A while back there was a "Risk and Rewards" Playtest for two new classes: Daredevil and Slayer. I think it ended in April. Haven't seen anything since. I assume the idea was a new rulebook called "Risks and Rewards". Still in the pipeline? Eaten by Rovagug? Inquiring minds want to know! :-)
It was just announced! Tome of Dungeons. Has Gargoyles and awakened oozes and a few other unknown ancestries, plus to R&R playtest.
Its broken into Delvers, Dungeons, and Denizens sections
Good to know, thanks!
|
Here's the timestamp on the Keynote where they talk a bit about it and unveil the sketches for the Daredevil and Slayer Iconics!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Loremonger!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Very excited for the Dungeons section of that book. Pf2e could stand with some more systems or guidelines for homebrewing that portion of the game.
|
|
I hope both classes get a major glow up. After the Necromancer and Runesmith, I’m worried neither of these classes even have the conceptual “oomph” to be really as good.
Maybe the Slayer. Maybe.
I honestly feel like the Daredevil would've been a much better concept for Starfinder as opposed to Pathfinder, because then you could include a "subclass" for things like vehicles and ship combat. And even if it stayed mostly akin to what it was in the playtest, I imagine there'd be way more environments and "props" to work with in the latter setting than in Pathfinder.
Slayer I'm more mixed on. It was one of my favorite PF1E classes, but the way it was built in the playtest was fundamentally uninteresting to me when we already have Rangers and Thaumaturges, particularly since their whole "monster salvage" subsystem was so generic and lacking. I want to like it, I just don't see enough "there" there, yaknow?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Daredevil grew on me over the playtest, especially when someone here said they were like an inverse exemplar, someone with no special powers just throwing themselves at it. With some tuning I think it'll fit.
Slayer I am worried about. It was a very anaemic class that suffered from the investigator problem where it has a prominent feature that works well in some campaigns and potentially never in others. Combine that with the very lacking power of the tools and the trophy system and it's a very weak chassis.
|
|
Daredevil grew on me over the playtest, especially when someone here said they were like an inverse exemplar, someone with no special powers just throwing themselves at it. With some tuning I think it'll fit.
I have seen people comparing Daredevil to a more "Everyday Hero" theme and definitely see that, and really like the idea over all of having something that fits someone like Jackie Chan even better than a Monk. More so I just think that they could be explored even more deeply and broadly in Starfinder than Pathfinder in part because of the idea of contemporary Daredevils being associated with wild vehicle stunts and the like. Plus thematically it feels like Daredevil would pair so well with Luminary as entertainers and celebrities. So yeh, it's not so much that I dislike them for PF and more that I think they could be even more if they were made in SF (partly also because I've been REALLY liking what the design team has been cooking up over there)
Definitely agree with the takes on the Slayer, though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incidentally has there been any blogs about feedback from the playtests and how the classes may be changing?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have hope for both classes because Paizo hasn't disappointed in a long time in regards to new classes, but I would be lying if I didn't say I wouldn't be surprised if one of them ended up underperforming anyways. The daredevil was arguably the worst one of the two but also the one I think its the easiest one the fix, while the slayer IMO would probably need to be made from the ground up, if not ditched entirely, requiring a new playtest.
The slayer was bad mechanically and bad flavor-wise, since its like the 4th hunter class released in this edition. Its unique mechanics didn't really feel interesting, and some even felt out of place like its unreliable reaction to become quickened that felt like it belonged to a time-based class rather than someone that hunts monsters and uses its parts to craft their equipment. Daredevil's problem was that it was really weak and props, which should be easy to fix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I see "Slayer" I think "Buffy" and "There's only one in each generation". :-)
Daredevil grew on me over the playtest, especially when someone here said they were like an inverse exemplar, someone with no special powers just throwing themselves at it. With some tuning I think it'll fit.I have seen people comparing Daredevil to a more "Everyday Hero" theme and definitely see that, and really like the idea over all of having something that fits someone like Jackie Chan even better than a Monk.
I was one of them. I was loudly declaring those points during the playtest and afterwards, NEW BLOG! - Risks & Rewards: Red Line Overload, comment #31.
