I really want Gunslinger to be it's own class, and I'm eager to play Kinetisist.
It was pretty controversial during the 4e days, but I'd love to see classes like the Vampire. An archetype might be enough, or maybe Dhampir, but I think there's plenty for a full class. It just makes a lot of sense with the sheer variety of types of vampires. I'd love to see Weres done the same way, but Shifter might get me close enough to that.
I've said this in several other threads, but I'll say it again. I loved the Fiend Keeper medium archetype. The trope of getting power/knowledge from a possessing/bound entity, so a class or even archetype that provides mechanics for that would be awesome. Just something that allows you to boost/add to/modify spellcasting or maybe proficiency in exchange for maybe some sort of anathema or will save requirement would be super cool (bargaining with or forcing the entity possessing you to help you or teach you or something).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Y'all think psychic will get the occult list?
Almost certainly. I doubt paizo would create 2E with four traditions of magic to only have a secret fifth tradition already planned. Especially considering they've already mentioned not wanting to make anymore identification skills. It seems to me that occult magic is a re-themed version of psychic magic while primal magic is split off from divine to help give druids/etc more differentiation.
Most importantly I would like classes that offered unique mechanical play. Otherwise, I don't see why it can't be just rolled into an already existing class. Or be an archetype. A distinct enough theme is also very important. A lot of the classes from 1e offer nothing unique from a thematic standpoint that isn't already covered by another class and does not push the envelope far enough mechanically to deserve its own class either unless it was reworked from the ground up like the new swashbuckler. The hybrid classes were especially guilty of this.
So much this. I keep seeing people say that they want every class of PF1 to return, but part of what made me excited for PF2 was how changes made it unnecessary to create new classes (or even archetypes) for every minor variation of an existing class.
Maybe the reason why people think they fit well is because of the Exploiter Wizard?
This, the fact Arcanist was literally a hybrid of Wizard/Sorcerer, and how class pools are neither special nor especially thematic in PF2.
Also the combination of Arcanist having a few cool toys but not having much theme, and the Wizard having theme but being rather unexciting mechanically seems like it would be an overall benefit if you just combined them. It would also fix some of the issues with some exploits being more flexible upgrades of Wizard abilities (Dimensional Slide was basically better than the Wizard Conjuration/Teleportation Specialist abilities. What's the point of calling yourself a specialist if your only unique mechanics are done better by newer classes?)
You also mentioned the ability for exploits to poach other class features (like sorcerer bloodlines), but PF2 has a more elegant way to handle that via multiclassing (and potentially archetypes). Part of why Hybrids came into being in PF1 was because multiclassing was terrible and frequently didn't work. While a few managed to establish enough of a unique thematic identity to stand on their own (Investigator returning in APG), most of them are redundant in the new paradigm of PF2.
Gunslinger is an interesting conversation, as I'd like to see them return as a part of a general crafting/mechanic/steampunky sort of overview. Mirrored in the alchemist, where they have a lot of things they can craft and upgrade, but firearms work as the bombs of sort--the expected main source of direct combat contribution?
I dunno. There would have to be a shit-ton of work in there to get it to work, but I think that could be a much broader and more mechanically unique way to approach the existence of firearms, who can use them and how, etc.
The existing system of grit and such always looks so bolted on. I think the class could use a ground-up revisit, but I know for a fact I'd be in the minority on that one.
I really want Gunslinger to be it's own class, and I'm eager to play Kinetisist.
I have a question: what do you hope to get out of gunslinger being a full class that you don't think you could get out of it being made an archetype?
|
I have a question: what do you hope to get out of gunslinger being a full class that you don't think you could get out of it being made an archetype?I really want Gunslinger to be it's own class, and I'm eager to play Kinetisist.
In my opinion, the best reason for this is a lore one using the Uncommon and Rare Traits to "Gate-Off" Firearms from MOST CHARACTERS in the system until at LEAST level 2. Primary-Class Gunslingers should have their firearm right off the bat... and sure Ancient Elves exist (grumble... grumble), but barring these exceptional cases it should be wholesale impossible for a character to get easy access to firearms at large by just dropping off a pile of gold or making a choice for their Character at level 1 and make a choice that's at least as valuable as the Primary Class or the choice of a MCA Dedication Feat.
I'm intrigued by the Drifter concept going around. I'd love a version of gunslinger that can stand on its own as a full class, with diverse builds like ronin samurai and wandering gun for hire.
