| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a thread on Reddit about a Daredevil and a Slayer class playtest? Is this true and if so wouldn't those two classes work better as archtypes since Swashbuckler already has a sort of "daredevil" to it and Slayer sounds like a Ranger Monster Hunter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a thread on Reddit about a Daredevil and a Slayer class playtest? Is this true and if so wouldn't those two classes work better as archtypes since Swashbuckler already has a sort of "daredevil" to it and Slayer sounds like a Ranger Monster Hunter?
we have no news of a playtest as of yet, they where shown off in a paizo stream, so we have pretty incomplete information atm
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm torn on Daredevil. A manoeuvre focused martial is something that doesn't have a ton of existing support. (Monk is OK with feat support), Guardians really like them, but are often action starved enough to weave them in as much as they'd like, and while the Gymnast Swashbuckler is undoubtedly great at them, that comes at either having to forgo manoeuvres for tumbling through or other bravado actions to get MAPless strikes, or take the accuracy hit and rely on agile+finesse weapons to partially mitigate that which created a control vs damage scenario which didn't feel great.
So while there is some space to explore a class with the action compression and a penalty reducer for using combat manoeuvres that stream was a really poor showcase. We saw a lot of failures, and a lot of harsher penalties for crit failing, but very little payoff in exchange.
I’m interested to see the mechanics behind both.
Daredevil: it sounds like it could be fun to play, if your game has combats a) provide the “props”/environmental objects you need and b) your combats last long enough for any of the options to be meaningful.
I hate the name. While I’m totally able to dovprce a class chassis from a concept, “Daredevil” conjured nothing I’m interested in narratively.
Slayer: again, some of what I’ve read seems like it could be fun, but the “10 minute preparation” thing gives me goosebumps. A signature weapon opens up a huge design space I completely expect Paizo to a) not explore deeply enough or b) in any way I find inspiring.
[EDIT to add: funny to see Paizo *finally* getting around to the monster parts salvaging stuff that Kobold Press, Roll for Combat and about a billion other RPGs/designers have had for years. I fully expect it to be watered down and not very granular or fun.]
I fully expect to find both ultimately not something I want to play with a few mechanics I might poach and find myself waiting (as I did with the Kineticist, Animist/Exemplar, Guardian/Commander and whatever the one/s before those was) for the next playtest.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a video on Paizo's YouTube channel that shows a brief play test and explanation of the classes and the play test is planned for release this Tuesday at approx. 9 a.m PST
Here the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5__dXiYIBo
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a video on Paizo's YouTube channel that shows a brief play test and explanation of the classes and the play test is planned for release this Tuesday at approx. 9 a.m PSTHere the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5__dXiYIBo
Thank you! I kept trying to post it but it just kept leading to the Paizo forums here for some reason.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I’m interested to see the mechanics behind both.
Daredevil: it sounds like it could be fun to play, if your game has combats a) provide the “props”/environmental objects you need and b) your combats last long enough for any of the options to be meaningful.
I hate the name. While I’m totally able to dovprce a class chassis from a concept, “Daredevil” conjured nothing I’m interested in narratively.
Slayer: again, some of what I’ve read seems like it could be fun, but the “10 minute preparation” thing gives me goosebumps. A signature weapon opens up a huge design space I completely expect Paizo to a) not explore deeply enough or b) in any way I find inspiring.
[EDIT to add: funny to see Paizo *finally* getting around to the monster parts salvaging stuff that Kobold Press, Roll for Combat and about a billion other RPGs/designers have had for years. I fully expect it to be watered down and not very granular or fun.]
I fully expect to find both ultimately not something I want to play with a few mechanics I might poach and find myself waiting (as I did with the Kineticist, Animist/Exemplar, Guardian/Commander and whatever the one/s before those was) for the next playtest.
I think slayer will have a bit of stuff like investigator. Unless you are going into something totally blind it shouldn't be hard to set a target to hunt. I am guessing like investigator there will be feats that let you pick one on the fly or at the start of a fight as you level up.
The level problem with the slayer could be partially avoided with the option of using quarry against groups of enemies, with their combined level calculated like you do in encounter building.
But let's see what's in the playtest before coming up with solutions to imaginary problems.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On top of the "claim trophy" feature, which I hope is a major part of the class, I'm already expecting slayer to possibly be my favorite martial (next to thaumaturge), as I'm expecting it to be the ranger I wanted and not the ranger we got, more of a proper hunter-killer and less of a survivalist.
I'll find out in a couple hours. XD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fortunately it gets just such an ability! And it only requires you to pick 3 weaker enemies of similar kind.The level problem with the slayer could be partially avoided with the option of using quarry against groups of enemies, with their combined level calculated like you do in encounter building.
But let's see what's in the playtest before coming up with solutions to imaginary problems.
Yeah, I saw it. Paizo was ahead of me, but I had that disclaimer so I'm safe :D
Anyway, that ability:
1) requires taking a feat;
2) requires three nearly identical enemies, which is a problem if you are going against, for example, a rival adventurer group;
3) leaves you completely out of luck against a duo.
It's got value because of its simplicity, but I think that it could be refined enough that it covers more cases without becoming too complex.