one word is easier and clearer to write out than "Weapons without the powered trait".Why? Why not use the default assumption of, weapons without the "powered" trait are not powered? Can we not rely on a modicum of common sense? (Although...I am fond as saying that, 'there's nothing so uncommon as common sense...')
Think of it as the number of hands a weapon uses. They could have simply used 1+ and 2, leaving 1 as the assumed default with no entry there, but specifying 1 handed weapons are 1 handed gives them a bucket to be sorted into.This is a false dichotomy. A better comparison is "shove" vs "not shove." Should we have "shoveless," "sweepless," "forcefulless," etc. traits? What do negative traits accomplish? If a weapon has a trait it has that thing. We shouldn't add traits based on what qualities weapons don't possess. If we did, the number of traits any given weapon would need would rather aggressively blow up to infinity.
***Edit***
Oh and on the analogue trait, it describes weapons immune to stuff such has hacking. Theoretically there are non-analogue axes in Starfinder with blades made of plasma or what have youAgain, I think this is better served with a default assumption. Weapons cannot be hacked unless they possess traits x, y, and z. Mission accomplished without having to go back and add "analog" to every weapon in PF2...
...and honestly from a game design perspective, I would not put in place rules that let players "hack" weapons. That sounds unnecessarily fussy, unfun when used against the players, a total time-suck for the GM, and a slippery slope for the meta. Again, common sense...
AnimatedPaper has it absolutely right. It has nothing to do with (not) needing common sense, default assumptions or anything of the sort. Doing things this way just makes it a hundred times easier and more efficient to reference things.
If you don't have an "analog" trait, then every time you want to reference such an item you have to write something along the lines of "an item without the powered trait", rather than just "an analogue item". When you have a book with several hundred pages, that saves a ton of space and improves readability as well. Especially when you get into more complex scenarios where you have to reference several things at once.
Jamming electronic weapons is a time honored mechanic in futuristic games...? It is certainly hardly any different than disarming. More over this is a game made in physical books and they created the trait already? Why argue with me when I'm stating the trait exists in the field test material and a likely reason why it does exist?
Think of it as the number of hands a weapon uses. They could have simply used 1+ and 2, leaving 1 as the assumed default with no entry there, but specifying 1 handed weapons are 1 handed gives them a bucket to be sorted into.This is a false dichotomy. A better comparison is "shove" vs "not shove." Should we have "shoveless," "sweepless," "forcefulless," etc. traits? What do negative traits accomplish? If a weapon has a trait it has that thing. We shouldn't add traits based on what qualities weapons don't possess. If we did, the number of traits any given weapon would need would rather aggressively blow up to infinity.
Sometimes traits do define what something doesn't do. Some other examples:
* Unarmed - the weapon cannot be disarmed.* Apex - you can't get the ability score increase from more than one of them.
AnimatedPaper has it absolutely right. It has nothing to do with (not) needing common sense, default assumptions...This simply isn't how databases actually work. (Or logic for that matter... Or indexing systems either...)
You look for what you want. Not what you don't want. You exclude what you don't want.
So literally, find me everything "NOT Powered". #howstuffworks
Ever heard of tri-state logic?
True and False are opposites, right? So everything that is not True must be False...
Until you get to databases.
...and honestly from a game design perspective, I would not put in place rules that let players "hack" weapons. That sounds unnecessarily fussy, unfun when used against the players, a total time-suck for the GM, and a slippery slope for the meta. Again, common sense...
You mean, like this? It's obviously game breaking to do that?
Another example is every single Mass Effect game...
But to bring up what the traits actually say again:
Analog: This weapon is immune to abilities that target technology. Weapon runes (as found in Pathfinder) don’t function on this weapon unless this weapon also has the archaic trait.
Archaic: All weapons from Pathfinder Second Edition have the archaic trait. Weapon runes (as found in Pathfinder) function normally with archaic weapons. When a creature with non-archaic armor takes damage from an archaic weapon, that creature gains resistance 10 against the attack.
Tech: Weapon runes (as found in Pathfinder) don’t function on these weapons.
