|
Since this is a more radical change than the other two (rogue and monk) I'll make it a full 2.0.
Basically start from scratch, except keeping nimble
Change 1: Revert Firearms back to the original rules. No touch attack.
Change 2: 3/4 BaB class.
Change 3: Add "Flurry of bullets" feature following the same progression at Monk flurry of blows and allowing them to reload as a free action as part of a flurry of bullets attack when wielding two weapons.
Change 4: Get rid of grit. Deeds are received like rogue talents. Deeds requiring grit are either made times per day, equal to "X" modifier (probably wisdom) or removed. Grit is a mechanic that encourages kill stealing, creates to much bookkeeping, and doesn't fit at the table. Let it go.
Change 5: Replace bonus feats and gun training with the following Gunpowder types available one per 5 levels (starting at first). "Damage" Gunpowder which does damage in the first increment equal to rogue sneak attack damage. "Armor Piercing" which ignores touch attack in the first range increment. "Scatter" powder which fires in a cone out to 30 feet, "Stunning" powder which acts like ranged stunning fist on the first shot fires. (open to suggestions on others). Only one type can be fired at a time, but you can change the powder types as a swift action.
This is an area where a lot of ideas could flourish, IMHO.
Change 6: Gunslingers have no misfire change in light or no armor.
Change 7: Good will save. Yes that is three good saves. Yes only monks have that. Gunslingers are stubborn, tough, and quick. It fits.
As always, thoughts and suggestions welcome.
|
I did a monk-ey archetype following your global line of thought some times ago. Granted, it still assumes the Touch AC feature of firearms in it's design, but follows Changes 2/3/7, and partially follows Changes 4 (by ki pool) and 5 (by appropriate spell-like abilities).
If more people are interested with your idea of a 2.0 class, I'll see up to write rules that could please guys who currently wouldn't play a gunslinger - either by being it's own base class, or a monk heavily modified alternate class.
Edit : the provided link was an old one. A heavy revision followed the first attempt at a monk-ey gunslinger/gun-fu master.
Since this is a more radical change than the other two (rogue and monk) I'll make it a full 2.0.
Basically start from scratch, except keeping nimble
Change 1: Revert Firearms back to the original rules. No touch attack.
Change 2: 3/4 BaB class.
Change 3: Add "Flurry of bullets" feature following the same progression at Monk flurry of blows and allowing them to reload as a free action as part of a flurry of bullets attack when wielding two weapons.
Change 4: Get rid of grit. Deeds are received like rogue talents. Deeds requiring grit are either made times per day, equal to "X" modifier (probably wisdom) or removed. Grit is a mechanic that encourages kill stealing, creates to much bookkeeping, and doesn't fit at the table. Let it go.
Change 5: Replace bonus feats and gun training with the following Gunpowder types available one per 5 levels (starting at first). "Damage" Gunpowder which does damage in the first increment equal to rogue sneak attack damage. "Armor Piercing" which ignores touch attack in the first range increment. "Scatter" powder which fires in a cone out to 30 feet, "Stunning" powder which acts like ranged stunning fist on the first shot fires. (open to suggestions on others). Only one type can be fired at a time, but you can change the powder types as a swift action.
This is an area where a lot of ideas could flourish, IMHO.
Change 6: Gunslingers have no misfire change in light or no armor.
Change 7: Good will save. Yes that is three good saves. Yes only monks have that. Gunslingers are stubborn, tough, and quick. It fits.
As always, thoughts and suggestions welcome.
This is interesting and all, but I'm not convinced I need to play this over the printed gunslinger. I guess it's not for me, but you may have somebody that would like this version, so *Bump*.
I like MY gunslinger, personally.
I don't like the idea of making the gunslinger more like a monk. I am aware of your position on monks ciretose, from the monk threads, but I disagree. I'm not going to derail the thread to argue the point but I would not be interested in a "flurry of bullets". You've stated you don't like the complexity of the UC gunslinger (grit) but replacing that with a 3/4 BAB class that shoots like a full BAB class except with penalties (monk flurry) is just as needlessly complex (yes that is a monk critique as well).
But anyway, rock on with your monk like gunslinger but it is not for me.
|
|
I don't like the idea of making the gunslinger more like a monk. I am aware of your position on monks ciretose, from the monk threads, but I disagree. I'm not going to derail the thread to argue the point but I would not be interested in a "flurry of bullets". You've stated you don't like the complexity of the UC gunslinger (grit) but replacing that with a 3/4 BAB class that shoots like a full BAB class except with penalties (monk flurry) is just as needlessly complex (yes that is a monk critique as well).
But anyway, rock on with your monk like gunslinger but it is not for me.