More so I just think that they could be explored even more deeply and broadly in Starfinder than Pathfinder in part because of the idea of contemporary Daredevils being associated with wild vehicle stunts and the like. Plus thematically it feels like Daredevil would pair so well with Luminary as entertainers and celebrities. So yeh, it's not so much that I dislike them for PF and more that I think they could be even more if they were made in SF (partly also because I've been REALLY liking what the design team has been cooking up over there)
I think that designing the Daredevil so that the class works in both Pathfinder and Starfinder would make the class better. The playtest daredevil had a Stunt Driver feat, but it pretty much required standing next to the vehicle rather than driving it. Stunt Driver should let them pull midair stunts while driving a flying car and asteroid-dodging stunts while piloting a spaceship.
The playtest daredevil had serious flaws, mostly that the adrenaline mechanic interfered with both fun and versatility. In the Gencon Keynote video Erik Mona said, "The daredevil is a risk-taker/explorer who interacts with the dungeon, almost parkours their way through the dungeon in a very interactive way with their environment. Really versatile and interesting class." That is a good direction to take the development of the daredevil.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Mathmuse: Nothing that Erik Mona said in that statement suggests any direction that takes into account any of your pointed out flaws. It is basically the exact same elevator pitch we got in the playtest. He also says in that same section that the slayer can even use monster parts, and how cool that is. Again, him thinking it is cool is not in any way reassurance that the class has had any major changes to improve it from what we saw in the playtest.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nearly all classes can be basically summed up as Martial or Mage so acting like the daredevil or slayer uniquely step on the toes of other classes is a non-starter in my mind. They are both mechanically unique and that's kinda the most important thing to justify them as being classes in the game.
And the name daredevil is a little silly but 1) I can't really think of a better one and 2) This game still has the Monk so you can't pretend dumb names haven't been around since inception, even if it was grandfathered in.
EDIT: Oh and the thing I totally forgot to say, while the playtest wasn't the greatest in the world paizo has yet to let me down on a final release of the class (save for some light errata). Until they do I'm not going to doom over a playtest document.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's hoping that afterward, they'll start updating all existing classes with new materials...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm excited for both classes but a little worried. They were rough in the playtest and the post playtest blog was not great. They're very mechanics focused classes but their mechanics did not come together very well. Both of them felt so conservatively designed after some of the recent Ws Paizo has put out.
Hoping that comes around for the final book.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the best argument for the daredevil being a Starfinder 2e class is that it honestly kind of FEELS like one.
Starfinder 2e has been doing a good job making classes that combine enough different parts from different PF2E classes to cover all their bases, but not repeat stuff too much. The Operative is a Fighter/Gunslinger/Ranger, while a Soldier is a Kineticist/Champion/Ranger, etc (the Operative gets the Hunt Prey action, but the Soldier gets their role as low MAP king)
So when I look at the Daredevil, it feels like it combines a few disparate PF2E classes: it's an acrobatic and flashy outrageous fighter like the Swashbuckler, it's a highly agile bareknuckle and weapons pinball fighter like a Monk, it combines low MAP attacks from a Ranger with the glass cannon nature of a Barbarian and the overflow-style resource system of a Kineticist, etc.
All of this kind of makes it feel it would be a lot more unique and feel more distinct in Starfinder 2e. While it competes with a LOT of other PF2E melee classes, it would also have a more protected niche in SF2E due to there being fewer melee-centric classes.
You could even tie the flavor into SF2E as well. Lean into the idea of the Daredevil being the idea of someone in a world of modern comforts putting their body through immense physical duress and extreme adrenaline chasing stunts. Daredevils are just the futuristic versions of Jackass.
Exactly. Thank you for articulating these points better than I had!
@Mathmuse: Nothing that Erik Mona said in that statement suggests any direction that takes into account any of your pointed out flaws. It is basically the exact same elevator pitch we got in the playtest. He also says in that same section that the slayer can even use monster parts, and how cool that is. Again, him thinking it is cool is not in any way reassurance that the class has had any major changes to improve it from what we saw in the playtest.
Yes, Erik Mona's wording is very similar to the February 17, 2026, announcement of the Risks & Rewards playtest, Take a Chance on the Risks & Rewards Playtest! That said, "The daredevil is a risk-taker and explorer who often runs headfirst into dangerous situations, assuming their skills and luck will pull them through. They rely on adrenaline to fuel their daring abilities, which sometimes get them into trouble!"
For comparison, let me repeat Erik Mona's recent statment from the July 31, 2026, Keynote address, "The daredevil is a risk-taker/explorer who interacts with the dungeon, almost parkours their way through the dungeon in a very interactive way with their environment. Really versatile and interesting class."