In my opinion, the best reason for this is a lore one using the Uncommon and Rare Traits to "Gate-Off" Firearms from MOST CHARACTERS in the system until at LEAST level 2. Primary-Class Gunslingers should have their firearm right off the bat... and sure Ancient Elves exist (grumble... grumble), but barring these exceptional cases it should be wholesale impossible for a character to get easy access to firearms at large by just dropping off a pile of gold or making a choice for their Character at level 1 and make a choice that's at least as valuable as the Primary Class or the choice of a MCA Dedication Feat.
That doesn't really answer my question. If the main defining trait of a gunslinger is that they can use guns, I don't see the need to tack an entire class onto that.
Extending grit and tricks and all the goodies the gunslinger had in PF1 into a full class in the same way Panache got extended and expanded upon for the Swashbuckler sounds really good to me. It could be a really great way to build a martial+ that gets to interact with the action economy and feat system in an exciting way. Doing that as an archetype doesn't give you enough room to fully explore it, imo.
|
Per the arcanist, I enjoyed that class but I can see where people are coming from. What if we delve into the idea that the arcanist explores the fundamental aspects of magic and give it a words of power like spellcasting ability?
Then you have a unique spellcasting class, it gets to explore further its idea of being able to exploit and hack spells and those that want that magic system from 1e get it back.
To differentiate the Drifter from the Swashbuckler, I think I'd like them to try the retort concept again. I confess, I didn't pay the closest attention to the Swashbuckler feedback, being much more interested in defending Divine witches, but what was the big issue with the retort mechanic that caused it to be left out entirely, and is this something that can be reworked when developed on its own instead of attached to Panache and Finisher cycling?
Edit: or...is it just they didn't really have any retorts and the ones they had were kind of lame?
Anyways, I forgot to say, but I'd also like this class to play with fortune abilities. Currently, you can't apply two fortune or misfortune abilities to the same roll. Which just begs for a class ability that can break that particular rule.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, at first I didn't love the "Drifter" name, but it's growing on me.
I think DMW gets credit for the name, but it's hard to remember.
retorts
Considering I hope the "Drifter" is focused on reacting to an opponent in some way (either by actual reactions or by having access to actions that have requirements satisfied by opponents) would be a cool way to handle "Grit".
Fast on the Draw
____________________________________________
Free Action
Requirements You have not rolled initiative and you are aware of at least one opponent to target with this ability
"When you would normally roll for initiative, you can choose to go before another opponent in initiative. Choose a single enemy, and assume the same initiative but you go before that opponent in initiative even if your total modifier is lower."
Steely Gaze
_____________________________________________
Reaction
Prerequisites Expert in Intimidation
Trigger Someone attempts a Diplomacy, Intimidation, or Deception check against you or one of your allies.
"Your silence is particularly devastating when paired with a mean mug. When the triggering action is performed, it must make an additional roll against your Intimidation DC. If the second check fails, the target is Frightened 1 for one round and the triggering actions tier of success is lowered by one step. If this check was already a Critical Failure, the target becomes Frightened 2. You do not suffer a language penalty to your Intimidation DC when using this ability."
(These are off the cuff! Just trying to go for the "vibe")
What other cool concepts could go into the Drifter?
EDIT: OOOOO What if the "Grit" trait means "You have not acted in the current round yet".
Basically a Drifter always wants to start the round with some kind of "Gritty" play, so they're looking for opportunities to trigger it? Idk... Not quite "Flourish" trait or "Open", but something in that vein maybe.
Everyone is very focused on the "slinger" bit of gunslinger, and I think that definitely limits what the class could be or do.
If nothing else, though, firearms should definitely not key off dexterity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fast on the Draw
____________________________________________
Free Action
Requirements You have not rolled initiative and you are aware of at least one opponent to target with this ability"When you would normally roll for initiative, you can choose to go before another opponent in initiative. Choose a single enemy, and assume the same initiative but you go before that opponent in initiative even if your total modifier is lower."
I really like this, because there is a possibility that you'll choose the wrong enemy, and wind up going second to last in initiative. But you'll at least go before that one!
Gun tricks would be a cool way to differentiate the Gunslinger/Drifter from a character that just uses a gun. Stuff like ranged disarm or busting a lock with your gun.
I like your Steely Gaze idea and would love to see more social stuff for the GS. Not a western, but imagine recreating the "Do you feel lucky punk?" scene from Dirty Harry.
Or a "I Shot First" talent that lets you use your gun attack roll as initiative.