The flurry of bullets is more to overcome the fact I made the gunslinger not full BaB anymore.
I did this for three reasons.
1. Make it more of a penalty to take gunslinger as a dip class.
2. Gunslingers shouldn't be as good as full martial classes with anything but guns.
3. Gunslingers should get the rapid fire progression for free with guns.
I would be fine with Gunslingers being full BaB with guns only, and getting rapid shot, etc...for free at appropriate levels.
Sounds alright, though I'd go for a different method of acquiring grit than removing it altogether. But then, I think most fighter-types should have some kind of resource management mini-game. I like resource management.
If you want to encourage players to alternate between using deeds and attacking, how about you gain 1 grit every round in which you make a successful basic attack?
|
|
Sounds alright, though I'd go for a different method of acquiring grit than removing it altogether. But then, I think most fighter-types should have some kind of resource management mini-game. I like resource management.
If you want to encourage players to alternate between using deeds and attacking, how about you gain 1 grit every round in which you make a successful basic attack?
We disagree on resource management. A large part of this is to get rid of grit.
Your idea appeals to me, but I think you killed it for some of the people here by using the word "Monk". No, I am not joking.
That word seriously caused some bias around here...
So... boring...I don't think gunslingers need to be tough, or have a lot of endurance for that matter, their fights are usually stop and go affairs anyway. I do think they ought to be borderline fearless though. So I will agree with that.
|
|
Your idea appeals to me, but I think you killed it for some of the people here by using the word "Monk". No, I am not joking.
That word seriously caused some bias around here...
I agree, but it is the closet similar example. I am just rrying to move the discussion toward mactching mechanics and flavor.
Let me rephrase that, I was tired you see. Gunslingers don't need to be tough.
Yeah, but really really good with guns = a full BAB, which typically also has a good hit die associated with it. While they don't need to be tough, they typically were anyway. Especially since you are removing touch attacks from their guns.
With what you've designed you took them from "I can hit anything, casually, so I'm going to deadly aim all the time, and still hit everything casually.", which is something you would expect to happen with a class that is based on extreme marksmanship, to "I can't hit the broadside of a barn." especially if they intend on using any combat feats.
The design you have going here is barely a step up from wizard in terms of accuracy, except when he flurries, and that doesn't exactly work for the monk now does it? Especially if you want him to mimic the running battles that a lot of skirmish gunfights really were back then.
|
|
Yeah, but really really good with guns = a full BAB, which typically also has a good hit die associated with it. While they don't need to be tough, they typically were anyway. Especially since you are removing touch attacks from their guns.
With what you've designed you took them from "I can hit anything, casually, so I'm going to deadly aim all the time, and still hit everything casually.", which is something you would expect to happen with a class that is based on extreme marksmanship, to "I can't hit the broadside of a barn." especially if they intend on using any combat feats.
The design you have going here is barely a step up from wizard in terms of accuracy, except when he flurries, and that doesn't exactly work for the monk now does it? Especially if you want him to mimic the running battles that a lot of skirmish gunfights really were back then.
Remember that it is a ranged "flurry", meaning there is absolutely no time he wouldn't "flurry" when using a fire-arm.
I am fine with it just being he is full BaB with a fire arm and gets rapid shot, etc...for free or as bonus feats. I just don't think they need the martial proficiency or to be full BaB with anything other than guns.
Remember that it is a ranged "flurry", meaning there is absolutely no time he wouldn't "flurry" when using a fire-arm.
I am fine with it just being he is full BaB with a fire arm and gets rapid shot, etc...for free or as bonus feats. I just don't think they need the martial proficiency or to be full BaB with anything other than guns.
There's a few problems with that: what happens when he HAS to move for some reason? Like line of sight? He becomes incredibly inept all of a sudden, that's what. Not having a full BAB also affects his deadly aim ability.
You want him to be inept with other weapons? Take away and simple weapon proficiency. I am going to warn you that doing this doesn't make a lot of sense, as most guys that are really good with guns, tend to also be really good with other weapons as well, back when horses were a big deal people who used guns tended to still be skilled swordsmen, as that was the weapon they would switch to when they ran out of ammo. They were also typically not too shabby with a "spear" or more accurately a rifle with a bayonet on it.
|
|
Remember that it is a ranged "flurry", meaning there is absolutely no time he wouldn't "flurry" when using a fire-arm.
I am fine with it just being he is full BaB with a fire arm and gets rapid shot, etc...for free or as bonus feats. I just don't think they need the martial proficiency or to be full BaB with anything other than guns.
There's a few problems with that: what happens when he HAS to move for some reason? Like line of sight? He becomes incredibly inept all of a sudden, that's what. Not having a full BAB also affects his deadly aim ability.
