Really hoping that they do more than the drifter concept for firearms and tech though. What might boil down to a weird ranger/swashbuckler with weird crossbows doesn't feel like nearly enough. I'm hoping that tinkering/inventing and creation of mechanical arms and armor might play a much bigger role, with the option of a drifter subclass for those who want to focus in on that vibe.
I guess that's not really in keeping with my general preference for class design, though. I've come to preferring more specifics and less "let's cover all possible class concepts" so maybe the drifter, if guns are interesting enough and they find a more engaging mechanic than grit, would work best. Who knows!
It's all kind of up in the air. I strongly suspect there will be an inventor class at some point soon; there's a handful in both Legends and Pathfinder Society (including one with a talisman subclass). Which could be nothing, but could be something. Whether that will including a gunslinger subclass, or the gunslinger will be its own thing (but inventors will also get a gun subclass) we will need to see.
I myself rather liked Grit. I have a couple models on how I'd convert it to PF2, but I'm eager to see what the devs do, if they do update it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think grit would work more like a focus pool, or more like the swashy's panache?
As a fan of the binary-system that is panache, I would hope Panache.
Preferably, the inverse of Panache in a sense.
Panache is very much "do something specific, get panache". It's pro-active in that you cause Panache to happen by triggering it with a Skill or Action.
Grit would be cool if it worked almost in the reverse, where you start with Grit and as you respond to your opponent you spend Grit to less penalties/effects or generally do the "gritty" thing. Then to recover Grit, you gain Grit via actions that your opponent takes against you (such as if you are hit with an attack or fail a save).
This encourages Drifters to put themselves in harm's way in order to derive their Grit cycle, which to me is pretty thematic.
At least that's one way I could see it working. It has to feel different to use as a binary system than Panache in order to justify not just being a Swashbuckler with alternative abilities and trying to "flip the script" on how it is gained/lost (and the agency methods around it) are probably the best ways to play with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't expect this to appear for quite some time, but...
Lost Omens Inner Worlds
A book exploring the inner solar system, particularly the worlds of Aballon, Castrovel, Akiton and Verces. Includes ancestries and archetypes for each world.
Ancestries:
- Efreet (Sun)
- Construct (Aballon)
- Lashunta (Castrovel)
- Ysoki (Akiton)
- Shobhad (Akiton)
- Vercite (Verces)
Archetypes:
- Tinkerer: a mechanic capable of making and improving automata and constructs, as well as self-modification (Aballon)
- Rider: a warrior that specialises in riding wild beasts into battle (Castrovel)
- Slider: a spellcaster able to teleport long distances, and create portals (Akiton)
- Solarian: a mystic who balances the forces of light and darkness (Verces)
...to be followed a year later by Lost Omens Outer Worlds, detailing the Diaspora, Eox, Triaxus, Liavara, Bretheda, Apostae and Arcturn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think grit would work more like a focus pool, or more like the swashy's panache?As a fan of the binary-system that is panache, I would hope Panache.
Preferably, the inverse of Panache in a sense.
Panache is very much "do something specific, get panache". It's pro-active in that you cause Panache to happen by triggering it with a Skill or Action.
Grit would be cool if it worked almost in the reverse, where you start with Grit and as you respond to your opponent you spend Grit to less penalties/effects or generally do the "gritty" thing. Then to recover Grit, you gain Grit via actions that your opponent takes against you (such as if you are hit with an attack or fail a save).
This encourages Drifters to put themselves in harm's way in order to derive their Grit cycle, which to me is pretty thematic.
At least that's one way I could see it working. It has to feel different to use as a binary system than Panache in order to justify not just being a Swashbuckler with alternative abilities and trying to "flip the script" on how it is gained/lost (and the agency methods around it) are probably the best ways to play with it.
