| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Still hoping for a weapon summoning archetype. By my count, we've had 19 archetypes spoiled so far (out of 40). That being said, the eldritch archetypes might be able to summon a weapon, or maybe the focus spells a ranger get... not to mention any of the additional class options.
Even if we don't get it this time around, it's only a matter of time. I know it's a popular hope. And the way Paizo listens to its playerbase, it won't be long!
Summoning Weapons if it can be done turn to turn can be extremely strong just for the sheer fact that traits provide so many options.
That’d be a super awesome concept for the magus to get if it eventually came.
Well... the Shifting rune already exists?
Well I really saw this as a magus ability in my head, so I would have assumed this is a variation of the arcane pool mechanics, so the bonus is kinda built in but maybe at a lag from when you’d acquire the wealth but enough to keep up.
That’d encourage the use of the versatility to achieve value
Other character concepts I want to re-explore (more as a player) once APG comes out
Gnome Oracle of Bones - clouded vision with a dark sense of humour about the dead. She came from an underground society with a super low population and constant external threats so raising grandpa after he died as a zombie to work the fields, or zombie grandma to look after the kids was normal. She was super fun to play with 'guessing' about whether anything was out there while on watch and believing she was still underground since with a 30ft visual range she had never seen the sky and didn't believe in it.
Half Elf Alchemist mild mannered academic with a Mr Hyde personality (Master Chymist) that was super fun to role play.
I have an idea for a Dhampir Champion of Pharasma that's a gunslinger (have to homebrew those) who's essentially just Alucard from Hellsing but powered down initially, and just goes around popping a cap in fangs the world over. Also I've had the idea of a devil blood sorcerer Halfling who's family is cursed, might thrown in the Tiefling uni heritage if it looks fitting enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The new stuff looks awesome, and the obscene object oriented-ness of PF 2 is beautiful to behold. The modularity of it all makes me want to over indulge in archetypes until my character is optimised for dinner parties. Bring on the new book already!That is the goal. Top-down, object-oriented modularity to make it so easy to plug and play, or to change something for your group without ripple effects. I have a personal goal to make players and GMs more comfortable with flexing their inner designers and houseruling and homebrewing things confidently, and our design for the game helps a lot with that.
I prefer immutable functional composition to the current object orientation everyone uses... just too many bad things can happen with shared references to mutable data in different threads running concurrently that you never know what might happen!
OH wait... this isn't a programming forum is it? :-P
(in all honesty, the comp. sci. ideas are being used extremely well in PF2!)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to make a Monk/swashbuckler archetype styled as a pro wrestler. Lots of showing off and taunting.
Also, our red Sarenite cutie needs a name. She has shown up in a lot of artwork already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to make a Monk/swashbuckler archetype styled as a pro wrestler. Lots of showing off and taunting.
Also, our red Sarenite cutie needs a name. She has shown up in a lot of artwork already.
I didn't know I wanted that until you posted it, but now I need it.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
The new stuff looks awesome, and the obscene object oriented-ness of PF 2 is beautiful to behold. The modularity of it all makes me want to over indulge in archetypes until my character is optimised for dinner parties. Bring on the new book already!That is the goal. Top-down, object-oriented modularity to make it so easy to plug and play, or to change something for your group without ripple effects. I have a personal goal to make players and GMs more comfortable with flexing their inner designers and houseruling and homebrewing things confidently, and our design for the game helps a lot with that.I prefer immutable functional composition to the current object orientation everyone uses... just too many bad things can happen with shared references to mutable data in different threads running concurrently that you never know what might happen!
OH wait... this isn't a programming forum is it? :-P
(in all honesty, the comp. sci. ideas are being used extremely well in PF2!)
Fortunately, the processors in this case are people, so we don't really need to worry too much about race conditions. There is a fairly high degree of polymorphism, though, and we need to do defensive programming, since the preconditions and postconditions aren't always consistently met...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ooh are gunslingers going to be a thing or an archetype? If so it is being held very close to the chest.
Them and Magus would for me be *kisses fingers* and I know one player who has been complaining about lack of options in PF2e compared to 1e who may shift his perspective after this book.
Unless they're playing things insanely close to the vest, I don't think Magus or Gunslinger are gonna show up in this one. Definitely neither as classes.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, I promise I would have told you about any new classes you didn't know about yet. We also do tend to announce the classes in advance and playtest when we can, and we did for APG.