Also Drifter is a cool name for is. I'm into it. Maybe have a 'Gunslinger' archetype to give other classes gun usage and have the 'Drifter' be the main class.
I really like this, because there is a possibility that you'll choose the wrong enemy, and wind up going second to last in initiative. But you'll at least go before that one!Fast on the Draw
____________________________________________
Free Action
Requirements You have not rolled initiative and you are aware of at least one opponent to target with this ability"When you would normally roll for initiative, you can choose to go before another opponent in initiative. Choose a single enemy, and assume the same initiative but you go before that opponent in initiative even if your total modifier is lower."
That's exactly what I was going for. An ability with a good opportunity cost, but also still beneficial. Would be hilarious fun at a table to when you make the "bad" choice.
Plus, this is extremely good in a 1v1 or a boss fight or if the Drifter knows his opponent.
I like your Steely Gaze idea and would love to see more social stuff for the GS. Not a western, but imagine recreating the "Do you feel lucky punk?" scene from Dirty Harry.
Considering it has a combat application as well (Demoralize) and definitely has applications out of combat as well (I was actually thinking of the Tombstone scene where Kurt Russell is slapping the heck out of Billy Bob Thornton, but Dirty Harry is probably even better), I think it hits that sweet spot that's strong enough for a Class Feat.
Not sure what level these would be, but Fast on the Draw seems level 1 status to me. Maybe I'm undervaluing a little (lvl 2?).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the best reason for this is a lore one using the Uncommon and Rare Traits to "Gate-Off" Firearms from MOST CHARACTERS in the system until at LEAST level 2. Primary-Class Gunslingers should have their firearm right off the bat... and sure Ancient Elves exist (grumble... grumble), but barring these exceptional cases it should be wholesale impossible for a character to get easy access to firearms at large by just dropping off a pile of gold or making a choice for their Character at level 1 and make a choice that's at least as valuable as the Primary Class or the choice of a MCA Dedication Feat.That doesn't really answer my question. If the main defining trait of a gunslinger is that they can use guns, I don't see the need to tack an entire class onto that.
See, I just feel like this entire argument is unnecessarily reductionist. Hell, we have a beloved class literally called fighter. What, so being good at fighting is an entire class? Bleh. Paizo has written thousands upon thousands of pages of creative content. I have complete faith that they could make a gunslinger interesting. They were able to make several archetypes for gunslinger in 1e, which suggests to me that there is far more room for creativity than "hur dur has gun pew pew".
So far, archetypes seem pretty underwhelming as a defining feature of a character. They are great for splashing into a character here or there, but if I'm playing a gunslinger, I want a giant gulp. On top of that, by making it a class you also make it an archetype, so it's a win-win in a way that just an archetype isn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, the best reason for this is a lore one using the Uncommon and Rare Traits to "Gate-Off" Firearms from MOST CHARACTERS in the system until at LEAST level 2. Primary-Class Gunslingers should have their firearm right off the bat... and sure Ancient Elves exist (grumble... grumble), but barring these exceptional cases it should be wholesale impossible for a character to get easy access to firearms at large by just dropping off a pile of gold or making a choice for their Character at level 1 and make a choice that's at least as valuable as the Primary Class or the choice of a MCA Dedication Feat.That doesn't really answer my question. If the main defining trait of a gunslinger is that they can use guns, I don't see the need to tack an entire class onto that.See, I just feel like this entire argument is unnecessarily reductionist. Hell, we have a beloved class literally called fighter. What, so being good at fighting is an entire class? Bleh. Paizo has written thousands upon thousands of pages of creative content. I have complete faith that they could make a gunslinger interesting. They were able to make several archetypes for gunslinger in 1e, which suggests to me that there is far more room for creativity than "hur dur has gun pew pew".
So far, archetypes seem pretty underwhelming as a defining feature of a character. They are great for splashing into a character here or there, but if I'm playing a gunslinger, I want a giant gulp. On top of that, by making it a class you also make it an archetype, so it's a win-win in a way that just an archetype isn't.
My main issue with Gunslinger is it being a class based around a weapon type, which is really, really what archetypes are for.
If you can't make a melee focused Gunslinger, or a throwing weapon gunslinger, or an archer or crossbowman version, then it's not worth making into a class.
If guns aren't key to its class fantasy, then it should probably get a name change and class paths that go down other iconic routes. After all, you can have someone who has grit without wielding a gun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All this talk about a lone wanderer with a steely gaze doing what they need to do to get the job done also makes me think that Inquisitor could have a home in this proposed class
And then either add in champion or cleric as archetypes (or vice versa )
All this talk about a lone wanderer with a steely gaze doing what they need to do to get the job done also makes me think that Inquisitor could have a home in this proposed class/
I could definitely see that, but at the same time, there are a lot of themes under the original Inquisitor that I think could rear their head.