This is all very much in line with how I imagine it. Instead of Panache being an action system, where you perform an action to unlock an action, my favorite imagining of Grit is that it unlocks strong reactions, and be in response to either bad or good luck rolls. Which could work in several directions; perhaps instead of a failure, you use a predetermined roll like Devise a Stratagem. Or crit fail a save, giving you Grit that lets you move the success of your next attack up one rank (crit fail to fail, fail to succeed, etc.).
Someday I'll take a weekend to really examine the Fortune/Misfortune system to get a better idea of how I want to manipulate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea would be that like Panache has a passive offensive benefit (+2 damage), Grit would have a Passive defensive benefit (such as Resistance to damage or bonuses to defenses). This would be what allows them to almost "tank" in a sense, and be the "defensive" counterpart to the Swashbuckler (Swashbuckler -> Gutsy Fighter, Drifter -> Gutsy Champion).
And just like Swashbuckler, I think it's important to be able to gain Grit in multiple ways, so taking damage/failing saves/etc. could just be one of the ways to gain Grit, where each sub-class has another
I.E. Gunslinger maybe makes two Strikes with a Gun in a turn, Ronin maybe makes a Stride and Strike in the same turn, Mercenary maybe makes an attack against a Flat-footed opponent.
Then the "Daring Acts" are the risky things you do that drop your "defenses" (Aka Grit, your main defensive feature) in order to perform something Gritty (though I'd probably not call them Daring Acts, as that's a bit Swashbuckler-y).
Cozzymandias' Drifter thread had some cool ideas. Haven't seen him around much, so I might just revisit the idea and see if I can do another pass on the above concepts (I think the main issue as we all stepped away as that Grit felt like a "treadmill" but not in a great way).
anyways....
Did I mention I hope the next book has the "Drifter"? Because I sure hope it does!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea would be that like Panache has a passive offensive benefit (+2 damage), Grit would have a Passive defensive benefit (such as Resistance to damage or bonuses to defenses). This would be what allows them to almost "tank" in a sense, and be the "defensive" counterpart to the Swashbuckler (Swashbuckler -> Gutsy Fighter, Drifter -> Gutsy Champion).
I very much like resistance to damage as the passive defense, though I suppose AC would be more in line. Some kind of shield effect perhaps?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea would be that like Panache has a passive offensive benefit (+2 damage), Grit would have a Passive defensive benefit (such as Resistance to damage or bonuses to defenses). This would be what allows them to almost "tank" in a sense, and be the "defensive" counterpart to the Swashbuckler (Swashbuckler -> Gutsy Fighter, Drifter -> Gutsy Champion).I very much like resistance to damage as the passive defense, though I suppose AC would be more in line. Some kind of shield effect perhaps?
If you go AC, it applies to only Strikes. If you go Resistance, it could theoretically apply to anything that does the type of damage listed.
Realistically, I could see Resistance half-level/Physical (min 1) while Grit is active and then potentially allowing further Class Feats to extend the resistance to other types of damage (AKA, a Reaction that converts your Resistance called "Cloak Cover" where the Drifter uses like some cloth to stop a Fire Damage).
That sounds kinda strong, but I think if you dropped Drifter's HP to 8 per level, then it creates this "get Grit to stay alive" type of feel.
Then, the simpler thing might just be to do +AC/Will Saves and call it a day, but I find that to be less than flavorful. Resisting the effects of attacks and wounds is definitely a "Gritty" thing to do, so Resistance does sound like it fits a little better.
We should probably start a new thread in Homebrew though :)
I was hoping there would be a hint of a new rulebook in the rash of last weeks announcements, but it doesn't look like it.
I still have a sliver of hope, but not a very big one.
I am increasingly certain there will be an Inventor or Artificer class within the next few releases. There's just been WAY too many NPCs in too many books that reference and use that class lately, including the latest AP installment.
I was hoping there would be a hint of a new rulebook in the rash of last weeks announcements, but it doesn't look like it.
I still have a sliver of hope, but not a very big one.
I am increasingly certain there will be an Inventor or Artificer class within the next few releases. There's just been WAY too many NPCs in too many books that reference and use that class lately, including the latest AP installment.