What I think is especially notable is that the assumption is that weapons are not "analog" by default. Yes I know analogue is a weird word. I have a record player after all, totally analog system, but consider how silly of a name "elemental damage" is, especially when contrasted with "physical damage". Last I checked fire, lightning and acid were not on the periodic table and were still physical things that caused physical damage
Bonus points to anyone who can call out the subtle differences among relations, relationships, and entities in the context of relational databases.
Oooh. I love bonus points.
Entities are the individual items in a database - usually represented by a table row and its associated data.
Relationships are the connections between related data as the human sees it.
Relations are the actual defined connections in the database between the data - so the relationships as the computer sees it.
In this instance the analog trait makes things immune to certain abilities and there is no opposite trait. The default assumption is weapons are technological/electronic and therefore are susceptible to things which tamper with such things and having the analogue trait calls out an immunity. So Jacob is still getting what he wants, just in the reverse. Non-analog is not called out by a trait, analog is
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, we really don't need the kind of rules bloat being discussed elsewhere in this thread. Like why wouldn't runes work with technology? That's not an assumption a lot of modern urban fantasy actually take. Heck, it doesn't even work that way in things like Star Wars. Why are we doing so much mental gymnastics for something that could be so simple? Like imagine if Google worked this way. You wouldn't be able to find anything and ABC would go bankrupt. KISS is an important engineering principle. Balance is nonsense.
See that bit at the end? That's why everyone disagrees with you. Because you apparently think that balance is meaningless, whereas we're coming to it with a real appreciation of the benefit that it brings to PF2 as a game. Balance is something that PF2 does really well, and it's a big part of the draw.
PF2 is a game. Fundamentally, it's a thing that people play together to have fun. Having it be balanced is an important part of maintaining the kind of fun that PF2 supports - open, broad-based, and welcoming, where people of radically different skill levels can sit down at the same table and all contribute usefully to the same party.
In other threads, at other times, you've talked about how you have huge amounts of experience as a GM. I'm a bit surprised you don't know this stuff already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, we really don't need the kind of rules bloat being discussed elsewhere in this thread. Like why wouldn't runes work with technology? That's not an assumption a lot of modern urban fantasy actually take. Heck, it doesn't even work that way in things like Star Wars. Why are we doing so much mental gymnastics for something that could be so simple?
Because in pathfinder, weapons mostly don't have levels higher than 0, and so runes are there to provide the damage scaling that a higher level item would normally have. Starfinder weapons do have higher level versions of their baseline (not all of which start at level 0 or 1), making fundamental runes redundant.
Different game, different assumptions about item progression. We'll have the chance to vote an discuss this during the playtest. If they get a lot of feedback that the rune system is better than scaling weapons, they'll probably use runes in the final version.
The thing is, we really don't need the kind of rules bloat being discussed elsewhere in this thread. Like why wouldn't runes work with technology? That's not an assumption a lot of modern urban fantasy actually take. Heck, it doesn't even work that way in things like Star Wars. Why are we doing so much mental gymnastics for something that could be so simple?Because in pathfinder, weapons mostly don't have levels higher than 0, and so runes are there to provide the damage scaling that a higher level item would normally have. Starfinder weapons do have higher level versions of their baseline (not all of which start at level 0 or 1), making fundamental runes redundant.
Different game, different assumptions about item progression. We'll have the chance to vote an discuss this during the playtest. If they get a lot of feedback that the rune system is better than scaling weapons, they'll probably use runes in the final version.
Upgrades also don't seem to be identical to property runes, given that you apparently can install one on even the level 0 weapons and get another one at 4, not 2. That would by extension mean that you have to write a whole complicated section on how these two systems interact, as them just stacking is not an option.
So they did in fact keep it really simple.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Know stuff. Yes. That is the problem. I know differently. From experience.See that bit at the end? That's why everyone disagrees with you. Because you apparently think that balance is meaningless, whereas we're coming to it with a real appreciation of the benefit that it brings to PF2 as a game. Balance is something that PF2 does really well, and it's a big part of the draw.
