Yeah, considering people didn't think a lot about the Swashbuckler when it was announced for the APG, and Swash turned out to be the most solid of the 4 classes in the playtest, I would hold off on creating expectations for Gunslinger. They could easily come up with an unique design space for the class.
Cabbage has a good possible route of treating the design space of Gunslinger much like the wuxia-trope design space of Monks. It's possible, especially with different class feat actions that can represent different shooting styles (Revolver Ocelot ricocheting, McCree "high-noon" multi-target flourishes, long-range Disarms, etc.)
Just 'cause Gunslinger and guns were one way in 1E doesn't mean they won't evolve and end up filling up other niches, and possibly be more fulfilling in the long-run in 2E. I'm just gonna wait 'til it happens with anticipation for what the designers can possibly cook up with after the APG.
I wonder if it would keep the name or get a new one that wasn’t weapon specific ?
Man with no name seems too long.
Classes are one word. Because I was thinking of leaning on “Mysterious Stranger”
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My personal favorite class/archetype from PF1 is the Fiend Keeper medium (I didn't actually super enjoy the standard medium ironically). I love the trope of getting power/knowledge from a possessed/bound entity.
Don't know if there's enough other people that super liked that archetype, but I hope that's one that will get transferred over in some form.
|
About the name: It's not really a problem there is the name of a weapon in the name.
We're getting Swashbuckler, and the class is not just "someone with a buckler". :P (Even, the buckler is not even a focus... and most will just not have one..)
What James Jacob said is that Gunslinger can be much more than "class with a gun", and that's why he thought they would do a full class for it.
Also note, James Jacob is the Creative Director, not a "dev" really. He only work with the lore. In the same stream he said that the only time he spend lot of time with the rules are when he Plays or GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Drifter perhaps?
Not a full class, but I could see a Destined Bloodline coming back for Sorcerers, likely with the Occult tradition.
|
Drifter sounds cool, of course trying to figure what all non-gun mechanics to give them to make them stand on their own would be the challenge.
Not all that interested in seeing Gunslinger come back as a full class, of course though I’d be surprised with what all they could do with it in P2.
It’s just, I just use guns and I’m good with guns is boring, in P1 they were just a hyper focused Fighter with a few tricks. Not all that interesting.
With my limited experience with PF1 and just looking over the classes I think they could bring into PF2 and make unique/interesting are:
Gunslinger, Inquisitor, Mesmerist, and Shaman
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Drifter Class with 'man with no name' style mechanics sounds awesome, but should in no way be tied to guns. Wandering swordsmen will often fall into that exact thematic niche, after all (remember A Fistful of Dollars basically steals Yojimbo's plot wholesale).
No, Gunslinger should 100% be an Archetype, and any mechanics it has not tied to guns, should be moved elsewhere (like an aforementioned Drifter Class).
While I'd approve of just making gun rules a thing you slap onto very class if you want to include, that would probably be a supplement all on it's own if you want to adjust all the classes to a gun-centric world.
No, Gunslinger should 100% be an Archetype, and any mechanics it has not tied to guns, should be moved elsewhere
If all we want out of the archetype is to use guns, then maybe it shouldn't even be that. They should just be weapons you can pick up.
I agree that guns should just be normal weapons. Weapon abilities are strictly controlled in the new system around base damage etc.
So guns won’t jump above the rest
Taking a step back what I disliked about guns in 1E is that they felt very much tacked on and kind of broke the rules of the system. The quest for “realism” with the touch AC thing just made things ridiculous. I have listened to too many episodes of a Giantslayer podcast featuring a gunslinger to have anything but negative thoughts on that mechanic.
Thankfully the 2E design philosophy seems to revolve around rolling well against threats around your level. Auto hits are gone
I share other people’s distaste for the gunslinger class as such a narrow focus - albeit one they indirectly opened up with the swashbuckler hybrid.
I would not be averse to a book that explained how guns could be applied to existing classes and the existing world - including more in depth thinking about have them being everywhere would work . But as mentioned if they were just weapons with nothing on ignoring AC then that wouldn’t be as much of an issue either
What I wouldn’t really want to see if the “modern” guns thing that always seemed to be dabbled in.
|
Weirdly enough, I never had the same hang ups about timeworn technology as I did about the guns. I think because it was always on the edge of breaking and the price / effectiveness ratio seemed right in my head. The three or four gunslingers I played with were just always dominating combats so when they were around, I knew none of my other players would get a chance to have fun or shine.