I dislike the adrenaline mechanic, and the newer statement does not mention adrenaline. The "runs headfirst into dangerous situations" has been replaced with "almost parkours their way through the dungeon." The sketch of the iconic daredevil shows a lady with a grappling hook, implying that she might swing past dangerous enemies rather than rush directly through enemies with Reactive Strikes. I expect the daredevil will still rush, since I do not expect Daring Stunt to change, and I would count swinging from a grappling hook as a Leap.
DARING STUNT [one-action]
DAREDEVIL RISKY
Frequency once per round
You hurl yourself into the fray and try to maneuver a foe. You Stride or Leap. You can use Daring Stunt while Burrowing, Climbing, Flying, or Swimming instead of Striding if you have the corresponding movement type. You must move at least 10 feet and end your movement adjacent to at least one enemy. At the end of your movement, you can attempt to Grapple, Reposition, Shove, or Trip one enemy within your reach. You must meet all the requirements of that action.
Daring Stunt was one of the fun parts of playing a daredevil, so fun that it does not need the Risky trait that generates adrenaline. But adrenaline itself needs an opening action with the Risky trait to function.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, the classes are one year away so I wouldn't take anything said at face value. I'm pretty sure the books aren't finished until january/february, which is when they begin to print them, so trying to squish an official statement to predict possible changes to a class right now is IMO a bit futile.
I like what I have heard about the book these classes are being printed in, but dungeon delving doesn’t feel like a book that is going to have a lot of small vehicles or more rules for vehicular combat. Because of that, I am not sure the daredevil will have nearly enough support to feature a stunt driver subclass or even feat tree. That element of the playtest was woefully underdeveloped and it feels like something to cut rather than leave half baked with no support in the book
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vehicles have kind of always been a sore point for me in 2e, and not something I've been jumping to include so I am all for excising it from the daredevil. Honestly feels like it was included more because of the name of the class than the actual mechanics of it.
On that note I don't agree about the idea that it fits better in SF, I get the vibe people would be more happy if it just had a different name. It feels like 2e's take on the brawler but focused on the maneuvers rather than the unarmed/close weapon fighting, hence the name change.
I mean, vehicles were only relevant for a single feat (which probably should be baked into the class itself) and that's it. The daredevil never needed vehicles to function, so I'd rather focus on the fact that props as a whole need to buffed across the board rather than on something that was situationally a prop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hard disagree. The daredevil class worked terribly with all but one vehicle currently in the game as the only vehicle that did what the daredevil needed from it for its class features to be at all useful with piloting was the velocipede, and that becomes a major liability pretty quickly.
For every other vehicle the daredevil does not want to be the pilot, the just want to run alongside a vehicle, which isn’t really acting out a stunt driver fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vehicles have kind of always been a sore point for me in 2e, and not something I've been jumping to include so I am all for excising it from the daredevil. Honestly feels like it was included more because of the name of the class than the actual mechanics of it.
On that note I don't agree about the idea that it fits better in SF, I get the vibe people would be more happy if it just had a different name. It feels like 2e's take on the brawler but focused on the maneuvers rather than the unarmed/close weapon fighting, hence the name change.
So long as the class is called daredevil it should have a Stunt Driver ability, because one of the most famous American daredevils was motorcycle stunt driver Evel Knievel.
As for alternative names, www.thesaurus.com suggests adventurer (which is my name for all PCs), stuntman, stuntperson, hot dog, madcap, and risk-taker. I have also seen showboat, skylark, and thrillseeker. Acrobat is already claimed in Pathfinder by an archetype.
I hard disagree. The daredevil class worked terribly with all but one vehicle currently in the game as the only vehicle that did what the daredevil needed from it for its class features to be at all useful with piloting was the velocipede, and that becomes a major liability pretty quickly.
For every other vehicle the daredevil does not want to be the pilot, the just want to run alongside a vehicle, which isn’t really acting out a stunt driver fantasy.
Unicore participated in my thread, Kittyhawk, Playtest Daredevil, and already knows that I playtested the Stunt Driver feat with Kittyhawk. I reported the results in comment #19 and comment #46. The feat's performance was quite embarrassing. The only vehicle that I had to test it with was a rowboat. Let me quote the feat.