PF2 is a game. Fundamentally, it's a thing that people play together to have fun. Having it be balanced is an important part of maintaining the kind of fun that PF2 supports - open, broad-based, and welcoming, where people of radically different skill levels can sit down at the same table and all contribute usefully to the same party.
In other threads, at other times, you've talked about how you have huge amounts of experience as a GM. I'm a bit surprised you don't know this stuff already.
Well, then your experience and that of the vast majority of people doesn't seems to line up. Just take 5e (and PF1, really), where it has long since become common wisdom that you don't play the game beyond the midgame, simply because the game system breaks at this point.
The experience is so different in fact that strong game balance is a core design principle of PF2. So your previous statement more or less says "PF2 is nonsense" by extension.
Interestingly, what the analog trait is trying to do is not easily accomplished using Venn diagrams. Like if my inner "analog" circle is 90% of my "weapons" circle is that a useful distinction? Isn't it better to draw a circle around the 10% and call it "foo?"
(And like honestly...this is software and information engineering 101...)
I literally told you the reason why a few posts before.
This discussion literally (and figuratively) has nothing to do with balance issues, perceived or otherwise.
You were the one who brought it up, so...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Know stuff. Yes. That is the problem. I know differently. From experience.
Interestingly, what the analog trait is trying to do is not easily accomplished using Venn diagrams. Like if my inner "analog" circle is 90% of my "weapons" circle is that a useful distinction? Isn't it better to draw a circle around the 10% and call it "foo?"
(And like honestly...this is software and information engineering 101...)
This discussion literally (and figuratively) has nothing to do with balance issues, perceived or otherwise.
Man... you make it hard not to snark on you.
I'll try to respond seriously and respectfully, though. I'll try.
Balance is part of this... because if you slap PF2-style runes on SF2-style advanced weapons, the results are really very overpowered. This is in an SF2 context, and the whole archaic thing is an attempt to stretch it so that PF2 gear can be fit in at all.
...and, you know, you were the one that fit "Balance is nonsense" in there. That was just me quoting you. You apparently thought it was pertinent then.
Analog isn't 90% of the gear out there. A lot of the gear out there is tech. Basically, we're looking at analog vs tech, and then with archaic as a very small subset of analog. You'll note that we don't have a word for "not archaic"... because it's not particularly important from an SF2 perspective. That's the "90% of everything" group.
You keep waving around software engineering and database ideas as if they're important in a realm that isn't about software engineering or databases. This is a tabletop roleplaying game. The requirements are different, the constraints are different, and the designs that can and should be derived from those requirements are therefore also different. Any expertise you might have does not necessarily transfer.
...and if you "know" from extensive GMing that balance is not important... well, you've been very lucky for a rather long time, then, I suppose... with that peculiar kind of luck that leaves you blissfully unaware of your own good fortune.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(And like honestly...this is software and information engineering 101...)
The previous person that I met who used the phrase 'this is software engineering 101' in such a disparaging tone didn't know what a regular expression was and parsed formatted strings using string indexing and if statements.
Thankfully Starfinder and Pathfinder are not software and not databases, they're rules system. Analog as a trait exists to give some items immunity to some abilities and effects. There is no analogous trait for the majority of Starfinder weapons which are not analog. This is a special property to uncommon(in the conversational sense) weapons. The purpose of traits is not for searching a database, they're for gameplay functions
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both Powered and Analog should be traits. And "Analog" as a trait is useful for any ability or mechanic that interacts with analog weapons, as that one word is easier and clearer to write out than "Weapons without the powered trait".Why? Why not use the default assumption of, weapons without the "powered" trait are not powered?
In SF1 the primary division is between technological items (most things) and analog weapons (not subject to effects that create, negate, or otherwise interact with technological items, like many Technomancer spells or magic hacks). While most technological items are powered and use batteries, this isn't the case for all of them. A nanite gun is technological, but uses nanite canisters and isn't powered. Almost every heavy projectile weapon, whether using rounds, shells, arrows, or darts, is neither analog nor powered. On the non-weapon side, a medkit, lock, or spool of cable line is technological but not powered, and would interact with rules that affect technological items (like the magic hack that creates tech items).
