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.
Errol Flynn literally got labeled "the greatest swashbuckler of the silver screen" for his role in the 1938 "Adventures of Robin Hood". Wikipedia lists Robin Hood as a Swashbuckler, and even lists his legends as one of the inspirations for the genre. And while not actually a Swashbuckler archetype (though at first I could've sworn it was, turns out it's Ranger) the Hooded Champion, which I'm fairly certain exists to be "Robin Hood, the Archetype", gives a great many swashbuckler abilities.
Interestingly Wikipedia also lists William Tell among the list of "famous swashbuckler characters".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how much my Patron as the object of a Witch's study concept will be viable. And that of their Familiar being a figment of their mind that they can sometimes materialize.
Although some people weren't fans, I did like the idea that instead of characterizing the patron you characterize the kind of relationship one has with the patron.
That'd be a cool way to handle it I think without giving too much rigidity to the Patron itself.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the whole, aside from a bit of the math, grit isn't really any different than panache.
The conditions to earn it and the feats to use it really don't show very different between the two. I know a lot of folks are very heavily invested in how things have been done and there's nothing wrong with that. But as someone with no PF1 experience, I personally really struggle to see what marrying guns to grit brings to the game as a whole, aside from it really just feeling like something tacked onto a class chassis just so they could justify a guns-only class.
I don't think a gunslinging archetype with a smattering of some class-specific feat options (for fighters or swashbucklers or rogues, whatever) would underserve us at all.
If they did lean heavier into gunslingers as a standalone class, I'd hope they'd find more focus on the tech-crafting, steampunk, or inventor sort of side of things. Your swagger as a gunslinger is more flavor--but aside from shooting things, what else can you do? The ability to invent mechanics and objects might be a better way to fluff out what the class could do.
Them's my opinion.
On the whole, aside from a bit of the math, grit isn't really any different than panache.
It wasn't before.
But I think there's a lot of merit to doing an inverse idea.
Panache requires performing a specific action and get a specific damage bonus.
Grit doesn't have to grant damage or be contingent on completing an action. It could be contingent on being attacked, failing a save, or some other "non-active" trigger.
We really don't know what Grit could look like, but to me personally, I think the difference between "split-second reaction time calm" and "bragadocious flair" can be handled mechanically distinct.
I definitely think evaluating something based on its 2E context requires a mountain of salt considering how much variation in terms of practical mechanics the Swashbuckler and Investigators are from their original mechanics.
There are themes and loose mechanics that carried over, but the practical application of them is just way different.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swashbuckler_film
I won't deny that most of these are based on swordsmen. But even then not all rapiers.
Some interesting ones to note:
- Star Wars (and I assume they mostly mean Han Solo rather than Luke - a gunfighter)
- William Tell (as mentioned - and a crossbowman)
- Robin Hood - already mentioned with special reference to Errol Flynn
- Sharpe - a highly skilled rifleman
@Sporkedup
I recommend looking at the PF1 Gunslinger, its archetypes, and feats to get an idea of how diverse the class is. There are a lot of options that are available to a "Firearm wielding character" not just shooting, but how they shoot, changes in movement, special ammunition, different targeting options, ways to use guns in melee, using bombs, using different weapons (Crossbow Ace is a Gunslinger archetype), etc.
Saying its just a "firearm wielding class" heavily undermines how many options are potentially available.
Its another case of there is enough material for a class, if Paizo wants to make it one. They just need to get the right mechanic(s) to make it work.
I did that a bit. Glanced through. I'm not particularly adept at parsing the PF1 language at a fair few points, but I did get that the base of the class, aside from using firearms, is the grit system.
Obviously, class archetypes were great at expanding on the way a gunslinger builds.
My concern isn't that there isn't enough different build types to slap together around firearms, but that the base class seems to exist to enable players to use a weapon type, and the grit mechanic exists to try to liven it up a bit. I dunno. I think they could do a lot more with niche protection by moving further away from being a primarily just gunslinging combat class and actually provide a bit more exploration, downtime, and support capacity. That might exist in some of the PF1 archetypes but it is what it is.
My opinion is that focusing on the design and construction of firearms more than just the shooting of stuff with them in combat could develop a stronger class in all aspects of the game.
I'm just talking about this because it's interesting--not really trying to change minds. Just throw ideas out there. I'm pretty well aware that what will likely end up being in the game will probably be very heavily styled on PF1.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Etymology doesn't necessarily determine meaning. I mean, we had a lot of Cavalier archetypes in PF1 that traded out the mount even though Cavalier (i.e. Chevalier) literally means "horseman."
