|
Good afternoon, your local Paizo-Pessimism Representative here, doing a survey of the forum-going population to determine the validity and legitimacy of the new playtest classes. The methodology of said survey hangs entirely on the question posed by the thread title.
What new stories can be told as a result of their introduction?
'Cause I don't know about y'all, but my players have been jumping off of monsters and collecting trophies of their body parts since at least 4th edition D&D. As a result, neither of these concepts feel particularly compelling as bespoke classes to me.
They both Strike me as would-be fine archetypes.
However, I am regularly shown not to be a representative member of the wider population of forum-goers. So what characters are you going to make to utilize the new classes?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me go on, actually.
Part of why I am concerned regarding these classes' direction, is my perceived continuation of removal of creative freedom by virtue of printing what might previously have been available to everyone via checks, and locking it behind a bespoke feat.
Daredevil, in particular, takes activities which might previously have been GM fiat activities, such as kicking a foe and using the momentum to propel yourself backwards, and putting it behind a class feat.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like you've just made your own counterargument? Players have been wanting to do exactly the core premises of these classes forever, and relying on flavor and homebrew to allow it. Now there's an explicit game build niche for that. Back in D&D 1e days there were people who wanted to play the Aragorn woodland tracker archetype and could easily contort the Fighting Man into that shape -- then the Ranger became a thing.
At an Org play game I went to last year there was a kid around whose dad built him an elf fighter. First fight, the kid immediately declares that he backflips around the giant spider, does a handstand and THEN stabs it, and GM had to inform him that doesn't actually do anything. Now it does something. Even for a level one! No archetypes, homebrew, or GM buy-in needed!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can already do that with a maneuver Swashbuckler though, and get to roll a handful of extra dice with Finishers to boot! Swashbuckler fulfills the fantasy arguably better than Daredevil, which seems to trade out finishers for reduced MAP like a flurry ranger.
Right now it seems to me that Daredevil is mostly a collection of cool feats that should be broadly available to martials with good Athletics or Acrobatics, instead of its own separate class. I don't see any reason why kicking a foe to send them and me in opposite directions ought to be unique to one class instead of a cool add-on for any of the existing classes.
Slayers do seem to be in a stronger position as far as being their own class; I think more work is needed to differentiate them more from a Ranger but that's part of what playtesting is for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me go on, actually.
Part of why I am concerned regarding these classes' direction, is my perceived continuation of removal of creative freedom by virtue of printing what might previously have been available to everyone via checks, and locking it behind a bespoke feat.Daredevil, in particular, takes activities which might previously have been GM fiat activities, such as kicking a foe and using the momentum to propel yourself backwards, and putting it behind a class feat.
I don't know about you, but I would not ever had let anyone do Forceful Kickoff Stunt as a check. Saying you want to use the enemy to Leap backwards? Sure, that's cool as hell.
Asking me to roll Acrobatics vs their Forittude DC to push them back at the same time (so, a Shove, but with Acrobatics)? And if you Crit succeed you push them further than a Shove, and your Leap doesn't provoke reactions? And if you Critically Fail you're off-guard until the start of your next turn? That is quite a leap (ha!) forward from "can I bounce off this dude".
I will agree on one thing though: neither the Daredevil's fun maneuvers nor the Slayer's whole trophy system should really be locked behind a class. They should at most be subsystems for a GM to add to the game for everyone who wants to participate in, not just these guys.
|
|
You can already do that with a maneuver Swashbuckler though, and get to roll a handful of extra dice with Finishers to boot! Swashbuckler fulfills the fantasy arguably better than Daredevil, which seems to trade out finishers for reduced MAP like a flurry ranger.
Right now it seems to me that Daredevil is mostly a collection of cool feats that should be broadly available to martials with good Athletics or Acrobatics, instead of its own separate class. I don't see any reason why kicking a foe to send them and me in opposite directions ought to be unique to one class instead of a cool add-on for any of the existing classes.
Slayers do seem to be in a stronger position as far as being their own class; I think more work is needed to differentiate them more from a Ranger but that's part of what playtesting is for.
I think I agree with both of your points, especially with the Slayer.
While anyone can loot monster bits, the Slayer gets a mechanical benefit for doing so, which is a fun, somewhat on flavor mechanical benefit for doing so. Everyone always wants a "collects monster parts for mechanical benefits class".Small shame they can't it it Monster Hunter.
I don't hate that it is also clearly Paizo's Witcher analogue. That actually is a character concept not currently well supported imo.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't really. These are variations on a theme. Certain characters will work better as a Daredevil than they would have as a Swashbuckler or Monk or whatever, but there's no profound paradigm shift here.