We got the announcement for Secrets of Magic during GenCon a year ahead of its release. No way they're diluting excitement for these upcoming classes and the book itself so far ahead of a release!
I agree with you, but I strongly suspect we'll be waiting a long while before confirmation.
It's November. A book releasing next fall could be announced around now, though it could easily be as late as January/February.
Not really many cons to hang the announcement on at that time though.
Edit: the reason I specifically mention a fall book is because, by their own schedule, they plan for 3 rulebooks a year (these are separate from any adventures or Lost Omens titles).
We already have Bestiary 3 and Secrets of Magic in the pipeline, so if they are able to keep to the 3 rulebooks, a 3rd in November/December of next year would make sense.
By comparison, we had Bestiary 2, Advanced Players Guide, and the Beginner's Box (not announced till March) this year.
I sort of doubt, of the three rulebooks we get each year, that more than one will have significant player options. I'd love to be wrong though.
Looking at their 1st edition release schedule, it seems like they did it more years than they didn't:
https://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Pathfinder_Roleplaying_Game
2013 stands out as being mostly GM content, and 2014 depends on how you classify the Technology guide, but it looks like most years 2 releases had significant player content.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With the knowledge that the Synthesist summoner will be coming out in a book post-SoM, I wonder what kind of book that would be? The original Synthesist came out in Ultimate Magic, which Secrets of Magic is already the equivalent of, so it's hard to say what book theme it could match.
I don't think they're gonna release any classes, especially new ones, without a playtest, right?
I'm confused about that "three rulebooks a year" concept. Is that still their plan? So far, GMG aside, it looks more like a big summer drop and a bestiary every year.
With the knowledge that the Synthesist summoner will be coming out in a book post-SoM, I wonder what kind of book that would be? The original Synthesist came out in Ultimate Magic, which Secrets of Magic is already the equivalent of, so it's hard to say what book theme it could match.
Considering the physicality of the Archetype in PF1, the Martial counterpart to Secrets of Magic would be a rather good place to add it (IMO).
I don't think they're gonna release any classes, especially new ones, without a playtest, right?
I'm confused about that "three rulebooks a year" concept. Is that still their plan? So far, GMG aside, it looks more like a big summer drop and a bestiary every year.
A fall release would be a year from now. There would be time to run a playtest. Start it in, say late January into February, you'd have time to finalize the design before sending it off to the printers in April/May. They've run tighter schedules then that before, though I assume they'd give themselves at least 9 months. The timing would even work with this playtest; they probably have to get SoM to the printer by January at the latest, which would free developers up to move into the next project, especially if Mark and Logan aren't leading the development of the classes (I think there's another designer on the team, though I can't remember their name).
As to the number of rulebooks in a year, they have that on the Pathfinder Rulebook Ongoing Subscription page
Paizo releases an average of three new Pathfinder Roleplaying Game products annually. With your ongoing Pathfinder Roleplaying Game subscription, we'll send you each new installment and charge your payment method automatically as we ship each product. You only need to sign up once, and never need to worry about renewal notice or missed products.
Now, it does say an average, so they'd not be exactly going back on their word if they did bypass next fall (and covid + Kingmaker would two excellent reasons why that might be the case regardless).
Lost Omens: Classified Archetypes
But in all seriousness, I expect the next core book will likely include Class Archetypes. They seem like too big an addition to shove into a book without a dedicated chapter.
Also, what is this talk of changing the Gunslingers name to Drifter? Imo, there is a lot in a name, and it doesn't correlate well imo, other than the idea that Drifter is a word often used in old western and cowboy movies, which often feature gun toting so and so's. But being a Drifter means to drift, or travel from place to place without a set home or job. That doesn't scream gun toting so and so to me. Etymology and denotation is very important. You need to know what's inside the can just by reading its label. I see no need to deviate from a name that works perfectly fine for what it is meant to evoke.
