a magic baker is just an alchemist artificer, and a lawyer is just a charisma rogue. ;)
but seriously, an anti-magic user (like a wh40k null) would be sick. i do think that might fit better as, like, a fighter subclass or something, but still.
the only swords i can think of that were used as primary weapons would be greatswords (e.g. zweihanders, claymores, odachis, miaodaos, etc.) and the gladius. i think also the falx? am i missing any?
judicator's judgement from on high...?
i figured it was an intentional balance decision, but i think giving a pistol to the iconic is a little...misleading? since it implies pistols are synergetic with the class when they're not.
i do agree (and i'd go a step further and say that all martials...
i will say, the classes seem very strong. they all get a lot of skills (the inquisitor and slayer get FIVE, which is crazy because that's more then a rogue), and the inquisitor gets extra attack AND sneak attack-esque radiant damage AND up to 7th level spells. i think other then skills the other...
out of all of these listed i've only had the opportunity to play a5e and pf2e. i quite like both of them - pf2e is a very cohesive game, and a5e feels to me like if you actually finished writing 5e 2014. i'm pretty interested in trying 13th age, i own castles and crusades (though likely won't...
...oh, so...so we agree, then (except maybe whether or not you get a second attack from any attack maneuvers, i would say no to that and say instead that the maneuver gets added as a rider to the commanding presence attack).
also i'm pretty sure OP was never asking if you can take ANY action...
no, it says they can simultaneously use a maneuver. i'd still agree that the attack granted from the reaction would be mixed in with a maneuver that normally lets you attack, but "simultaneously" and "instead" are very different words with very different meanings.