STUNT DRIVER FEAT 2
DAREDEVIL
Prerequisites trained in Driving Lore, Piloting Lore, or Sailing Lore
As you control a vehicle, you feel your adrenaline surging. When you take a reckless action while piloting a vehicle, that action gains the risky trait. You gain a +2 circumstance bonus to the piloting check to keep control of the vehicle. In addition, you treat all vehicles as props, regardless of their size, and can use them as props while you are on board the vehicle, even when they are in motion.
Driving a vehicle requires a Driving Lore, Piloting Lore, or Sailing Lore check, and Lore is based on Intelligence. Daredevils don't invest in Intelligence, because they need Strength for Athletics or maybe Dexterity for Acrobatics (an acrobatic daredevil is measurably worse than an athletic daredevil) and Constitution for hit points (the playtest daredevil received 8 hp per level. The after-playtest report said they would increase that to 10 hp per level). Kittyhawk had Int +2, so the +2 circumstance bonus made her merely equal to the Int +4 PCs who also trained Sailing Lore.
As for using the vehicle as a prop, Kittyhawk once tried to shove a monster into her rowboat floating adjacent to the monster. Think about that: the Stunt Damage rules say that you can shove a creature into a prop, typically a wall or a larger animal, for bludgeoning damage. Stunt Driver lets her use a floating empty rowboat as if it were as solid as a wall. Note that this shove cannot be performed while in the vehicle, since the vehicle must be on the opposite side of the creature. Well, technically, if both the daredevil and the creature were in a map-sized vehicle, then every inch of the map would count as a prop, which is ridiculous in an opposite manner.
Nothing in the Stunt Driver feat turned Kittyhawk into an excellent stunt driver. Instead, it mostly lets reckless driving serve as an adrenaline-generating mechanic.
After the playtest ended, Kittyhawk remained in my party for several more game sessions, so I rewrote her dysfunctional feats, including Stunt Driver, into useful form. The homebrew is at comment #77.
I do not think that daredevil needs a Stunt Driver subclass. I just want a single Stunt Driver feat that lets the daredevil become an excellent driver able to pull some tricks with vehicles. And the vehicle rules in Starfinder 2nd Edition are the same as the vehicle rules in Pathfinder 2nd Edition, so it should enable a Starfinder stunt driver, too.
So long as the class is called daredevil it should have a Stunt Driver ability, because one of the most famous American daredevils was motorcycle stunt driver Evel Knievel.
Sorry, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
As for alternative names, www.thesaurus.com suggests adventurer (which is my name for all PCs), stuntman, stuntperson, hot dog, madcap, and risk-taker. I have also seen showboat, skylark, and thrillseeker. Acrobat is already claimed in Pathfinder by an archetype.
Fall Guy. :-)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I can't make an awesome BMX Bandit, Daredevil will be a failure to me. ;)
If I can't make awesome BMX Bandit, Daredevil will be a failure to me. ;)
This is why I was hoping for more single occupant vehicles that had a speed based upon the speed of the pilot, where the pilot can readily use a free hand to grab and reposition, while still on a vehicle. It doesn’t need a subclass choice, I like that the daredevil is really about the feats, but it probably needs a couple more feats and definitely shouldn’t expect every stunt driver to ride a velocipede for 20 levels with nothing to upgrade.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
where the pilot can readily use a free hand to grab and reposition, while still on a vehicle.
I think it'd be easier to have feats that granted a vehicle the Grab, Shove and Reposition Traits on attacks. IMO, it's easy to imagine using a vehicle to shove, move/push around and pin creatures against obstacles. That seems an easier solution than needing specific vehicles [not that I'm saying more vehicles wouldn't be nice].
PS: I'm hoping we also see improved vehicle combat feats: I'd love to make 'normal' strikes with the vehicle and have a way to add runes to it.
So long as the class is called daredevil it should have a Stunt Driver ability, because one of the most famous American daredevils was motorcycle stunt driver Evel Knievel.Sorry, your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.
If you want the lengthy discussion about how my conclusion follows, I posted it back on May 8, 2026 at NEW BLOG! - Risks & Rewards: Red Line Overload, comment #31. In short, Pathfinder character classes tend to be based on famous figures or fictional heroes. Evel Knievel and Harry Houdini are famous real-life people called daredevils, so I expect the daredevil class to allow a few iconic features from them.