That said, I expect gun rules and the Gunslinger to be included in a Lost Omens line book about guns and tech in general.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason drifter doesn't fully represent the gunslinger is because, in discussions about it, it's generally assumed that gunslinger would just be a subclass of the drifter (with other subclasses being things like the samurai).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, what is this talk of changing the Gunslingers name to Drifter? Imo, there is a lot in a name, and it doesn't correlate well imo, other than the idea that Drifter is a word often used in old western and cowboy movies, which often feature gun toting so and so's. But being a Drifter means to drift, or travel from place to place without a set home or job. That doesn't scream gun toting so and so to me. Etymology and denotation is very important. You need to know what's inside the can just by reading its label. I see no need to deviate from a name that works perfectly fine for what it is meant to evoke.
The idea behind the Drifter nomenclature is that it opens up the Gunslinger class to a broader array of tropes than just 'dude with guns'.
If we think of the Monk as being a class that serves as a repository for a lot of different Eastern (and specifically Chinese) tropes, the Drifter would serve as an amalgamation of a lot of Western tropes.
One thing that it achieves is that it enables one to cover ronin and wandering samurai tropes in the class. A lot of Western tropes coincide fairly well with Samurai tropes (thank Kurosawa and Ford for that), and you could have feats that cover the same ability, just that play differently depending on whether you're ranged (Gunslinger) or in melee.
But isn't that kind of the point of the Gunslinger? Not a traveler that happens to use guns, but someone who specializes in them?
I digress. I don't want to get too off topic here. Just seems like a strange direction imo.
Given the new take on the Occult being a Magic Tradition, and how different it is to what Psychic Magic is, I think it may be safe to assume that Psionics as a separate system will be included at some point. Similar to how Alchemy was broken away from Magic. So a book dedicated to Psionics seems plausible, at which point, I imagine the Psychic, Kineticist, Medium, and Mesmerist will be added. Occultist is see making a shift into the prepared Occult Tradition Spellcaster. Basically, the Wizards of Occult Magic. Given the playtest, it seems Spiritualists are destined for the spirit world. Pun intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But isn't that kind of the point of the Gunslinger? Not a traveler that happens to use guns, but someone who specializes in them?
Seems fairly on topic to me, since class themes are fair game to be explored.
I was the one that actually suggested the name "Drifter", but the idea that sent me to TV Tropes to find the name was stated by others. The Gunslinger was, by many, deemed to be too narrow a focus for a class. Add to that the fact that every class seemed to need an archetype to functionally use guns, it seems like it would be easier to just make guns usable and make the mechanics of the gunslinger class more broadly applicable. The change from "gun specialist" to "traveler that uses to guns" is quite deliberate and intended.
In doing so, they'd be able to draw not just on the Westerns that both "Gunslinger" and "Drifter" evokes, but the broader genres of "solo wandering hero" that Westerns built themselves on. Further, for tables that prefer to not use firearms altogether, this would still allow the class to be useable from the start, rather than needing something like the Advanced Class Guide to give us Bolt Aces.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure the occultist is headed for the occult tradition spellcaster. There's a good chance that the Occultist is going to be the "no slots, but best class at focus spells period" class.
I'm not sure the occultist is headed for the occult tradition spellcaster. There's a good chance that the Occultist is going to be the "no slots, but best class at focus spells period" class.
I could see them as a partial caster, since that is apparently going to stick around.
Definitely not a full caster though.
I mean, in PF1 the (non-archetyped) Occultist knew at most 6 spells per implement, and they weren't all winners, so it wouldn't be hard to get the useful spellcasting a PF1 occultist had solely through focus spells.
Of the PF1 3/4 BAB 6-level casters, the Occultist was no less martial than the Magus and per the playtest "no slots, but focus spells" was on the table for the Magus.