The baseline is that everything is technological, so no trait needed. If it's not they give it the analog trait. Some specific things do interact with items that use batteries ("powered" items) as a subset of technological items (example - the discharge spell and many class abilities drain charges from batteries or items holding batteries), but those don't need a trait, batteries show up in ammo or capacity/use entries in gear tables.
Thank you Xenocrat for correcting me. I had forgotten some of that.
The baseline is that everything is technological, so no trait needed. If it's not they give it the analog trait.
I don't believe that that's correct.
If you look at the weapons listed on the Field Test 1, every one of them lists either "tech" or "analog" under their weapon traits.
oh, and going back for a reread...
Analog: This weapon eschews advanced electronics, computers
systems, and electric power sources, but was manufactured and
calibrated using advanced technology. This weapon is immune
to abilities that target technology. Weapon runes (as found in
Pathfinder) don’t function on this weapon unless this weapon also
has the archaic trait. While this use of the word “analog” is not
technically correct when referring to technology, use of the term in
this way has become common throughout the Pact Worlds.Archaic: This weapon is crafted using traditional methods and
materials but is not suitable for striking modern armor. All weapons
from Pathfinder Second Edition have the archaic trait. Weapon runes
(as found in Pathfinder) function normally with archaic weapons.
When a creature with non-archaic armor takes damage from an
archaic weapon, that creature gains resistance 10 against the attack....
Tech: Weapons with the tech trait incorporate electronics,
computer systems, and power sources. Sometimes the weapons use
such little energy that they can rely on integrated power sources
(such as melee weapons that don’t have a capacity), while others
drain batteries with attacks. Weapon runes (as found in Pathfinder)
don’t function on these weapons.
so according to this...
- Tech is mutually exclusive with both Analog and Archaic- It is at least *theoretically possible* for a weapon to have both the analog and archaic traits
- Lorewise, "archaic" and "analog" are describing two different things, and most archaic weapons shouldn't count as analog as well.
- It's a field test and hasn't been proofread to quite the degree that actual published work would be.
now, that was Field Test 1. If they've changed things since, i'm unaware of it. Regardless, this suggests that it could be anything from "all weapons are tech or analog, with archaic being a niche subset of analog" to "all weapons are one of the three, with effectively no overlap between them. It is conceivable that there might be rare special cases where something is both archaic and analog."
Have there been pertinent updates that I've missed? I mean, I know that they backed down on the idea that archaic weapons fail against sci-fi armor, but other than that?
The baseline is that everything is technological, so no trait needed. If it's not they give it the analog trait.I don't believe that that's correct.
If you look at the weapons listed on the Field Test 1
Why would do I do that? Nothing in SF2 is relevant to my post.
so according to this...
- Tech is mutually exclusive with both Analog and Archaic
- It is at least *theoretically possible* for a weapon to have both the analog and archaic traits
- Lorewise, "archaic" and "analog" are describing two different things, and most archaic weapons shouldn't count as analog as well.
The funny part to me is that IRL 'Analog' is a type of technological item. Such as a cathode ray tube television, a 56K modem, the speedometer and tachometer of a car, and an oscilloscope. All of those are (or at least were 25 years ago) analog technological devices.
So maybe don't read too much into the names of these traits or insist that they have to match with their real-life counterpart definitions (the Analog trait itself even mentions this as well).
Why would do I do that? Nothing in SF2 is relevant to my post.
Okay. Fair. I suppose that I'd been under the mistaken impression that in a thread about the interaction between SF2 and PF2 you'd have been talking about SF2 rather than SF1, and did not happen to notice the bit where you said otherwise.
The funny part to me is that IRL 'Analog' is a type of technological item. Such as a cathode ray tube television, a 56K modem, the speedometer and tachometer of a car, and an oscilloscope. All of those are (or at least were 25 years ago) analog technological devices.
So maybe don't read too much into the names of these traits or insist that they have to match with their real-life counterpart definitions (the Analog trait itself even mentions this as well).