They've said in the advanced player's guide playtest retrospective (it's on youtube, very much worth a watch if you're chomping at the bit for info or just wanting to know more about the devs thought process) that the only two classes they're making into archetypes in this book are the vigilante and cavalier. They are going to be very careful about making old classes into archetypes. Definitely a good thing to be careful, in my opinion.
In the APG? I very much doubt it, since they announced Vigilante and Cavalier as archetypes immediately.
Would they maybe show up during one of the PaizoCon Online seminars? Well, that I'm more excited for, personally.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The gunslinger is definitely one you'd want to playtest since "how guns work" is a thing in need of playtesting.
Also don't forget, Playtests have a second purpose outside of "does this work." It also gives Paizo a chance to see what is popular. If everyone like their choices or they need to redesign the class, like adding the divine list to Witches, etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The more I think about it, the more I'm excited for a casting ranger. I'm so curious as to whether it'll be a hunters edge option or simply feats; if it is feats I hope there's a way for casting proficiency to improve. Either way having more tools is always good for a ranger!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect Gunslinger will be a class eventually, and the Gunslinger multiclass archetype will cover the 1e problem of every class getting a "X but with guns" archetype of their own.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect Gunslinger will be a class eventually, and the Gunslinger multiclass archetype will cover the 1e problem of every class getting a "X but with guns" archetype of their own.
The question to that answer is "does Gunslinger have an inherent identity, or is the base class itself "someone with guns"?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect Gunslinger will be a class eventually, and the Gunslinger multiclass archetype will cover the 1e problem of every class getting a "X but with guns" archetype of their own.The question to that answer is "does Gunslinger have an inherent identity, or is the base class itself "someone with guns"?
Before the Swashbuckler I’d have agreed with you.
If Paizo wants to find a niche for the gunslinger they certainly can and it’s got enough depth across so many characters and themes (the stranger, John wick, the gunman, the clerics gun kata, Gene Starwind, spike, vash the stampede, any Clint Eastwood movie, doc holiday, Wyatt Earp, vasily zaytsev, and on and on)
There are just so many themes across the idea of a gunman and types of fire arms that I think it would make sense to explore it.
I mean sure, a Sacred Rogue who takes MCD for gunslinger and suddenly Indiana Jones has his gun like he should, or jack sparrow has his musket, but they probably aren’t “gunslingers” no do they have the vibe.
Now I might argue Fighter or Swashbuckler archetype could swallow the concept, but considering how involved it would have to be, idk that it makes sense to do that over a class.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect Gunslinger will be a class eventually, and the Gunslinger multiclass archetype will cover the 1e problem of every class getting a "X but with guns" archetype of their own.The question to that answer is "does Gunslinger have an inherent identity, or is the base class itself "someone with guns"?Before the Swashbuckler I’d have agreed with you.
If Paizo wants to find a niche for the gunslinger they certainly can and it’s got enough depth across so many characters and themes (the stranger, John wick, the gunman, the clerics gun kata, Gene Starwind, spike, vash the stampede, any Clint Eastwood movie, doc holiday, Wyatt Earp, vasily zaytsev, and on and on)
Yeah in P1 the Gunslinger was like the Fighter but just with firearms, "I gun good" was their thing, it's all they had.
Practical. But boring.
In P2 the classes don't do that, Fighters and Swashbucklers have their numbers but their main thing is they have a bunch of cool tricks over their P1 versions rather than numbers alone (which is why I almost always played Barbarians, they were fun. And got skill points).
So previously I would not have liked a Gunslinger class but if they make a Sharpshooter/Stranger like John Wick/give them Gun Kata aka give them a bunch of tricks that are fun I'd be more inclined to like them.
Don't make them the gun class, make them a class with a bunch of tricks that can use guns.
P.S. you forgot Simo Häyhä
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suspect Gunslinger will be a class eventually, and the Gunslinger multiclass archetype will cover the 1e problem of every class getting a "X but with guns" archetype of their own.The question to that answer is "does Gunslinger have an inherent identity, or is the base class itself "someone with guns"?Before the Swashbuckler I’d have agreed with you.
If Paizo wants to find a niche for the gunslinger they certainly can and it’s got enough depth across so many characters and themes (the stranger, John wick, the gunman, the clerics gun kata, Gene Starwind, spike, vash the stampede, any Clint Eastwood movie, doc holiday, Wyatt Earp, vasily zaytsev, and on and on)
There are just so many themes across the idea of a gunman and types of fire arms that I think it would make sense to explore it.