Hmm. Well, while I can understand the idea, I can't quite grasp my head around the thought process that we shouldn't have a specilized class focused on gunplay, or the idea that being a wandering travler somehow makes you proficient with guns. Anyone can be a Drifter imo, not everyone can be a Gunslinger. It would be like making a general Mage class instead of having the plethora or spellcatsrrs whose mechanics are a lot more profound because of their specialties. I just don't quite get what a Drifter would bring to the table, other than gunplay. And of that is in fact its gimmick, why wouldn't you focus on that?
Also, seems a bit redundant to attempt to generalize something in an effort to make it more accessible, given that the way Archetypes work in PF2. The new system opens the door to creating a single Archetype that grants access to gun and a small number of gun related abilities; as opposed to how PF1 handled it, which was needing to create a specific gun based Archetype for every class. Heck, just a Gunslinger Multiclass would do this. It's trying to remedy a problem that, at this point, seems like it is going to be a non-issue.
That said, I do like the name and I get the accosiation. But I'd would personally use it for a Gunslinger specific Subclass or Class Archetype. To me, if part of the draw for the Drifter is to be proficient with firearms, it doesn't really seem to accomplish anything. Being a wanderer seem like something that shouldn't be locked down to a class. Given the idea, it would also run into the issue that PF2 tried to avoid with the Vigilante, being a class whose who idea was to be another class in a mask. Drifter who happens to use Arcane Magic is still just a Wizard who happens to have no permanent ties to anything. I want to play a gun toting so and so or a honorable samurai, not a guy who happens to know how to use guns and katana without any real skillset behind it.
Also, on the subject of naming, and assuming that guns are meant to play a large role in the build of this Drifter class, might I suggest names that actually have something to do with the use of firearms? Gunner, Artillerist, and Sharpshooter are a few that come to mind. Out of these, and to kind of tie it into the idea of making someone who is a bit more generalized, Sharpshooter would be my pick. Then, focus the class on specializing with ranged weapons of all kinds, including firearms, and you have a class that actually has a mechanically satisfying them centered around ranged weapons. Still a bit problematic though, because now you have to find a way to justify how a Sharpshooter is any different or better than any other class or archetype that also uses a ranged weapon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be clearer, the idea is to not have a class dedicated to firearms. A firearm subclass for the drifter is needed to enable direct ports of characters, but the class mechanics should mostly work on all weapons. Or if they have to pick, make them heavy weapons like a 2 handed sword or a heavy crossbow, so as to be distinct from the Swashbuckler. Meanwhile, guns themselves should just work with any class, with only minimal or no extra feats needed, and those able to be picked up by any class.
"Gunslinger" would probably wind up a combat style archetype I imagine, like we got in the APG.
As somebody who has to do more work every time they release a new class, archetype, or ancestry, I kind of hope they don't do too many ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be clearer, the idea is to not have a class dedicated to firearms. A firearm subclass for the drifter is needed to enable direct ports of characters, but the class mechanics should mostly work on all weapons. Or if they have to pick, make them heavy weapons like a 2 handed sword or a heavy crossbow, so as to be distinct from the Swashbuckler. Meanwhile, guns themselves should just work with any class, with only minimal or no extra feats needed, and those able to be picked up by any class.
"Gunslinger" would probably wind up a combat style archetype I imagine, like we got in the APG.
Yeah, I'm in general pretty against classes having their weapons restricted too much, which is why I campaigned so hard for Magus to not be restricted to one handed weapons prior to the playtest. I'm generally okay with classes restricted to finesse weapons, though I hope we get more finesse weapons in the future because so many of the ones that currently exist are uncommon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather see drifter/gunslinger be a subclass of an inventor or tinkerer class than see gunslinger be a subclass of a generic drifter. I think my fear is that firearms are bland and mechanically not different to other ranged weapons. Rather than bolstering a very plain weapon type by ramping the flavor of the class, I'd hope they might expand the possibilities such weapons could offer.