I'm not reading anything into the names of the traits. I'm looking at the descriptions. In particular, the description for Analog says both "but was manufactured and calibrated using advanced technology" and "unless this weapon also has the archaic trait". Given that the archaic trait is described as "is crafted using traditional methods and materials"... well, there appears to be a bit of a conflict there on whether it's possible to be both at once or not.
I'm not reading anything into the names of the traits. I'm looking at the descriptions. In particular, the description for Analog says both "but was manufactured and calibrated using advanced technology" and "unless this weapon also has the archaic trait". Given that the archaic trait is described as "is crafted using traditional methods and materials"... well, there appears to be a bit of a conflict there on whether it's possible to be both at once or not.
Yeah, I think the two of us are pretty close to being on the same page on this. The traits do what they say that they do and nothing more.
The traits don't say that they are incompatible and that an item couldn't have more than one of them.
The Analog trait says that the item can't be targeted or affected by abilities that affect SF2-modern technology. Even if the item is somewhat technological in a more standard meaning or may even be more advanced than what we have IRL currently.
The Archaic trait says that weapons with the trait get a damage penalty when attacking SF2-modern armor. It doesn't say that the item can't also be analog or even technological.
The Tech trait (other than the couple sentences of flavor text) says that an item with the trait can't benefit from PF2 weapon runes. It doesn't say that the item is technological or even that it has any moving parts. It doesn't say that the item consumes battery power (it only mentions that it might).
So I don't see any reason why there couldn't be an item that has both the Powered trait and the Analog trait. It would be using older (not SF2-modern) technology and power and wouldn't be able to be affected by abilities that target SF2-modern technology, and it would consume charges from a battery.
I'm honestly curious about the operative. It's the class that seemingly changed the most in the transition (from "rogue in space" to "gunslinger in space" it seems). It would still be a skilled class? I wouldn't be surprised Paizo probably didn't want another skiled class since all the other rogue-like classes in PF2e are literally worse rogues, but still I would want the operative to have some skill goodies if only for the sake of tradition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm honestly curious about the operative. It's the class that seemingly changed the most in the transition (from "rogue in space" to "gunslinger in space" it seems). It would still be a skilled class? I wouldn't be surprised Paizo probably didn't want another skiled class since all the other rogue-like classes in PF2e are literally worse rogues, but still I would want the operative to have some skill goodies if only for the sake of tradition.
We've been informed that it doesn't get more skills than everyone else as the rogue does (the Envoy gets that one). It instead apparently goes deeper on a single skill.
so according to this...
- Tech is mutually exclusive with both Analog and Archaic
- It is at least *theoretically possible* for a weapon to have both the analog and archaic traits
- Lorewise, "archaic" and "analog" are describing two different things, and most archaic weapons shouldn't count as analog as well.The funny part to me is that IRL 'Analog' is a type of technological item. Such as a cathode ray tube television, a 56K modem, the speedometer and tachometer of a car, and an oscilloscope. All of those are (or at least were 25 years ago) analog technological devices.
So maybe don't read too much into the names of these traits or insist that they have to match with their real-life counterpart definitions (the Analog trait itself even mentions this as well).
I brought up my record player earlier, a totally analog system
We've been informed that it doesn't get more skills than everyone else as the rogue does (the Envoy gets that one). It instead apparently goes deeper on a single skill.
So, like gunslingers?
I assume you get auto-scaling with it or something like that (I assume free skill feats with it too) but I hope we get something else on top of that.
We've been informed that it doesn't get more skills than everyone else as the rogue does (the Envoy gets that one). It instead apparently goes deeper on a single skill.So, like gunslingers?
I assume you get auto-scaling with it or something like that (I assume free skill feats with it too) but I hope we get something else on top of that.
We have absolutely no further info on that, I'm afraid.
But just from that design standpoint, Rogue (when only looking at the Racket skills) or Swashbuckler would be a much closer fit, if anything. Gunslinger generally only goes mildly deep into one skill because it is forced to by its Way reload, not because it gets bonuses or other cool abilities for that skill.
When it comes to the role in general, "Fighter but for ranged weapons" seems to be the idea. Except the sniper, which is indeed quite close to the Sniper Gunslinger.