In Paizo's defense, does there need to be though?
... The Slayer does really just feel like Paizo's own Revised Ranger thing though, yeah.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't really. These are variations on a theme. Certain characters will work better as a Daredevil than they would have as a Swashbuckler or Monk or whatever, but there's no profound paradigm shift here.
In Paizo's defense, does there need to be though?
... The Slayer does really just feel like Paizo's own Revised Ranger thing though, yeah.
There doesn't need to be, but I lament other character concepts which are not currently well supported mechanically, languishing while the Daredevil is being printed.
There doesn't need to be, but I lament other character concepts which are not currently well supported mechanically, languishing while the Daredevil is being printed.You don't really. These are variations on a theme. Certain characters will work better as a Daredevil than they would have as a Swashbuckler or Monk or whatever, but there's no profound paradigm shift here.
In Paizo's defense, does there need to be though?
... The Slayer does really just feel like Paizo's own Revised Ranger thing though, yeah.
Being honest, while I do give Paizo credit for a lot of things and tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to agree that we didn't quite need Daredevil.
Not that I don't think it looks neat, or that I think it should be a class archetype. But it's not... necessary. I'd rather a primal gish or something with different flavor. Would I be happy changing the flavor of Daredevil? Of course. Flavor is free and I can pull off a wrestler quite nicely with it.
But I could already sorta do a wrestler with other classes. Not perfectly, but you get the idea. I'm happy with Slayer, as it fulfills one class fantasy I couldn't do before bare minimum and as I continue to think on it, I think it's shaping into my favorite class flavor in the system. But we didn't need Daredevil right now
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There doesn't need to be, but I lament other character concepts which are not currently well supported mechanically, languishing while the Daredevil is being printed.You don't really. These are variations on a theme. Certain characters will work better as a Daredevil than they would have as a Swashbuckler or Monk or whatever, but there's no profound paradigm shift here.
In Paizo's defense, does there need to be though?
... The Slayer does really just feel like Paizo's own Revised Ranger thing though, yeah.
Being honest, while I do give Paizo credit for a lot of things and tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to agree that we didn't quite need Daredevil.
Not that I don't think it looks neat, or that I think it should be a class archetype. But it's not... necessary. I'd rather a primal gish or something with different flavor. Would I be happy changing the flavor of Daredevil? Of course. Flavor is free and I can pull off a wrestler quite nicely with it.
But I could already sorta do a wrestler with other classes. Not perfectly, but you get the idea. I'm happy with Slayer, as it fulfills one class fantasy I couldn't do before bare minimum and as I continue to think on it, I think it's shaping into my favorite class flavor in the system. But we didn't need Daredevil right now
I think you hit on something there. Daredevil might be the best Luchador class now, so that's something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New stories? Endless. By being…new. Not by virtue of these two classes.
If Daredevil abilities were universal, combats might be more narratively fulfilling and exciting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There doesn't need to be, but I lament other character concepts which are not currently well supported mechanically, languishing while the Daredevil is being printed.You don't really. These are variations on a theme. Certain characters will work better as a Daredevil than they would have as a Swashbuckler or Monk or whatever, but there's no profound paradigm shift here.
In Paizo's defense, does there need to be though?
... The Slayer does really just feel like Paizo's own Revised Ranger thing though, yeah.
Being honest, while I do give Paizo credit for a lot of things and tend to give them the benefit of the doubt, I'm inclined to agree that we didn't quite need Daredevil.
Not that I don't think it looks neat, or that I think it should be a class archetype. But it's not... necessary. I'd rather a primal gish or something with different flavor. Would I be happy changing the flavor of Daredevil? Of course. Flavor is free and I can pull off a wrestler quite nicely with it.
But I could already sorta do a wrestler with other classes. Not perfectly, but you get the idea. I'm happy with Slayer, as it fulfills one class fantasy I couldn't do before bare minimum and as I continue to think on it, I think it's shaping into my favorite class flavor in the system. But we didn't need Daredevil right now
I'm kind of the opposite here. I feel slayer right now doesn't give me anything that the thaumaturge didn't before, while daredevil is setting itself to be the perfect class to do Athletics maneuvers which I always felt was a bit weird before. I mean, yeah everyone with Athletics can grapple or trip, but given the chance I personally prefer to make an attack as damage is what makes my senses tingle more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Paizo's defense, does there need to be though?
I think new classes should be filling new mechanical and thematic niches. This game already has a lot of classes so adding some classes that feel really samey just feels like class bloat.