Frankly, I'd love to see a technological, mechanical, or otherwise non-magical alternative to the rune system. I'd love for more choice diversity when it comes to how people build their weapons, beyond small selections in property runes. Maybe bonuses that require a crafting break to recharge, like electrifying a flail or igniting the oils in a hammer. Just... More ways to go about weapons and armor. I think inventor/tinkerer/engineer or whatever could be a great inroad for such a thing.
I just keep going back to the venture captain I think in the Lost Omens character guide, all decked out in diver gear, and wishing that were a direction this could go. It would be massively ambitious and probably unfortunately a bit niche, so my hopes aren't up.
I think a tinkerer/inventor/artificer class is actually more likely than a Drifter. The Drifter is pure forum wishful thinking, while there's about half a dozen engineers, tinkerers, inventors, artificers, and smiths mentioned in setting materials. I can even guess that there will be subclasses based on clockwork creatures, talismans, presumably guns, and a more freeform tinker ability like you describe.
At this point, I would honestly be surprised if such a class is not among the next round of classes released, whenever that happens to be.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thought of another book I'd like to see:
Ultimate Conflict
This book would center on two topics: creating and enabling teamwork actions, and adjudicating encounters that aren't traditional size/scope or skill challenges, such as mass-combat. The organization rules could probably wind up here instead of the "Places of Power" I mentioned before. The victory point system would get trotted out for this as well.
Also, vehicle combat. And possibly a rogue's gallery of villains and allies, specifically expanded uses of the troop type.
As this all seems a bit small in scope for a rulebook, this would do best for a not-July release like early 2022. They're hammering out the mass-combat rules for Kingmaker, so recycling those to the main line would allow them to recover some of the time they lost to that project and the two Absalom books.
Classes I'd expect to see:
Inquisitor - Needs no introduction. Its teamwork abilities are the only sticking point from coming into PF2. I think the Tandem abilities we saw in the Summoner playtest might be a good starting point.
Hunter - I'm not sure this needs to be its own class, as the Ranger is doing a great job in covering its bases, but if it is, this would be the book for it.
Battlemaster - The Marshal archetype spun out into a full class. and adding some skill/aid another abilities and teamwork abilities. Covers the Mastermind suggestion I had upthread, with a slightly different (and better, really) starting point.
There is something I keep thinking about. Where's the beef?
Specifically, it feels like burly, brawny characters don't seem to be the focus going forward. Sometimes feels like the primary brawns all came out at release (barbarian, champion, fighter--with some secondaries like rogue, ranger, and monk) and everything since has been a caster or a dex-based martial. It's all okay so far, but I strongly feel we need another bruiser or two to show up in 2022.
I can't seem to come up with a ton, myself. I think I posited above that a defensive-heavy armorsmith/tinkerer could be a good addition.
I dunno. It's kind of the same thing as how smaller and smaller ancestries are coming out, but hardly anything larger than a human seems to want to appear. Is that just because all the design space still untapped leans towards casters and the more acrobatic martials?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The class WatersLethe wanted would qualify for both counts, I think.
A book focused on allowing you to play powerful ancestries like dragons from level 1 to 20 while keeping in line with the power levels of a regular party. Ancestries get nerfed as necessary for lower levels, then give class feat options for obtaining powerful abilities associated with their species when the level can allow for it. Ancestry Class Feats would require a Ancestry Dedication feat to make it equivalent to an archetype in feat expenditure. If you don't go into it you can just play a "baby" version of your ancestry for the rest of your career.
Edit: For myself, I think the reason I haven't proposed any bruiser classes is that most of my ideas on those lines can be safely added to one of the existing classes, especially since two of them were absorbed by the core classes (warpriest and brawler). But its a good thing to be thinking of, yes.
I just don't love the idea of always saying "we can bolt x concept onto a fighter as a class archetype or something." I mean, if you want to be a nimble character who can dart in and attack and deal some good damage... you can be a rogue or a ranger or a fighter or a barbarian or a swashbuckler or an investigator or a monk or soon a magus, all very easily. If you want to take a few hits and deal them back, you're a fighter, champion, or maybe a barbarian or monk.