For instance, I think a lot of people think Van Helsing when they think Inquisitor, which definitely fits that mold, but if they did consolidate it I would still love to see a Skill focused Cleric Doctrine.
But then, I kinda dislike that, if only for the fact that if the Gunslinger is getting its own class I do feel the Inquisitor deserves one too.
The Divine trickster/monster hunter thing is iconic enough in it's own right (Van Helsing, Geralt, Constantine, Wolfwood, Winchester Brothers, all the remakes of Hansel and Gretel, Brothers Grimm, etc.)
I do think it should probably be more focused on Occult instead of Divine though (or like the monk have the option of either).
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, at first I didn't love the "Drifter" name, but it's growing on me.
I think DMW gets credit for the name, but it's hard to remember.
Amusingly, I actually feel about the same. I mean, I think I was the first one to use it, but I'm not positive, and I started out using it in quotes as a placeholder, but it's definitely been growing on me as an actual name.
And I think both of the abilities you list are interesting and appropriate. I'm less sold on the 'Grit' mechanic being based around not having acted yet, though. That incentivizes some weird stuff.
And I think there's a bit of thematic overlap with Inquisitor but no more than, say, Champion and Warpriest and I'd like to see them bith show up as very different things.
The challenge on class naming seems to be the unwritten rule that they are one word. Mysterious Stranger fits what we are discussing but is two words. And Stranger really doesn’t sound right!
And I think both of the abilities you list are interesting and appropriate. I'm less sold on the 'Grit' mechanic being based around not having acted yet, though. That incentivizes some weird stuff.
Yeah idk. I guess I'm going for the vibe of, "you want to use Grit abilities as early as possible, because Grit enables your standard tactics."
And then I very much felt like it should be similar to action buy-backs that Rangers get with their abilities.
Mostly to allow the "Drifter" to do actions that otherwise require too much time (such as reloading guns) or combos that get enabled as a result.
I think it would make sense if say you almost get a roundabout "haste" type mechanic to operate weapons/tactics either less than ideal for others or just outright impossible to pull off (if guns have Reload 2 for instance, Fire, Reload, Fire).
The one thing that seems semi consistent across the "Drifter" concept is that they (maybe I'm the only one that feels this way) they are "heavy hitters", so I would expect Grit to be something that enables movement/versatility/non-damage things.
Perhaps some kind of momentum builder too, where you build Grit up to a cap (3?), and then unleash it all at once with some fancy moves in a single turn (the "burst" round concept I think could be a lot of fun to explore here).
There's lots of ways you can take it honestly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The challenge on class naming seems to be the unwritten rule that they are one word. Mysterious Stranger fits what we are discussing but is two words. And Stranger really doesn’t sound right!
How I came up with Drifter as a name: I plugged "Mysterious Stranger" into TV Tropes, and "The Drifter" was an associated subtrope.
I haven't played first edition, so a really big question for me in this case is the source of the guns. Can gunslingers design, craft, upgrade, and repair firearms? How do they generate ammunition?
What really sets firearms apart from other weaponry is its utter rarity and peculiar origins. A truly self-sufficient gunslinger is wildly different than a ranger or a fighter in that they are their own source of guns and ammunition, right? If that's not the case, should it be?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think I still prefer the idea of Marksman and focusing entirely on being the best ranged weapon class from tricks to cool maneuvers.
A path for guns. A path for crossbow. A path for thrown weapons. And a path for archery.
I've always just found this idea inexpressibly dull and repetitive as compared to all the neat thematics of Drifter (or, for that matter, Swashbuckler, Champion, Barbarian, or Ranger). I mean, this is already what a ranged Fighter is, why would we need another Class for it?
I haven't played first edition, so a really big question for me in this case is the source of the guns. Can gunslingers design, craft, upgrade, and repair firearms? How do they generate ammunition?
What really sets firearms apart from other weaponry is its utter rarity and peculiar origins. A truly self-sufficient gunslinger is wildly different than a ranger or a fighter in that they are their own source of guns and ammunition, right? If that's not the case, should it be?
In PF1? Yes, they start with a gun as a Class Feature, and know how to make their own ammo. Any future Gunslinger options will likely include this as well, but it's hardly enough to make a Class out of all on its own.