I mean sure, a Sacred Rogue who takes MCD for gunslinger and suddenly Indiana Jones has his gun like he should, or jack sparrow has his musket, but they probably aren’t “gunslingers” no do they have the vibe.
Now I might argue Fighter or Swashbuckler archetype could swallow the concept, but considering how involved it would have to be, idk that it makes sense to do that over a class.
Pretty much this idea. I recall seeing posts here and there by paizo staff about how they planned to make Gunslinger a class, and I've slowly moved to the idea that Gunslinger could be its own class, complete with trick shots and cool styles similar to Swashbuckler. Not sure how it would work out, but I sincerely expected Swashbuckler to be a fighter archetype and think it is my favorite class in the APG playtest (though I admittedly only skimmed the playtest document). They made it work there, I think they can make something work for Gunslinger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right.
If guns play just like crossbows with modified reloads and some jamming rules? Not worth its own class. But if they find a mechanical way to provide firearms with a completely different feel, than the Gunslinger class doesn't just have to be a powdery archer.
I imagine solving this point is likely a big reason they haven't moved forward on guns really yet. Guns aren't the same as bows and arrows--and the potential class would suffer so much if they don't get true mechanical separation, in my opinion.
Of course, it is wholly reasonable to assume that the APG is only new classes we'd get any time before July 2021, so we might as well enjoy the new ones!
P.S. you forgot Simo Häyhä
I knew as soon as I started I was going to miss some notable ones... :(
If guns play just like crossbows with modified reloads and some jamming rules? Not worth its own class. But if they find a mechanical way to provide firearms with a completely different feel, than the Gunslinger class doesn't just have to be a powdery archer.
Funny, I kinda feel the opposite. The way guns are handled should have no bearing on the class IMO and I know that sounds crazy, but much the same way the “Swashbuckler” literally translates to “daring swordwielder” but it doesn’t even have to use a sword or even be charismatic.
It’s the daring vibe that’s the class.
To me, the gunslinger vibe could be some kind of inverse of Panache in terms of the “Grit” mechanic.
Maybe it’s dependent on instead of triggering your damage by being daring, you do some shooting and trigger some special move/skills/activities.
But the guns themselves could just be uncommon ranged weapons with long reload times (and the initial dedication reduces the reload from say 1 to 2 and is the level one ability of the gunslinger).
Not sure how it would work out, but I sincerely expected Swashbuckler to be a fighter archetype and think it is my favorite class in the APG playtest (though I admittedly only skimmed the playtest document).
As the guy that made the thread bashing them for making it a class before I saw it at all, I have to agree. I’ve never been more happy to be wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I never got how "grit" is tied to gunslinging any more than any other martial class in the game. Grit feels like it could be a general thing for most anybody. I know why they're going for tying that to a gunslinger, but it just never screamed "this is what sets a gunfighter apart from everyone else" to me.
I guess I never got how "grit" is tied to gunslinging any more than any other martial class in the game. Grit feels like it could be a general thing for most anybody. I know why they're going for tying that to a gunslinger, but it just never screamed "this is what sets a gunfighter apart from everyone else" to me.
I guess to me the best way I could described grit is the unnatural cool-hand attitude aspect.
Basically measured control in a high intensity moment that requires split decisions.
Not that other classes don’t have that, but much the same way that other classes can be daring and brave (like a Swashbuckler).
I guess I never got how "grit" is tied to gunslinging any more than any other martial class in the game. Grit feels like it could be a general thing for most anybody. I know why they're going for tying that to a gunslinger, but it just never screamed "this is what sets a gunfighter apart from everyone else" to me.
When you're having down guns, you could be shot down at any moment by an attacker you can't even see. People you can see can draw a hidden gun and kill you in seconds. The guts you need to have to subject yourself to that and thrive is what defines grit.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I never got how "grit" is tied to gunslinging any more than any other martial class in the game. Grit feels like it could be a general thing for most anybody. I know why they're going for tying that to a gunslinger, but it just never screamed "this is what sets a gunfighter apart from everyone else" to me.I guess to me the best way I could described grit is the unnatural cool-hand attitude aspect.
Basically measured control in a high intensity moment that requires split decisions.
Not that other classes don’t have that, but much the same way that other classes can be daring and brave (like a Swashbuckler).
If the core thing the Class does is not use guns, then it shouldn't be a 'Gunslinger'. All of the 'Grit' thematics are awesome, and I'd love to see a Class based on them, but I'd want that class to do the main character of "Yojimbo" as easily as that of "A Fistful of Dollars". Linking that thematic archetype to guns in a mechanical sense is a bad mistake, and one I sincerely hope they don't make.