You want him to be inept with other weapons? Take away and simple weapon proficiency. I am going to warn you that doing this doesn't make a lot of sense, as most guys that are really good with guns, tend to also be really good with other weapons as well, back when horses were a big deal people who used guns tended to still be skilled swordsmen, as that was the weapon they would switch to when they ran out of ammo. They were also typically not too shabby with a "spear" or more accurately a rifle with a bayonet on it.
I don't think he should be as proficient with martial or standard weapons as a fighter/ranger/barbarian.
He would be as good as a bard/rogue/monk with weapons other than guns, which is right were they should be. You act like I'm asking for the 1/2 BaB.
As I said, I am fine with full BaB with guns only. Flurry is actually full BaB and the twf progression with weapons, so it is better than just full BaB, as it gives the feats for free.
Remember that it is a ranged "flurry", meaning there is absolutely no time he wouldn't "flurry" when using a fire-arm.
I am fine with it just being he is full BaB with a fire arm and gets rapid shot, etc...for free or as bonus feats. I just don't think they need the martial proficiency or to be full BaB with anything other than guns.
There's a few problems with that: what happens when he HAS to move for some reason? Like line of sight? He becomes incredibly inept all of a sudden, that's what. Not having a full BAB also affects his deadly aim ability.
You want him to be inept with other weapons? Take away and simple weapon proficiency. I am going to warn you that doing this doesn't make a lot of sense, as most guys that are really good with guns, tend to also be really good with other weapons as well, back when horses were a big deal people who used guns tended to still be skilled swordsmen, as that was the weapon they would switch to when they ran out of ammo. They were also typically not too shabby with a "spear" or more accurately a rifle with a bayonet on it.
I don't think he should be as proficient with martial or standard weapons as a fighter/ranger/barbarian.
He would be as good as a bard/rogue/monk with weapons other than guns, which is right were they should be. You act like I'm asking for the 1/2 BaB.
As I said, I am fine with full BaB with guns only. Flurry is actually full BaB and the twf progression with weapons, so it is better than just full BaB, as it gives the feats for free.
He wouldn't be, the fighter/barbarian/ranger all get bonus feats or special class abilities that make them better with their weapons of choice than a full BAB would give them.
Again, the problem with flurry is that he suddenly sucks at shooting when he moves, which is a serious problem.
Change 4: Get rid of grit. Deeds are received like rogue talents. Deeds requiring grit are either made times per day, equal to "X" modifier (probably wisdom) or removed. Grit is a mechanic that encourages kill stealing, creates to much bookkeeping, and doesn't fit at the table. Let it go.
How does removing a central and singular resource pool and replacing it with individual abilities with individual uses reduce complexity? If anything it adds more bookkeeping and complexity to the class.
My own thoughts on Grit aside (I like the idea of it), I don't see how this does anything to make the class require less bookkeeping.
|
|
Change 4: Get rid of grit. Deeds are received like rogue talents. Deeds requiring grit are either made times per day, equal to "X" modifier (probably wisdom) or removed. Grit is a mechanic that encourages kill stealing, creates to much bookkeeping, and doesn't fit at the table. Let it go.How does removing a central and singular resource pool and replacing it with individual abilities with individual uses reduce complexity? If anything it adds more bookkeeping and complexity to the class.
My own thoughts on Grit aside (I like the idea of it), I don't see how this does anything to make the class require less bookkeeping.
Grit basically encourages kill stealing, and requires you to keep a running tally.
Times per day is just a check off no different than keeping track of spells per day.
I didn't see your name on it!
In all seriousness: who cares who gets what kill? So long as the antagonists are dead and the protagonists are still alive, what does it matter? My ninja in my Friday game does basically all the work, but hasn't actually gotten that many kills, do I care? No, because that means I'm that much closer to something more interesting: role-playing.
Change 4: Get rid of grit. Deeds are received like rogue talents. Deeds requiring grit are either made times per day, equal to "X" modifier (probably wisdom) or removed. Grit is a mechanic that encourages kill stealing, creates to much bookkeeping, and doesn't fit at the table. Let it go.How does removing a central and singular resource pool and replacing it with individual abilities with individual uses reduce complexity? If anything it adds more bookkeeping and complexity to the class.
My own thoughts on Grit aside (I like the idea of it), I don't see how this does anything to make the class require less bookkeeping.
Grit basically encourages kill stealing, and requires you to keep a running tally.
Times per day is just a check off no different than keeping track of spells per day.