If I can't make awesome BMX Bandit, Daredevil will be a failure to me. ;)This is why I was hoping for more single occupant vehicles that had a speed based upon the speed of the pilot, where the pilot can readily use a free hand to grab and reposition, while still on a vehicle. It doesn’t need a subclass choice, I like that the daredevil is really about the feats, but it probably needs a couple more feats and definitely shouldn’t expect every stunt driver to ride a velocipede for 20 levels with nothing to upgrade.
Next year, when Risks & Rewards comes out, my player characters will have acquired Sand Racers, item 15, Speed 90, which are essentially motorcycles that levitate a foot off the ground or water, during Doorway to the Red Star. Kittyhawk will be visiting the Magaambya afterwards because I like to upgrade my playtest characters to the final versions for a cameo appearance. I would like to see what she can do on a sand racer.
So long as the class is called daredevil it should have a Stunt Driver ability, because one of the most famous American daredevils was motorcycle stunt driver Evel Knievel.
As for alternative names, www.thesaurus.com suggests adventurer (which is my name for all PCs), stuntman, stuntperson, hot dog, madcap, and risk-taker. I have also seen showboat, skylark, and thrillseeker. Acrobat is already claimed in Pathfinder by an archetype.
You don't need to talk down to me, I know why people are focused on stunt driving in spite of the mechanics of the class.
The class, taken in the totality of its mechanics, doesn't want to be a stunt-driver, and so trying to force it to be one just because of a dumb name is silly. Its like forcing monks or magus to be religious; makes sense with the name but clearly that's not what the class is about.
The name likely won't change and I hope they don't expand the vehicle part of the class because frankly I don't think it meshes well with 2e vehicles as they are. Having that be baked into a class would be annoying and take page space away from feats and features that would enhance the class that is there.
As for looking at synonyms for daredevil you are missing the point or being intentionally rude. This is a class about maneuvers, about throwing a guy into a wall or stack of crates in a surprisingly cinematic take on 2e martial combat. An alternate name would be focusing on that (but like I said, the name likely won't change so it's a moot point).
I would note that in common vernacular, vehicle stunts are maneuvers. So therefore calling something a maneuver-heavy class would reasonably lead one to expect vehicle maneuvers.
Monks are a maneuver-heavy class. Wrestler is a maneuver-based archetype. I really don't think that most people are actually expecting combat maneuvers to refer to vehicular combat?
I tend to think of vehicular combat or "daredevil maneuvers" in terms of reasonably modern vehicles, not, say, chariots or person-powered bicycles. <shrug>
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly feel like the Daredevil would've been a much better concept for Starfinder as opposed to Pathfinder, because then you could include a "subclass" for things like vehicles and ship combat. And even if it stayed mostly akin to what it was in the playtest, I imagine there'd be way more environments and "props" to work with in the latter setting than in Pathfinder.I hope both classes get a major glow up. After the Necromancer and Runesmith, I’m worried neither of these classes even have the conceptual “oomph” to be really as good.
Maybe the Slayer. Maybe.
Yeah I agree with this. Starfinder feels like the better setting for a class like this, especially if it's got vehicle stuff.
Vehicles are just not a significant part of PF2 and you never see them in a "typical" adventure.
You can build the class without doing much of anything with vehicles, but if you do want to have vehicles, it would really work better in Starfinder (the Daredevil ship pilot fits pretty naturally).
A BMX bandit style character on a skateboard/bike/broom could easily navigate a dungeon and mix it up with all the regular daredevil feats and abilities. The game just currently lacks a lot of these kind of vehicles. Like chariots and rowboats and coaches are also things that could fit in once in a while, a class that wants to do stunt driving a lot needs a vehicle they can pick up and carry into dungeons and the ride the walls, flip on their vehicle over an enemy and all that kind of stuff.
I just don’t think we’ll get it in a book about dungeons.
Why would you need to ram if you can operate them with a free hand? You could make attacks and use skill actions just fine
I mean, being able to use the vehicle as a weapon could easily be a feat option and the damage would be your stunt damage. Also, we already have wheel spikes in the game so the same book that had single operator vehicles could have vehicle mounted weapons, that even fits with the whole classical fantasy chariot motif. But the BMX bandit fantasy isn’t having a passenger with a weapon, and jumping off your bike while it is moving, slamming their head into the vehicle (as a prop) and then mounting the bike again seems like a feasible playstyle as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't need to talk down to me, I know why people are focused on stunt driving in spite of the mechanics of the class.So long as the class is called daredevil it should have a Stunt Driver ability, because one of the most famous American daredevils was motorcycle stunt driver Evel Knievel.