Swashbuckler, even sans sword, feels like a swashbuckling hero, so the name still works. Gunslinger being a Class that can easily use a sword as a gun makes the name not make sense, which means it needs a new one.
Now, Gunslinger as one 'path' of a Drifter Class seems possible, and Gunslinger as an archetype would definitely work, but a Class? I don't think so.
I wasn’t saying guns wouldn’t be integral to the class, just the act of shooting guns isn’t what defines the class, in the same way that punching people doesn’t make you a monk but a monk should still be an amazing martial artist.
And I would have made the same argument for the name on Swashbuckler if we’re being honest.
As I mentioned, an innate “you reduce the reload of any weapon with the gun trait by 1” and “you can perform actions with the grit trait on any turn in which you have made a strike with a weapon that has the gun trait” is about all the enforcement of guns the class needs.
The rest can just be “cool gunfu/gritty/slinging stuff”.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
"...a superpowered ki form for monks whose spell level is over 9."
Did... did Paizo just sneak a DragonBall Z reference into their APG preview? XD
In any case, THIS is definitely the thing I am most interested in at the moment, and was not at all expecting.
"Never have I needed something so much and not known until I received it."
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn’t saying guns wouldn’t be integral to the class, just the act of shooting guns isn’t what defines the class, in the same way that punching people doesn’t make you a monk but a monk should still be an amazing martial artist.
But my point is that every part of that archetype except guns is very appropriate to have on a character who's never seen and will never use a gun.
If I want to make a wandering drifter with a mysterious past, a steely gaze, dead level calm, and split-second reactions who uses a sword, I shouldn't need to play a 'Gunslinger' Class to get that character's mechanics right.
And I would have made the same argument for the name on Swashbuckler if we’re being honest.
How so? Swashbuckler doesn't have the same weapon specific connotation. Most use rapiers, sure, but swashbuckling adventure as a genre also features swashbucklers who are skilled with (and in many cases even use primarily) bows, guns, knives, and a host of other weapons.
The thematic literature featuring the term gunslinger entirely revolves around people who use guns.
As I mentioned, an innate “you reduce the reload of any weapon with the gun trait by 1” and “you can perform actions with the grit trait on any turn in which you have made a strike with a weapon that has the gun trait” is about all the enforcement of guns the class needs.
The rest can just be “cool gunfu/gritty/slinging stuff”.
But those rules aren't the basis for a Class. They're the basis for a Class Path like 'Ruffian' or 'Thief' is for Rogue, not a core mechanic like Rage for a Barbarian.
And by putting them on the base Class you're pigeonholing said Class in a way that's both completely unnecessary and highly counterproductive to many people's concepts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m generally in agreement that “gunslinger” would work better as a class path or archetype, and further the idea of introducing a subset of rules so that one class can excel at that subset seems like a source of frustration waiting to happen and, frankly, kind of a waste of word count. If guns were more integral to the setting, that like alchemy it was something so prevalent and setting tied that it was pretty much required to be in core, then sure. But that’s not the case here.
Still, I’m sure Paizo will do what they think best. If it makes sense to introduce guns as different enough to create even a small new rule set for them, and that they can create a class that takes advantage f that rule set in an interesting manner, then I could see gunslinger returning as a full class. Short of that, the fact that we’re getting Cavilers, Vigilantes, familiar master, and the companion one all as archetypes suggest to me that they’ll follow suit with guns.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
"...a superpowered ki form for monks whose spell level is over 9."
Did... did Paizo just sneak a DragonBall Z reference into their APG preview? XD
A kind reminder that millennials are starting to hit our 40s, and we’re increasingly in positions to make references to our childhood media. Move over constant call backs to 70s rock! The silver age of cartoons and 90s anime surge jokes are coming!
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
A kind reminder that millennials are starting to hit our 40s, and we’re increasingly in positions to make references to our childhood media. Move over constant call backs to 70s rock! The silver age of cartoons and 90s anime surge jokes are coming!"...a superpowered ki form for monks whose spell level is over 9."
Did... did Paizo just sneak a DragonBall Z reference into their APG preview? XD
I've never felt more called out in my life.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, based on media tropes the samurai really should have been an alternate class for the gunslinger rather than for the cavalier.
A lot of your classic western tropes (which the gunslinger ought to be a clearinghouse for) are also found in or originate from samurai films.