I don't think the theme needs to be entirely unique or not replicable by other classes, but there needs to be something there I feel. Like for example, adding Mesmerist would be fine even though you could already build a mental focused character because Mesmerist is entirely mental focused and it's unique for a class concept instead of a mechanical one. Whereas the Daredevil's theme is already similar to other classes.
I can accept a similar theme but at least make the mechanics novel. The Daredevil feels like it's doing the same things other people are doing, but slightly different. I think it should have it's identity lean more into the press actions, and it be some kind of dive tank. I wouldn't mind it's press actions being at 0 MAP. This could be the class about on-hit effects that mostly aren't damage, combined with high mobility.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tbh I would totally dig the first press action of each turn being at +0 MAP. However, it would totally remove the "risk" factor of the class (though its not like I think they truly managed to represent "risk" with the class honestly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
None. No new stories. But that might be too high a bar.
New mechanics which reward thus encourage specific themes? Yes.
Did those themes need encouraging? Seems a bit table dependent. I can imagine some players wanting to pull of some of the Daredevil's tricks, but as noted above, a Risky subsystem could suffice (as could a Trophy subsystem while we're at it).
Unlike previous playtests, I sense no desire to poach abilities from either class for any of my many PC concepts; not even those that one might call a daredevil or who collect gory trophies. Both themes feel like side gigs or flavor, better served by Archetypes if one wants mechanical benefits. Their core abilities feel like they're a step too dependent/niche for PF2's high fantasy and more low fantasy, like Conan.
I doubt I'd use them to make Matt Murdock or Buffy, thus their names fail. The Stuntman/Thrillseeker or the (creepy) Stalker feel more apt names.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tbh I would totally dig the first press action of each turn being at +0 MAP. However, it would totally remove the "risk" factor of the class (though its not like I think they truly managed to represent "risk" with the class honestly).
Perhaps it needs to be earned somehow? I don't really know, it's hard to mechanically represent "risk", and I don't exactly like mechanics that encourage behaviour that is bad for teamwork.
I don't really like the Adrenaline mechanic that much to be honest.
Maybe the class could be more durable to begin with, but using a Press action at 0 MAP gives enemies a +1 circumstance bonus to hit you? Or maybe if you miss the attack you are Off-Guard?
There has got to be some way to keep the riskiness with this in a satisfactory way.
Or perhaps the class can be about "momentum" and not necessarily about taking risks.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, it would be earned because I was assuming you'll still need adrenaline to benefit from the +0 MAP press action.
I also think the class needs to be more durable regardless. It feels too squishy right now.
But besides that, I think the problem is that the press actions in the class feel balanced taking into account that these are going to be used for a class that reduces MAP on press actions (much like fire impulses which are weirdly weaker than impulses from other elements of its level, all likely because fire kineticists have access to fire impulse junction). Flying Hurdle Stunt and Forceful Kickoff Stunt have really meh effects on a failure, when press actions are supposed to be actions that tend to be stronger than the norm because they require you to be on MAP to use them, but that even on a failure have a decent effect.
Another example; Pressing Pummel is a Power Attack-adjacent feat that has the press trait for no apparent reason. Like, it still costs 2 actions, has no failure and critical failure effects, and on top of everything is a flourish. Rebounding Fall Stunt has both the press and risky traits which seems extra weird when the prefered action rotation for this class seems to be risky action immediately followed by a press action. This happens with a ton of other feats in the class.
I mean, it would be earned because I was assuming you'll still need adrenaline to benefit from the +0 MAP press action.
I also think the class needs to be more durable regardless. It feels too squishy right now.
But besides that, I think the problem is that the press actions in the class feel balanced taking into account that these are going to be used for a class that reduces MAP on press actions (much like fire impulses which are weirdly weaker than impulses from other elements of its level, all likely because fire kineticists have access to fire impulse junction). Flying Hurdle Stunt and Forceful Kickoff Stunt have really meh effects on a failure, when press actions are supposed to be actions that tend to be stronger than the norm because they require you to be on MAP to use them, but that even on a failure have a decent effect.
Another example; Pressing Pummel is a Power Attack-adjacent feat that has the press trait for no apparent reason. Like, it still costs 2 actions, has no failure and critical failure effects, and on top of everything is a flourish. Rebounding Fall Stunt has both the press and risky traits which seems extra weird when the prefered action rotation for this class seems to be risky action immediately followed by a press action. This happens with a ton of other feats in the class.
The 0 MAP Press action thing is gonna be hard to work with current Adrenaline because a lot of the risky actions eat into the MAP, and Adrenaline only lasts until the start of your next turn. So I was thinking things would need to change to accommodate it somehow. But then I feel the class starts feeling a lot like the Swashbuckler. I think Adrenaline needs to function differently, or just be axed, at least for the 0 MAP Press thing.