PF1 had a lot of unfortunate knock on effects by trying to tie down the Swashbuckler's weapon too much. The APG playtest version of "agile or finesse and you're fine" hits the right balance.
What is this swashbuckler conversation supposed to solve anyways?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is this swashbuckler conversation supposed to solve anyways?
It's the APG class I'm most excited for, even though it probably has changed the least since the playtest. Since the playtest version really was a lot of fun to play so I assume most of what they did was in the "polish and add new tools" department.
Oh good, so you agree that a Gunslinger doesn't need to wield guns then.
I assume the Cavalier archetype in the APG is for the "I want to do mounted combat" character and doesn't really do non-mounted stuff (similar to how the "archer" archetype won't help you fight better with axes).
So I guess the question is "what defines the gunslinger class"? Is it "uses guns" or "the grit mechanic and the western tropes it evokes"? The former is an archetype called gunslinger, the latter is a class called something else.
I am really interested to see what is up all the attention given to familiars. Is it just going to be new options? or will there be some rules stuff included as well about things like having Familiars take cover with their master?
The witch in particular feels like it is going to be in a very vulnerable place unless there is more general clarity in how masters can protect their little buddies from Area of Effect attacks.
I am really interested to see what is up all the attention given to familiars. Is it just going to be new options? or will there be some rules stuff included as well about things like having Familiars take cover with their master?
I gotta say besides the Patron, I'm really excited to see how Familiars changed for the Witch
The introduction of "Familiar Master" has some connotations that mean we could be getting some pretty cool new features for them.
And Erol Flynn was a Sword wielding swashbuckler. Classifying Robin Hood as a Swashbuckler is not something I've ever personally seen done (I dont see people saying Bilbo is a Wizard just because he's in the same book as Gandalf) but he does infact use a sword when in melee anyways.
...Errol Flynn was an actor. Who played Robin Hood in the movie I mentioned. I doubt he personally went on any daring adventures, and I'm pretty sure the only weapons he ever wielded were props. I hardly think that's equivalent to arguing Bilbo is a Wizard because Gandalf is in the same story. Besides, Bilbo was hired specifically to be a Rogue.
As far as Gunslingers go though, TBTH I'm honestly with the group in favor of a Gunslinger archetype, and another class (Drifter? Mysterious Stranger? Whatever they want to call it) focused on the Grit side. Especially since Gunslinger being a self-contained archetype rather than a class means not only can every class use guns, it means any class can use high-level gunplay feats, while it being a class with a Multiclass Archetype would restrict anyone else to only using up to level 10 Gunslinger feats.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For the record my original post didn’t state anything saying guns would be specific with gunslingers. In fact I stated the opposite, guns should be uncommon weapons anyone with the proper martial prowess can use.
And then getting specifically good gun feats is no different than the Swashbuckler getting specific buckler, parry, fencing abilities.
I don’t even have stock in the name, but giving the class with the emphasis on Grit some gun based abilities but not overall enforcing anything seems entirely within the design tones they’ve already set.
You can be “gritty” and not have the grit mechanic in the same way you can have “flare” and not have the panache mechanic.
If they want to call that class gunslinger, gritsling, sand grit, gritical hitter, whatever it’s no skin off my back. All I was stating is I think if they want to make it work as a class there’s a way to do it and do it extremely well and consistent without making guns a club.
Edit: and just to further emphasize that I realize not everyone agrees with this, until I played the Swashbuckler I would have disagreed with my current opinion of “it could totally be it’s own class and it kinda deserves to be IMO”
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, not gonna lie, seeing everyone being suspect of Swashbuckler being its own class, seeing how they came out of the playtest, and then turning around and doing the exact thing to Gunslinger is getting pretty tiresome.
PF1E panache is not as all what it is now in PF2E, so they could easily do the same with grit system. And they could easily have other feat chains that give them some unique spins on how they use their weapons, be they just guns or not.
I'm just gonna wait to see how it plays out. Tailoring our expectations over previous PF1E executions or guessing via what current PF2E is just limiting our expectations for what the designers are capable of.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then it sounds like everyone largely agrees with each other.
1. Guns by themselves probably don’t justify a class
2. The grit system is more promising, especially if it enveloped more variety of weapons, like bastard swords and naginata.
Then it sounds like everyone largely agrees with each other.
1. Guns by themselves probably don’t justify a class
2. The grit system is more promising, especially if it enveloped more variety of weapons, like bastard swords and naginata.
That is a rather fascinating observation that the vibe of a samurai and a western gunslinger are so similar.
Not so surprising considering the movie industry in the fifties but still.
Maybe it’s the “duel” aspect associated with the two as well? The genera Ronan concept and a western gunslinger are rather similar.