But rebranding the Gunslinger as like a "Drifter" class with grit mechanics of which "uses guns" is a class path works for me.
Yeah, based on media tropes the samurai really should have been an alternate class for the gunslinger rather than for the cavalier.
A lot of your classic western tropes (which the gunslinger ought to be a clearinghouse for) are also found in or originate from samurai films.
But rebranding the Gunslinger as like a "Drifter" class with grit mechanics of which "uses guns" is a class path works for me.
I mean, I've seen far more media depictions of knight style samurai as honorbound warriors fighting in service of their code or lord than I have of the cowboy style samurai ala yojimbo.
But my point is that every part of that archetype except guns is very appropriate to have on a character who's never seen and will never use a gun.
I don't really think that's agreeable in the same way that being Daring isn't something Swashbuckler's alone get.
And just as much as a Gunslinger presumably uses Guns, a Swashbuckler (by the very definition) is a daring sword wielder.
If you want to draw a distinction here but make an exception for the Swashbuckler, I'd say you're drawing a rather arbitrary line in the sand.
If I want to make a wandering drifter with a mysterious past, a steely gaze, dead level calm, and split-second reactions who uses a sword, I shouldn't need to play a 'Gunslinger' Class to get that character's mechanics right.
I don't agree.
Why can't my Fighter be "daring and have flair"? It's the exact same argument.
The only difference is for some reason the Swashbuckler gets a pass on not using Swords but Gunslinger doesn't.
That's selective enforcement IMO.
Besides, nothing is preventing your character from getting another form of Grit or even accessing Grit through other methods (who knows Panache could move outside of just the Swashbuckler without an MCD).
How so? Swashbuckler doesn't have the same weapon specific connotation.
What? It 100% does. Swashbucklers use swords. That's the very definition of a Swashbuckler.
The fact that there are gymnast Swashbucklers or ones that use axes, etc. already goes against the main themes and literal definition of the Swashbuckler.
The thematic literature featuring the term gunslinger entirely revolves around people who use guns.
So does "hair on the trigger collective calm" if we're being totally honest.
Almost all gunslingers in literature experience the Grit mechanic, and I would argue that it is definitely distinct enough in feeling to separate it from just a person that's "calm" during combat.
But those rules aren't the basis for a Class. They're the basis for a Class Path like 'Ruffian' or 'Thief' is for Rogue, not a core mechanic like Rage for a Barbarian.
What's the Core mechanic for the Rogue then? Sneak Attack?
Maybe it warrants more of a renaming, but I also have no problem integrating Guns with the Class and saying "Grit belongs to the Gunslinger" and then offer other methods of acquisition for those like you that want Grit on a Fighter.
EDIT: As for the Samurai argument, I could see that, but my focus is on the Grit class mechanic in general being able to expand to a whole class and they get opportunities for Gun specific feats much the same way that Swashbucklers get Parry/Buckler/Fencing specific feats.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How so? Swashbuckler doesn't have the same weapon specific connotation.
What? It 100% does. Swashbucklers use swords. That's the very definition of a Swashbuckler.
No, it isn't. Or at least, it is only one definition of a Swashbuckler. A quick google dictionary search says it just "a swashbuckling person," someone who will "engage in daring and romantic adventures with ostentatious bravado or flamboyance." Swashbuckler is also the name genre of European adventure literature that focuses on a heroic protagonist stock character who is skilled in swordplay, acrobatics, guile and chivalric ideals. . But there's a disambiguation of the term . The broadest definition seems to be "a rough, noisy and boastful adventurer." There is more stuff supporting this here, and also references to how Guardians of the Galaxy has been called a swashbuckling movie despite not having a lot of sword play.
While it is undeniable that the Swashbuckler class takes heavy inspiration from the specific genre you're referencing, it doesn't actually reference swords in the Advanced Player's Guide preview. The word sword doesn't actually appear anywhere in their class entry, nor does rapier.
DURING COMBAT ENCOUNTERS...You show off to gain panache, leveraging your flair to build up to powerful finishing moves followed by punishing retorts. You stay nimble, moving into the best position to perform your maneuvers while dodging enemy blows. You might frighten your foes, distract them, or slip past their defenses, depending on your swashbuckler’s style.
So Deadman's correct here. Gunslingers don't have the same connotations. The term swashbuckling definitely has connotations with swordplay, but that's pretty distinct from "actually has the term gun in the name."