My main issue with Gunslinger is it being a class based around a weapon type, which is really, really what archetypes are for.
Are they though?
I mean, the CRB has monks, which are built almost exclusively around a certain (non) weapon type with some very nominal support for using a narrow band of normal weapons.
Rogues have a limited pool of weapons too (albeit with a class path that changes to a different limited pool of weapons). Playtest Investigators and Swashbucklers ran off similar restrictions to the rogue.
Rangers hypothetically can use whatever weapons they want, but internally their class only has support for a couple specific fighting styles and Barbarians are pretty much the same.
To me, it seems like your class dictating the kinds of weapons you're allowed to use is the norm, with the Fighter being a weird exception.
That said, I do like the suggestion of the 'Drifter' class kind of incorporating concepts from the PF1 Gunslinger, Samurai (and its various good archetypes) and maybe Vigilante and Slayer too to build a broader-based class that plays heavily into the mysterious stranger/wandering ronin/etc. themes people have been talking about.
In PF1? Yes, they start with a gun as a Class Feature, and know how to make their own ammo. Any future Gunslinger options will likely include this as well, but it's hardly enough to make a Class out of all on its own.I haven't played first edition, so a really big question for me in this case is the source of the guns. Can gunslingers design, craft, upgrade, and repair firearms? How do they generate ammunition?
What really sets firearms apart from other weaponry is its utter rarity and peculiar origins. A truly self-sufficient gunslinger is wildly different than a ranger or a fighter in that they are their own source of guns and ammunition, right? If that's not the case, should it be?
So "have a gun" and "can make ammo" is enough? What happens if a gunslinger loses their firearm?
What I am hoping for and slightly repeatedly mentioning is that gunslingers should have more ability to interact with firearms beyond just "can use it," because that doesn't make them very interesting. Bolting on grit as a fairly disconnected feature also doesn't give them a reason to be a class, I agree.
I just think the class could get a lot more full and interesting if it wasn't just "uses guns, gruffly" as the entire class concept. I'd just love to see more related (and non-related) tinkering, inventing, and other kinds of tied-in crafting in the firearm field. I think it's both a great way to differentiate gunslingers from current classes. But I'm also aware both that it might involve a lot more work on Paizo's part, as well as that apparently no one else here sees firearm-users as crafters or anything... especially as how many people are really digging the drifter concept. Oh well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Gunslinger would be fine as an archetype, if archetypes were not pretty-much locked to second level. The advantage of its being a class, or a warpriest-like subclass, is that it works right from the start. I like the Drifter idea people have been talking about, so I am now leaning towards the latter.
And as an upside, the people who want it to be an archetype get their wish too, thanks to the mutliclass archetype.
_
glass.
From what I understand Vigilante is selected at Level 1. So there may be some design space for a gunslinger as archetype only
In PF1? Yes, they start with a gun as a Class Feature, and know how to make their own ammo. Any future Gunslinger options will likely include this as well, but it's hardly enough to make a Class out of all on its own.I haven't played first edition, so a really big question for me in this case is the source of the guns. Can gunslingers design, craft, upgrade, and repair firearms? How do they generate ammunition?
What really sets firearms apart from other weaponry is its utter rarity and peculiar origins. A truly self-sufficient gunslinger is wildly different than a ranger or a fighter in that they are their own source of guns and ammunition, right? If that's not the case, should it be?
So "have a gun" and "can make ammo" is enough? What happens if a gunslinger loses their firearm?
What I am hoping for and slightly repeatedly mentioning is that gunslingers should have more ability to interact with firearms beyond just "can use it," because that doesn't make them very interesting. Bolting on grit as a fairly disconnected feature also doesn't give them a reason to be a class, I agree.
I just think the class could get a lot more full and interesting if it wasn't just "uses guns, gruffly" as the entire class concept. I'd just love to see more related (and non-related) tinkering, inventing, and other kinds of tied-in crafting in the firearm field. I think it's both a great way to differentiate gunslingers from current classes. But I'm also aware both that it might involve a lot more work on Paizo's part, as well as that apparently no one else here sees firearm-users as crafters or anything... especially as how many people are really digging the drifter concept. Oh well.
I think they had something called “gunsmithing” which I can only assume allowed guns to be created...
Again at level 1
]as well as that apparently no one else here sees firearm-users as crafters or anything
It's not that no one else sees it, it's just a radically different concept and archetype.