Heck even westworld takes note of that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am really interested to see what is up all the attention given to familiars. Is it just going to be new options? or will there be some rules stuff included as well about things like having Familiars take cover with their master?
The witch in particular feels like it is going to be in a very vulnerable place unless there is more general clarity in how masters can protect their little buddies from Area of Effect attacks.
The article mentions imps and fairy dragons as familiars, so that's something. I'm not familiar (hah) with 1st edition familiars, but I imagine we can make some assumptions based on abilities they had in that. Or abilities those creatures have in the beastiary
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So like the article says, what Pathfinder character are you excited to build, and what stories do you want to tell?Tiefling shoony investigator with the vigilante archetype.
No evil shall escape the dogged pursuit of Hellhound!
I imagined something close to judge dredd but a pug haha
Love this
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then it sounds like everyone largely agrees with each other.
1. Guns by themselves probably don’t justify a class
2. The grit system is more promising, especially if it enveloped more variety of weapons, like bastard swords and naginata.
This is more or less my perspective, yeah.
That is a rather fascinating observation that the vibe of a samurai and a western gunslinger are so similar.
Not so surprising considering the movie industry in the fifties but still.
Maybe it’s the “duel” aspect associated with the two as well? The genera Ronan concept and a western gunslinger are rather similar.
Heck even westworld takes note of that.
Yeah, the genres have a really large amount of overlap in a very interesting way. Duels are certainly a part of it, too, though both genres also have quite a bit of skirmishing and other kinds of combat as well...
And going with 'Duelist' as a Class name for the 'Grit' Class has some appeal and thematic legs, especially since you can then add more Advanced Weapon options (good for guns since I assume those will probably be Advanced) and make it the Class for Aldori Swordlords (who play into these tropes perfectly, IMO).
The term also has some issues (and PF1 baggage), but probably no more issues than 'Drifter' does, and the PF1 Prestige Class would almost certainly overlap too much with Swashbuckler to return, so I doubt that'd get in the way...
I dunno, I'm still not 100% sure on Class name here. I just really hope they do this, since I wanna play one.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So like the article says, what Pathfinder character are you excited to build, and what stories do you want to tell?Tiefling shoony investigator with the vigilante archetype.
No evil shall escape the dogged pursuit of Hellhound!
...I hate you for this.
<3
...Errol Flynn was an actor. Who played Robin Hood in the movie I mentioned. I doubt he personally went on any daring adventures, and I'm pretty sure the only weapons he ever wielded were props.
Errol Flynn was the main character, but if you don't know already, check what the archer Howard Hill did in that movie (and beyond). It's an amusing read.
The two even became friends after the shooting (pun intended!).
Making Gunslinger into a class by definition satisfies people that would be happy with it as an archetype, because classes have multiclass archetypes. The same isn't true if you only create it as an archetype. I would be extremely sad to see Gunslinger relegated to just an archetype.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Making Gunslinger into a class by definition satisfies people that would be happy with it as an archetype, because classes have multiclass archetypes. The same isn't true if you only create it as an archetype. I would be extremely sad to see Gunslinger relegated to just an archetype.
This actually isn't true, since Multiclass Archetypes cap you at 1/2 level Class Feats making the high level stuff unavailable to anyone but the core Class.
My own hope, at the moment, is that we get a Gunslinger Class Path for the Drifter/Duelist/whatever the Grit Class is called, and then also get a non-multiclass Archetype.
My own hope, at the moment, is that we get a Gunslinger Class Path for the Drifter/Duelist/whatever the Grit Class is called, and then also get a non-multiclass Archetype.
While I reserve the right to change my mind once we get to actually see the Non-multiclass archetypes in the APG, I agree with this.
An "I use guns" (IUG) archetype should be as different from the Gunslinger MCA as the Archer archetype is from the Ranger or Fighter. IUG should give you feats to give you access to guns, and increase your proficiency with guns and make you better at using guns. Gunslinger feats, on the other hand, should be focused on better or interesting uses of Grit, where as the "good at guns" abilities should be part of the Gunslinger Class features.
My own hope, at the moment, is that we get a Gunslinger Class Path for the Drifter/Duelist/whatever the Grit Class is called, and then also get a non-multiclass Archetype.While I reserve the right to change my mind once we get to actually see the Non-multiclass archetypes in the APG, I agree with this.
An "I use guns" (IUG) archetype should be as different from the Gunslinger MCA as the Archer archetype is from the Ranger or Fighter. IUG should give you feats to give you access to guns, and increase your proficiency with guns and make you better at using guns. Gunslinger feats, on the other hand, should be focused on better or interesting uses of Grit, where as the "good at guns" abilities should be part of the Gunslinger Class features.