Adding more classes to the latter list means more ways to build a tank, from the ground up. If the core is always the same limited list, it won't matter a ton how many different feats or archetypes you toy with--the fundamental balances of the character will remain.
Anyways. I just feel bad sometimes for people who play meat shields or tank types. Always seems like there are dozens of ways to be a damage dealer but only a couple to be a damage mitigator or target.
I personally don't have many ideas. Maybe something like a damage-eater that is able to take a lot of hits but turn those around into modified attacks on their own turn (kind of anti-panache maybe)--or maybe hand out those bonuses to their allies instead of keeping them themselves. Maybe an armored but unarmed hybrid class that is built around proximity damage and weird auras. A focus-martial who can call on their ancestors or whatever to empower individual strikes or actions?
Who knows. Just talking out my butt here. Just hopefully wishing we'll get a bit more variety in the base of defensive, healthy classes.
Oh, I didn't mean all ideas could be attached to the old classes, just all the ones I'd had so far.
Midnightoker's Drifter class in the homebrew fills some of the tank role, if you're interested. Option for it to be ranged too, which would be a new spin on it.
Right now the Champion has a lock on tanking, but there's definitely room for a new concept if one can be spun up.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I didn't mean all ideas could be attached to the old classes, just all the ones I'd had so far.
Midnightoker's Drifter class in the homebrew fills some of the tank role, if you're interested. Option for it to be ranged too, which would be a new spin on it.
Right now the Champion has a lock on tanking, but there's definitely room for a new concept if one can be spun up.
I am planning to revisit over Christmas btw, so apologies to anyone that takes a look at it as it currently does not have Class Feats 8+.
The backmatter for the Ruby Phoenix AP is probably going to be full of wuxia-adjacent stuff. Anything short of "an entire class" can fit in the toolbox of an AP, after all.
|
Anyways. I just feel bad sometimes for people who play meat shields or tank types. Always seems like there are dozens of ways to be a damage dealer but only a couple to be a damage mitigator or target.
Some sort of chonky superheavy armored tank could be neat, like the Arcana Unearthed Warmain or a 'Juggernaut' or whatever, maybe a class that can make real use of a tower shield, or gets a number of temp hp boosts a day to represent ablative armor pieces that get battered away, or a number of 'blocks' a day in which they can just utterly negate a single hit on themselves, or even 'turtle up' and become completely invulnerable for a single round (but not more than once / 10 rounds, so not something they can spam throughout a single combat).
Of course such a class would need some way to deal with the very specific problems. Limited mobility, limited range, what to do when the enemy has two brain cells to rub together and just ignores your tanky self and just murders all your friends first...
The backmatter for the Ruby Phoenix AP is probably going to be full of wuxia-adjacent stuff. Anything short of "an entire class" can fit in the toolbox of an AP, after all.
I hadn't considered that. I hope they can fill out my weapon monk desires if the theoretical future book doesn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Potential "tank" classes (where I define tank as a character that can stand in melee with enemy threats longer than others by mitigating, soaking, or healing damage) that could be strength based and "meaty".
1. Shifter. Turning into a big beefy animal or monster should make a tank shifter quite durable, or the fantasy isn't being fulfilled.
2. Kineticist. Being able to absorb blows with stone, air, or water, combined with a high constitution could make a very fun tank character.
3. Bloodrager. Whether this is a class archetype of barbarian or whatever, a barbarian that is slightly less meaty but has a small number of magical abilities or spells that can provide more flexible defense would make a decent tank.
4. Warlord. The intelligence based fighter that can both assist others and make smart maneuvers to efficiently neutralize enemy attacks could work, but I'm worried about the design space.
5. Brawler. Focused on using maneuvers to control enemies, but also being built like a brick s%+$house.
6. Death Knight. A class based around using necromantic energy to sap strength from their enemies and reinforce their bodies could make for a very satisfying tank class that could fulfill some key fantasies like vampires and edgelords.