If balanced well, I don’t see a problem with having a gunslinger, but I feel like the poster mentioning the dragons and the poster mentioning the giants have a point. There was an AC curve in 1e that necessitated a broken character — mainly because in a PUG, you can’t always depend on having the right mix of buffers/debuffers. In 2e, the balance (currently) seems a lot more stable— as long as the GM/scenario writers don’t pull out a challenge 3 or more levels above the players.
If all we want out of the archetype is to use guns, then maybe it shouldn't even be that. They should just be weapons you can pick up.
No, Gunslinger should 100% be an Archetype, and any mechanics it has not tied to guns, should be moved elsewhere
An Archetype just to *use* guns might not be that great, but I'm sure that's not what a Gunslinger archetype would be. Nah, make guns ordinary weapons and then the archetype would be to do cool things with guns. Trick-shots, Gun Twirling, Pistol Whipping, etc. An Archetype that lets you build your own fighting style around guns specifically.
Which is pretty much what I'm hoping to see from the other Weapon-Specific Archetypes coming out soon (like the Archer Archetype).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see the summoner make a return, if only because I like the lore of the godcallers. The classes a can't imagine making a full comeback are those who's features made their way into other classes. An example of this would be the shifter where the druid can now get Wild Morph.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’ve been curious if Shifters will be an example of a class archetype, trading out spells and proficiencies for better saves and combat actions, and increased duration on Wild Shift and Wild Shape.
Otherwise, no. Like a kineticist, a shifter with spells slots misses the point of the class design.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If all we want out of the archetype is to use guns, then maybe it shouldn't even be that. They should just be weapons you can pick up.
No, Gunslinger should 100% be an Archetype, and any mechanics it has not tied to guns, should be moved elsewhereAn Archetype just to *use* guns might not be that great, but I'm sure that's not what a Gunslinger archetype would be. Nah, make guns ordinary weapons and then the archetype would be to do cool things with guns. Trick-shots, Gun Twirling, Pistol Whipping, etc. An Archetype that lets you build your own fighting style around guns specifically.
Which is pretty much what I'm hoping to see from the other Weapon-Specific Archetypes coming out soon (like the Archer Archetype).
This is more what I was thinking of, yeah. I'd expect Guns to be an Advanced Weapon so all you need to use them is Proficiency with those. The Archetype would let Classes that don't have Advanced Weapons get them, and include cool gun tricks and the like.
I do hope there is significant mechanical differentiation between guns and just regular archery, though. I don't want to see them say, "Hey, a gunslinger archetype!" and all it really ends up meaning is that you can use loud crossbows.
Because just calling them advanced weapons still means that fighters will be better than every class with no investment...
Yeah I'd rather see them be martial weapons. Advanced is a pretty prohibitive category in 2e.
Access to guns is probably limited by "Guns are rare" more than anything else.
Gunslinger makes more sense to me as an archetype. Even the "wandering drifter" thing seems like a series of abilities that replace class feats. It would be hard to base the class around a gun, since in 2e, going deep into the thematic space of weapons is definitely the fighter's thing.
Really, I think theres more than one right answer- the Swashbuckler demonstrates we probably could have a gunslinger based on various westerns as a full class, but at the same time an archetype could also serve well without us missing too much.
Gunslinger makes more sense to me as an archetype. Even the "wandering drifter" thing seems like a series of abilities that replace class feats. It would be hard to base the class around a gun, since in 2e, going deep into the thematic space of weapons is definitely the fighter's thing.
I mean, that ship's already kinda sailed. Monks are punching the class with only limited support for anything else. Swashbucklers, Rogues and Investigators all have their combat gimmicks tied to specific types of weapons too.
So in terms of designing classes that marry their concept to a specific fighting style or type of weapon... we already have that.
I'm not even sure the fighter's ownership of a broad base of weapon styles is even a conscious design choice so much as a space issue. They have the most right now, but I'm not sure there's any reason to think future books might not give Rangers options aimed at non-TWF melee and etc.
Really, I think theres more than one right answer- the Swashbuckler demonstrates we probably could have a gunslinger based on various westerns as a full class, but at the same time an archetype could also serve well without us missing too much.
I think this is ultimately the right answer. In terms of "should this class exist" people have made long, compelling arguments aimed at all of the APG classes... and several of the core classes too. Ultimately Paizo will make the classes they want and carve out a niche for them.