Agreed. As long as the grit/deeds/dares sorts of mechanics are interesting and validate a full class, then I think this is likely the most elegant solution.
So I just noticed that the review mentions a Gnome option called Razzle Dazzle and I don't know what it does but I'm already excited about it. I kinda want to make a nerdy gnome wizard with the performer background but a low charisma, who became a wizard after his showbiz dreams fizzled out. Still calls himself the Raz Dazzler from time to time though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I just noticed that the review mentions a Gnome option called Razzle Dazzle and I don't know what it does but I'm already excited about it. I kinda want to make a nerdy gnome wizard with the performer background but a low charisma, who became a wizard after his showbiz dreams fizzled out. Still calls himself the Raz Dazzler from time to time though.
I love seeing a Gravity Falls reference in the wild
Well, the link in Paradozen's post leads to a Youtube clip of Gravity Falls, so it's a fair bet.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I saw the link, but if you google razzle dazzle you get lot of results from dictionaries
EDIT: Oooooooooooooh my morning tiredom xD Yeah finally got what you mean(I misunderstood you meant reference being "razzle dazzle" and not a character calling themselves "Raz Dazzler" xP Aka I thought you said Paizo did gravity falls reference and not the poster)
I hate mornings
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two other archetypes that were talked about during the APG retrospective was dandy and diva, those might also pair well with a razzle dazzle gnome! Thematically anyway, we'll see what all those things actually do soon (not soon enough)
|
Razzle Dazzle may be an option for Chameleon Gnomes, as it was a type of camouflage used on ships in WWI to make it hard to determine how far away they were or what direction they were moving
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I just noticed that the review mentions a Gnome option called Razzle Dazzle and I don't know what it does but I'm already excited about it. I kinda want to make a nerdy gnome wizard with the performer background but a low charisma, who became a wizard after his showbiz dreams fizzled out. Still calls himself the Raz Dazzler from time to time though.I love seeing a Gravity Falls reference in the wild
Could do an all gravity falls party. Dipper the investigator, Mabel the bard or sorcerer, with the beast master archetype to get waddles as an animal companion, Wendy the ranger, Grunkel Stan the ruffian rogue, Old Man McGucket the white-haired witch (might have to wait, I don't think this was confirmed for the APG), tons of options. I should watch Gravity Falls again.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big ol' discussion on gunslingers, and I'm just hoping cavaliers get to Mount more than just horses.
I hope they can add the mount trait to anything at least on size category larger than them and willing.
Heck, it’d be cool if they could roll a Nature check on trying to mount an untamed creature as part of the same action at higher levels, the “instant tame hero” thing is a cool idea I could see coming to life there.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big ol' discussion on gunslingers, and I'm just hoping cavaliers get to Mount more than just horses.I hope they can add the mount trait to anything at least on size category larger than them and willing.
Heck, it’d be cool if they could roll a Nature check on trying to mount an untamed creature as part of the same action at higher levels, the “instant tame hero” thing is a cool idea I could see coming to life there.
Or having Kobold buddies ride around on your Barbarian :3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Big ol' discussion on gunslingers, and I'm just hoping cavaliers get to Mount more than just horses.I hope they can add the mount trait to anything at least on size category larger than them and willing.
Heck, it’d be cool if they could roll a Nature check on trying to mount an untamed creature as part of the same action at higher levels, the “instant tame hero” thing is a cool idea I could see coming to life there.
Yes my friend is going to want his badger riding Gnome Knight :-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I realized that some of the things I'm most excited for is the casting options that new rogue and ranger paths will bring. Mixing magic with melee is so fun, adding more options to characters. I then got to thinking that once those options are out, it's really just barbarian and fighter that won't have casting options (and alchemist but they kind of feel like a pseudo caster already so I'm leaving them out of this). And then I realized that neither of those classes, barb or fighter, have had anything revealed!
Eldritch Knight and bloodrager please!!
Now that you mention it, I'm quite interested to see what is in the book for fighters, as they and monks are the only classes without subclasses, and we've already heard about a lot of monk stuff.
Now that you mention it, I'm quite interested to see what is in the book for fighters, as they and monks are the only classes without subclasses, and we've already heard about a lot of monk stuff.
I’m curious how archer and armor sentinel potentially augment fighter.
That could be meta.
As fighter doesn't really have any 'subclasses', I assume they'll get a pile of feats. Eldritch Knight or whatever they end up getting could simply be a feat tree, as I'm pretty sure it was stated the monk options would be too.