Cap, literally in the first paragraph from that Wiki you linked is:
"Swashbuckler heros are gentleman adventurers who dress elegantly and flamboyantly in coats, waistcoats, tight breeches, large feathered hats, and high leather boots, and they are armed with the thin rapiers used by aristocrats."
This is getting pedantic. Swashbucklers are 100% associated with swords and fencing in both historical and literary fiction.
Who cares. Gunslingers as a Class is completely viable. Change the name if you don't like it, but I said the same thing for Swashbuckler on similar grounds.
"Drifter" implies someone that "Drifts". That's not all Gunslingers either.
Either way, there's nothing fruitful to this discussion to be had and it doesn't pertain to APG anyways so I'm out.
Cap, literally in the first paragraph from that Wiki you linked is:
"Swashbuckler heros are gentleman adventurers who dress elegantly and flamboyantly in coats, waistcoats, tight breeches, large feathered hats, and high leather boots, and they are armed with the thin rapiers used by aristocrats."
Yes, which I addressed. That's a specific genre that uses the term. The term has other meanings as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But my point is that every part of that archetype except guns is very appropriate to have on a character who's never seen and will never use a gun.
While true, you could make the same argument about the Investigator's Studied Combat. There's nothing really intrinsic about studying your opponents that necessitates using a finesse weapon, but the requirement still exists, or did in the playtest with no indication that it's gone away.
Not to say that I disagree with you, but that ultimately sometimes fluff and mechanics get bolted together in ways that they don't necessarily need to.
How so? Swashbuckler doesn't have the same weapon specific connotation. Most use rapiers, sure, but swashbuckling adventure as a genre also features swashbucklers who are skilled with (and in many cases even use primarily) bows, guns, knives, and a host of other weapons.
Worth noting that playtest swashbucklers were limited to agile and finesse melee weapons (or unarmed strikes).
Ultimately, while I agree with your points about not wanting to be weapon-pigeonholed (I even think it's unfortunate that classes like the Ranger in core only have feat support for two-weapon fighting and archery).
Regardless of what they do, I sincerely hope PF2 guns don't make the mistake of PF1 guns and become these hyper-specialized weapons that are intentionally terrible unless you get specific support to make them otherwise. A fighter should be able to pick up a gun and with zero feats be roughly as effective as if they'd picked up a weapon of any other tier.
Having a required class or archetype to make them work would be a huge let down, even if I do think a Gunslinger/Drifter/Yojimbo/Whatever class would be cool too.
I would personally prefer if the gunslinger was an archetype. Being steely eyed, battle hardened, all those tropes that a gunslinger belongs to, those are just personality traits. You could pair those up with any class just fine, along with the ability to use guns.
While I love second edition I miss being able to pair combat feats with any class. I used to try to fit whirlwind strike on any class it made sense for, now only two classes can do it which makes me a little sad. So being able to pair gun-slinging with whatever class is a bonus, to me. Besides, it doesn't have to be as powerful as it used to be, with touch AC gone, so I don't think it would make as much sense to base a class around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I love second edition I miss being able to pair combat feats with any class.
Well you're in luck then, because the APG will specifically have archetypes based around opening up combat styles. We have had an archer and armored sentinel confirmed so far. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'm hoping for the permanence spell to make a return. It's a favorite spell of mine, though I don't have anything in mind for it yet. I have similar feelings towards the contingency spell too.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m not sure as a spell, but rituals to create permanent spell effects sound awesome, agreed.
This is getting pedantic. Swashbucklers are 100% associated with swords and fencing in both historical and literary fiction.
Funny. One of the most iconic swashbucklers in media, and definitely the first person I tend to think of when I think "swashbuckler" is Robin Hood. Who, while he does (usually) know how to use a rapier, and in some versions even an arming sword, is most well known for his (sometimes almost supernatural) skill with the bow. Pirates also tend to come to mind quite often, but more often than not they're using pistols (the irony?) and maybe knives rather than swords. Well, maybe sometimes sabers, but definitely not "100%". Now that's not to say that there's not a lot of swashbucklers who do use a sword, but then, swords are quite possibly the most common weapon in fiction in general. That doesn't mean that swashbuckling is automatically directly linked with swords.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't say I've ever heard Robin Hood referred to as a swashbuckler before (nor depicted with a rapier, his most popular legends are set several hundred years before they were developed).
Sword and pistol pirates though, definitely. Will be a bit disappointed if whenever we get guns published there isn't some support for Swashbucklers that fight that way.