Didn't the Paizo devs also say that while Cavalier/Vigilante being converted to archetypes was a thing, that that wasn't a trend they necessarily wanted to continue?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It should be pretty apparent because of how much archetypes tend to hand out that a former class should only really be an archetype if the core thematic conceit of the class can be encapsulated in a small number of feats.
So things like "I am a mounted combatant" and "I have a dual identity" can be done as archetypes pretty easily. Other things can't, really.
Also when the concept really wants to strap itself to every other class, like, being a vigilante doesn't *really* say anything about your combat style.
The problem I think the Vigilante had was that its core features were pretty just being patches on PF1's system holes. The draw of the class was that it was a martial combatant that didn't completely sacrifice its ability to participate out of combat and still gained support for doing other things.
You could almost argue that PF2 already has the Vigilante, because its main things were alternating social and combat buffs and creating new opportunities to interact with the game... and those are just how PF2 is supposed to work in general.
The Cavalier I think is a little more unfortunate, because its best features were things like Challenge, Orders, Tactician and Banner, which don't really have any PF2 equivalent yet.
Really I think it does a disservice to say "We're making a mounted archetype so the Cavalier is covered" when, as cool as mounts are, many of the most popular Cavalier builds in PF2 traded that mount away completely or replaced it with a unique or nonstandard mount that a basic mounted combat archetype probably won't let you pick up.
I don't want to get ahead of myself, but from what we've heard so far I'm not convinced that the PF2 Cavalier archetype will allow me to emulate any of the Cavaliers I played or built in PF1.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the "honorable combatant, pledged to an order, who inspires others" part of the Cavalier can just be assigned to a different class that has nothing to do with mounted combat.
Like something called "Cavalier" needs to be a mounted character because the word literally means "horseman". But "member of a knightly order" can be a class that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with horses.
Mounted combat was intrinsically tied to knights in the real world because horses were very expensive and the best way to get around on the battlefield- neither are true in Pathfinder where we have magic and we generally don't have fights in huge open spaces.
Just a thought, but might it be that they'll decide a number of those really don't have as much to do with the original conceptual basis of the Cavalier, but perhaps in other kinds of archetypes? I can't speak to the specifics here, but it wouldn't be the first time in class-based game history when a class ended up sprawling out of its intended design space.I don't want to get ahead of myself, but from what we've heard so far I'm not convinced that the PF2 Cavalier archetype will allow me to emulate any of the Cavaliers I played or built in PF1.
Yeah, I think most of the Knight stuff could easily be covered elsewhere.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the "honorable combatant, pledged to an order, who inspires others" part of the Cavalier can just be assigned to a different class that has nothing to do with mounted combat.
Like something called "Cavalier" needs to be a mounted character because the word literally means "horseman". But "member of a knightly order" can be a class that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with horses.
Mounted combat was intrinsically tied to knights in the real world because horses were very expensive and the best way to get around on the battlefield- neither are true in Pathfinder where we have magic and we generally don't have fights in huge open spaces.
Yeah I’d love the Order/Challenge/Resolve/Tactician chassis of P1’s Cavalier/Samurai to come back as some sort of Knight class, I see a lot of people asking for P2 Warlord class, martial buffer/battlefield controller, it seems like it’d be a good fit.
(I’d like Hayato as the Iconic. Or a new Hobgoblin one).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't the Paizo devs also say that while Cavalier/Vigilante being converted to archetypes was a thing, that that wasn't a trend they necessarily wanted to continue?
It was something they said they were going to be very careful not to do too often.
Personally, I think Gunslinger is probably the only other PF1 Class they'll make an Archetype, with others either not showing up at all, being Classes, or very occasionally being an option for another Class (Spiritualist being an option for Summoner, for example).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they do make the shifter, regardless of if it's an archetype or full class, I hope they make it more like the adaptive shifter. The mechanics of it are so interesting. It could be the class that focuses on morphing, as druid focuses on polymorphing.
I feel like the "honorable combatant, pledged to an order, who inspires others" part of the Cavalier can just be assigned to a different class that has nothing to do with mounted combat.
That's fair. I just want to emphasize that there was a lot more to the Cavalier as it existed in PF1 than having a mount (it arguably wasn't even their most defining feature).