Also I'm not really seeing the usefulness of the Risky Press actions. They do give Adrenaline before you take the action I think, but that's all you're gonna really get out of it with 1 action left and max MAP. Especially if you're already using an earlier action to gain Adrenaline frequently.
And yeah it's really strange to see those press actions that don't actually seem any better than the stuff they seem to be based off of. Also, I don't really like how a lot of the class is just the same thing other classes can do but with a slightly different flavour to it. Like a lot of the press actions are just variations of different feats.
Edit:
If going in a more momentum direction, the class could get buffs based on successful checks of some kind (could be successful athletics manoeuvres or something), like entering a stance they can advance as they succeed on more checks, but a failed check has a chance to reset it, or downgrade it, a crit fail is guaranteed to do so. A vague idea but it can fit the risk reward theme. Perhaps at stage 1 you get the 0 MAP press actions.
Just throwing ideas out there.
I feel slayer right now doesn't give me anything that the thaumaturge didn't before
It doesn't force you to take Dubious Knowledge, which makes it a better class just for that. :P
Tbh I would totally dig the first press action of each turn being at +0 MAP. However, it would totally remove the "risk" factor of the class (though its not like I think they truly managed to represent "risk" with the class honestly).
Of the feats presented I think only Hit or Miss (at 10th) and Risky Overextension (at 16th) properly give you a Risk/Reward feeling.
When Risky as a trait got mentioned during the stream playtest, I sort of assumed feats would follow the format of: Attempt a Trip/Shove/Tumble Through but add the following Critical Success and Critical Failure effects on top of the usual. Not the bespoke actions we got.
I mean Bold Bluffs adds Risky to Feint and that's it!
I just want to point out that Combination Finisher on a Gymnast is already giving them the equivalent bonuses of Adrenaline but for their finishers instead of their Press attacks.
Agile Maneuvers at Level 6 also gives Swashbucklers the same benefit as Adrenaline for all the Athletics maneuvers.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Tbh I would totally dig the first press action of each turn being at +0 MAP. However, it would totally remove the "risk" factor of the class (though its not like I think they truly managed to represent "risk" with the class honestly).
Considering the baseline "Risky" feat is 100% pure action compression with no real possible downside certainly doesn't fill me with the energy of risky, high octane Maneuver.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its somewhat funny (and sad) that neither class lives to the expectations of what people think about them when looking at the book's name. As we said, the daredevil isn't really that risky, and the slayer's part that relates to rewards (trophies) feels bland and barebones.
In a roundabout way, I'm kinda interested in how these classes are going to be at release. Mostly because it seems we are mostly in an agreement that both classes have potential but their current execution is lacking.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the baseline "Risky" feat is 100% pure action compression with no real possible downside certainly doesn't fill me with the energy of risky, high octane Maneuver.I don't know, I think running right up to someone who wants to punch me (or bite or stab, as the case may be) would get my adrenaline pumping. Given the rest of the class, I think the intention is to push the daredevil to risk taking reactions, though that might not apply for round 1.
Fighting for one's life is certainly risky. However, it isn't more risky than the kinds of things non-daredevils are already doing, so specifically calling out that particular one-action activity as "risky" feels fallacious, when all it is is neat action compression. It's exactly as risky as Sudden Charge: an activity that combines more actions than you spend using it, to close on an enemy and attack them.
At least most of the ones you get with a feat include some check with a real reward for success with the possibility of a failure greater than just "you miss".| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As we said, the daredevil isn't really that riskyI've been seeing a lot of the opposite. Everyone seems to be saying the daredevil needs medium armor or more HP or no MAP on their first press. There seems to be a lot of aversion to the risk that is built in to the class right now.
That isn't really "risky" though, that's just bad. The point of taking a risk is that there's a supposed reward for taking it. Having lower AC and HP doesn't have a reward.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been seeing a lot of the opposite. Everyone seems to be saying the daredevil needs medium armor or more HP or no MAP on their first press. There seems to be a lot of aversion to the risk that is built in to the class right now.
Risks only make sense to take if the payoff is worth it, though. Press action failure rate is quite high against difficult enemies even with the reduced MAP, and the success condition on a bunch of those risk actions doesn't feel worth the risk for the payoff given that high failure rate.
I like the concept here, but it feels undertuned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more I think about it, the more I fear Paizo not delivering with the "risky" side of the class. A risky feature should be a feature that provides a great benefit, but if it backfires it should have penalties. Right now, "risky" just means press actions and praying to god for the GM to add props to maps.
As Tridus said, I think the concept is cool but it needs more time in the oven.