If we were talking about artificers in PF2, you'd probably see a lot more people interested in the idea of giving them a path built around creating and tinkering with custom weapons, including firearms.
But for people who expressly liked the gunslinger because of the mysterious stranger flavor and mechanics like grit that you dismiss out of hand, it doesn't really add much for them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed that the hypothetical "tinker" would be much more suited to its own class (one that I would love to have). The industrial side of Alkenstar. And hm, LOWG does mention that Ustalavic scientists are working with electricity and mechanical devices...
Hm. I wonder if we made an individual thread about the Drifter we could collectively will it in to existence? :P
]as well as that apparently no one else here sees firearm-users as crafters or anythingIt's not that no one else sees it, it's just a radically different concept and archetype.
If we were talking about artificers in PF2, you'd probably see a lot more people interested in the idea of giving them a path built around creating and tinkering with custom weapons, including firearms.
But for people who expressly liked the gunslinger because of the mysterious stranger flavor and mechanics like grit that you dismiss out of hand, it doesn't really add much for them.
I get it. I'm sorry if I came across as glib or dismissive.
I think both a more tinkerer-style class and a drifter-style class can have a clear intersection on the classic gunslinger feel. I'm not advocating dropping grit or driftiness or anything. Just that, on their own, they make for a sorta thin class, on paper. The "mysterious stranger" as a concept is currently very easy to build with a ranger, a rogue, or even a fighter. Especially compared to a ranger or rogue, who have a lot more out of combat addition to the game.
I guess that's really what I'm badgering on about. The drifter as people are promoting it seems to lean very, very heavily onto the combat side, when both Paizo and a lot of gaming tables appear to want to lean away from that a bit and explore more of things.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess that's really what I'm badgering on about. The drifter as people are promoting it seems to lean very, very heavily onto the combat side, when both Paizo and a lot of gaming tables appear to want to lean away from that a bit and explore more of things.
I very strongly disagree with this. Drifter, conceptually should have a lot of non-combat abilities tied to social stuff (especially, but not exclusively, Intimidation), Perception (reading people and their combat abilities at a glance, for example), and being mysterious, as well as coming from and arriving out of nowhere (so...plenty of Stealth stuff, but also anti-divination things, maybe a Focus Spell line involving teleportation or automatically being in the right place at the right time if you give them Focus Spell options).
Really, the 'combat' side of things is not even the part of Drifter I find interesting. As long as they're a full martial and competent to keep up with other full martials I'm not super particular about the combat side of things. It's all the neat non-combat thematics I'm interested in.
It's certainly a combat oriented fictional archetype, but as you say 'being good in a fight' is already readily available. It's everything else that fictional archetype has that I'm interested in seeing a Class for.
|
|
I also see it as a counter to Swashbucklers who specializes in 1-handed weapons and Barbarians who specialize in 2-handed weapons.
Both of those have a lot more thematics (both in and out of combat) to hang that focus on than 'Marksman' does, though.
I wouldn't mind a pure ranged combat Class, I just don't have a good idea for one that has even half the cool thematics of those two, and think Drifter is pitch perfect to have a Gunslinger path and a better fit for 'any weapon you like, but with a specific style' or even 'This is the Advanced Weapon class' rather than something exclusively ranged-focused.
|
|
I guess that's really what I'm badgering on about. The drifter as people are promoting it seems to lean very, very heavily onto the combat side, when both Paizo and a lot of gaming tables appear to want to lean away from that a bit and explore more of things.I very strongly disagree with this. Drifter, conceptually should have a lot of non-combat abilities tied to social stuff (especially, but not exclusively, Intimidation), Perception (reading people and their combat abilities at a glance, for example), and being mysterious, as well as coming from and arriving out of nowhere (so...plenty of Stealth stuff, but also anti-divination things, maybe a Focus Spell line involving teleportation or automatically being in the right place at the right time if you give them Focus Spell options).
Really, the 'combat' side of things is not even the part of Drifter I find interesting. As long as they're a full martial and competent to keep up with other full martials I'm not super particular about the combat side of things. It's all the neat non-combat thematics I'm interested in.
It's certainly a combat oriented fictional archetype, but as you say 'being good in a fight' is already readily available. It's everything else that fictional archetype has that I'm interested in seeing a Class for.
So, Batman is a Drifter with the Vigilante archetype?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe in Know Direction they are doing a class series that has a part called the “Batman Test”
Basically seeing if Batman could be any class (presumably now with vigilante added). It obviously doesn’t work for all of them but it is fun
This one may be a better fit than most !