Like something called "Cavalier" needs to be a mounted character because the word literally means "horseman".
That's fair too. Although you could make similar quips about Wizards and Druids, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the "honorable combatant, pledged to an order, who inspires others" part of the Cavalier can just be assigned to a different class that has nothing to do with mounted combat.
Like something called "Cavalier" needs to be a mounted character because the word literally means "horseman". But "member of a knightly order" can be a class that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with horses.
Mounted combat was intrinsically tied to knights in the real world because horses were very expensive and the best way to get around on the battlefield- neither are true in Pathfinder where we have magic and we generally don't have fights in huge open spaces.
When I briefly played a cavalier the first thing I did was find an archetype (watchman) that ditched the horse; I liked the idea of the class but keeping the mount just wasn't feasible. So I agree that a "knight" archetype and "cavalier" could well be separated.
The real world knight wasn't just a combat role but a social one too, with combat only making up part of their function e.g. there was a time when a knight would only be expected to serve in a combat role for 40 days a year; the rest of the time they’d be running their households, adjudicating legal matters, managing their lands and so on.
As such, I feel the knight would make an interesting class neutral archetype; the 1e cavalier’s order, banner, tactician and challenge features could be reworked in such a way for 2e as to work with any class. I see no reason why any of those concepts should be specific to a martial class.
I think Pathfinder could do with making horses and mounts a more visible part of the world. While magic is a thing and yes it would make a difference, I still think the majority of people would make use of horses, mules etc. for transport. You mentioned knights being intrinsically linked to horses because horses were very expensive and the best way to get around on a battlefield; in truth the cost of a horse would vary greatly and horses were immensely useful for transport off the battlefield too, so even person of modest means could afford decent horse should they have use for one.
Finally I should give a shout out to Modern History TV on YouTube, without which I wouldn’t really know anything about knights.
Let's see! I'm skipping Inquisitor, because I just don't have an investment in the churchy divine casters.
Cavalier: Archetype for the mounted stuff, and the rest of the class used for a more focused class.
Gunslinger: Swashbuckler-esque class focused on ranged combat, where guns is one of the subclasses.
Magus: Gish is just too popular of a concept to not eventually get a class or at least a major archetype.
Shifter: It was the last PF1 class; I don't expect it to show up for a long time.
Summoner: Strong possibility. They've mentioned it a couple times, and it's one of the classes that has some specific lore tie-ins.
Vigilante: Going from having archetypes for every type of class to being an archetype for every class.
Arcanist: Gone.
Bloodrager: Eventual Barbarian instinct or archetype to pick up focus spells from Sorcerer without as much hassle as multiclassing.
Brawler: Gone. Monk will pick up more Brawler options over time.
Hunter: Late game, if ever, getting a name change.
Shaman: ??? The class is in such a weird spot in PF1, so I don't know. Spontaneous primal list counterpart to Oracle?
Skald: Bard subclass with unique performances and off-list spell options.
Slayer: Gone. Ranger will pick up more Slayer options over time.
Kineticist: Different take for the new system, but back in some form. Effectively martial class, but doing so with magic.
Medium: Late-release class… maybe it gets flexible multiclass feats? I don't know.
Mesmerist: Bard archetype to replace Inspire Courage with a cantrip to save vs. a small will penalty?
Occultist: Different take for a new system, but back in some form. Interacts with magic items. Hot take: Occultist as an Investigator subclass.
Psychic: Occult equivalent to Oracle. Int-based spontaneous caster, with a unique implementation of the disciplines.
Spiritualist: I've got no idea how this fits in with PF2's weaker non-skill utility options. I just don't see the system handing out a level 1 "walk through walls" buddy.
I could see Hunter/Summoner/Spiritualist getting kind of bundled together as the Major Pet Class.
I could see Hunter/Summoner/Spiritualist getting kind of bundled together as the Major Pet Class.
I’m still curious what the Arcane leg of that will be. Some kind of Golem I suppose. Or elementals, but that’s not as fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could see Hunter/Summoner/Spiritualist getting kind of bundled together as the Major Pet Class.I’m still curious what the Arcane leg of that will be. Some kind of Golem I suppose. Or elementals, but that’s not as fun.
"Elementals" might include genie-binding. It's definitely weird to think of Summoner as the divine leg, though.
I suppose it could be an eidolon type for each summon spell line?
I think a summoner type class could work with focus spells and fighting in tandem with the pet.