As for alternative names, www.thesaurus.com suggests adventurer (which is my name for all PCs), stuntman, stuntperson, hot dog, madcap, and risk-taker. I have also seen showboat, skylark, and thrillseeker. Acrobat is already claimed in Pathfinder by an archetype.
I apologize for I did not intend to talk down. My words display some irritation, but that is irritation at the design of the playtest daredevil.
My playtest daredevil was fun whenever she did something that looked outrageous, such as jumping off a cliff to catch a bad guy (she had Cat Fall, so it was not really dangerous) or bashing an enemy's head into a large stone table. A true vehicle stunt, not simply using a stationary vehicle as a prop for Stunt Damage, would be the same kind of fun. So my desire for stunt driving is not solely based on Evel Knievel.
The class, taken in the totality of its mechanics, doesn't want to be a stunt-driver, and so trying to force it to be one just because of a dumb name is silly. Its like forcing monks or magus to be religious; makes sense with the name but clearly that's not what the class is about.
Half the daredevil's mechanics are about generating adrenaline to enable other class abilities. An underlying assumption is that taking risks won't happen without a reward. Alas, the rewards offered--the abilities that require "You have adrenaline"--are not much stronger than a Shove, Trip, or Strike. The adrenaline mechanic is an action tax that reduces fun. Next year when I rebuild Kittyhawk to the daredevil rules in Risks & Reward, if daredevil still has an adrenaline mechanic, then I will minimize those adrenaline abilties. I might even leave off Stunt Driver.
In contrast, the daredevil abilities about "interacts with the dungeon, almost parkours their way through the dungeon in a very interactive way with their environment" were worth doing without the adrenaline reward.
The name likely won't change and I hope they don't expand the vehicle part of the class because frankly I don't think it meshes well with 2e vehicles as they are. Having that be baked into a class would be annoying and take page space away from feats and features that would enhance the class that is there.
I hope that the vehicle part of the class will be the single feat Stunt Driver. But I also hope for Stunt Rider and Stunt Trickster (for applying Dirty Trick skill feat during Daring Stunt).
As for looking at synonyms for daredevil you are missing the point or being intentionally rude. This is a class about maneuvers, about throwing a guy into a wall or stack of crates in a surprisingly cinematic take on 2e martial combat. An alternate name would be focusing on that (but like I said, the name likely won't change so it's a moot point).
Seriously, some of us playtesters looked for alternative names at the beginning of the playtest. Famous real daredevils were performers rather than adventurers, and I don't recall any daredevils in mythology or fantasy fiction besides the Marvel Comics superhero. Jackie Chan characters and Kung Fu Panda are good daredevil role models, but they are not called daredevils.
Yes, the class is about maneuvers, leaping into combat and kicking a guy into a wall at the end of the leap. Daring Stunt does that and it is great. However, 1d6 Stunt Damage from bashing the foe into a wall is a fun stunt but weak damage compared to 1d8+4 from a longsword Strike. And not all opponents stand next to walls, so the more common outcome for Daring Stunt is leaving the opponent undamaged and prone on the ground with a Trip. The second attack has to serve as the daredevil's primary source of damage. That second attack has a multiple attack penalty, only -4 on a Pressing Pummel due to Audacious Combat, but even a -4 significantly diminishes the chance of success.
Granted, in the playtest I ran, Daredevil was played to great effect without using maneuver skill checks once. So Daredevil doesn't even need to do its skill maneuvers to do a lot.
If the daredevil keeps Athletics at maximum proficiency (skill increases at 3rd and 7th and 15th level) and has STR +4, then the combat maneuvers are okay. Tripping can delay an opponent and reduce their AC so that the party's serious damage-dealers can defeat them. My calculations show that a daredevil ought to start 1st level as an expert in Athletics, just like a 1st-level fighter is expert in martial weapon proficiency, in order to favor combat maneuvers over Strikes.
Because part of the fantasy of being a skateboarder is doing a sick trick and hitting them with the skateboard at the same time. The trick pilot's fantasy is the vehicle is the weapon, not that you're using a normie weapon from the vehicle. That's the job for the Fighter/Ranger/Operative/Soldier in the passenger seat.
I think that the sick trick should be a Reposition, Shove, or Trip. Or a Grapple that pulls the target onto the vehicle.