Why does it matter who gets the killing blow? There isn't any benefit and if it encourages Team work to have the Gunslinger finish off monsters, why is that bad? Where is the rule that says "Players must not attack a monster that another player has killed"? If you have a group working to make sure the ginslinger always has a good amount of grit in his pool why is that a bad thing? The only problem I can see is if the Gunslinger is actively harming the party to replenish his grit, and thats a player issue, not a mechanic issue.
How is that any less bookkeeping than a single resource as opposed to one checklist for every ability? Yes its no different from Spellcasting. However, that doesn't mean its less to keep track of. Single pool of resources to track vs list of per days to track.
|
|
Change 4: Get rid of grit. Deeds are received like rogue talents. Deeds requiring grit are either made times per day, equal to "X" modifier (probably wisdom) or removed. Grit is a mechanic that encourages kill stealing, creates to much bookkeeping, and doesn't fit at the table. Let it go.How does removing a central and singular resource pool and replacing it with individual abilities with individual uses reduce complexity? If anything it adds more bookkeeping and complexity to the class.
My own thoughts on Grit aside (I like the idea of it), I don't see how this does anything to make the class require less bookkeeping.
Grit basically encourages kill stealing, and requires you to keep a running tally.
Times per day is just a check off no different than keeping track of spells per day.
Why does it matter who gets the killing blow? There isn't any benefit and if it encourages Team work to have the Gunslinger finish off monsters, why is that bad? Where is the rule that says "Players must not attack a monster that another player has killed"? If you have a group working to make sure the ginslinger always has a good amount of grit in his pool why is that a bad thing? The only problem I can see is if the Gunslinger is actively harming the party to replenish his grit, and thats a player issue, not a mechanic issue.
How is that any less bookkeeping than a single resource as opposed to one checklist for every ability? Yes its no different from Spellcasting. However, that doesn't mean its less to keep track of. Single pool of resources to track vs list of per days to track.
The problem is there is a mechanic that encourages you to have someone be the finishing blow so you can get points you use later to do other things.
That is silly. It is like something out of a crappy video game and I frankly expect better.
If it were a necromancy thing, sure. But this isn't magic based, it's just the developers trying to get cute.
Leave cute to 3PP.
|
|
I didn't see your name on it!
In all seriousness: who cares who gets what kill? So long as the antagonists are dead and the protagonists are still alive, what does it matter? My ninja in my Friday game does basically all the work, but hasn't actually gotten that many kills, do I care? No, because that means I'm that much closer to something more interesting: role-playing.
Now the role playing is "Don't kill them! Just knock all the bad guys out so Bob can walk around and shoot them in the head to refill his mana...er...grit pool".
Now the role playing is "Don't kill them! Just knock all the bad guys out so Bob can walk around and shoot them in the head to refill his mana...er...grit pool".I didn't see your name on it!
In all seriousness: who cares who gets what kill? So long as the antagonists are dead and the protagonists are still alive, what does it matter? My ninja in my Friday game does basically all the work, but hasn't actually gotten that many kills, do I care? No, because that means I'm that much closer to something more interesting: role-playing.
And again, that becomes a player and group issue, not a mechanic issue. So far all you have done is outline that a GM may need to keep an eye out to make sure his group is Meta-gaming too much. But that could be said with any mechanic, not just Grit. Also, if the creature is knocked out, that is essentially already dead (unless it has regen that hasn't been disabled) and the gunslinger wouldn't get the killing blow there.
The issue here is not that the mechanic doesn't work well, but that you don't like it. Which is fine. You don't have to like everything Paizo puts out. That doesn't make it a bad mechanic. You don't like it, so don't use it. No one is forcing you to use it or to allow it in games you run.
And you still haven't explained how your method is less bookkeeping than the current single resource pool.
|
|
Now the role playing is "Don't kill them! Just knock all the bad guys out so Bob can walk around and shoot them in the head to refill his mana...er...grit pool".I didn't see your name on it!
In all seriousness: who cares who gets what kill? So long as the antagonists are dead and the protagonists are still alive, what does it matter? My ninja in my Friday game does basically all the work, but hasn't actually gotten that many kills, do I care? No, because that means I'm that much closer to something more interesting: role-playing.
And again, that becomes a player and group issue, not a mechanic issue. So far all you have done is outline that a GM may need to keep an eye out to make sure his group is Meta-gaming too much. But that could be said with any mechanic, not just Grit. Also, if the creature is knocked out, that is essentially already dead (unless it has regen that hasn't been disabled) and the gunslinger wouldn't get the killing blow there.
The issue here is not that the mechanic doesn't work well, but that you don't like it. Which is fine. You don't have to like everything Paizo puts out. That doesn't make it a bad mechanic. You don't like it, so don't use it. No one is forcing you to use it or to allow it in games you run.
And you still haven't explained how your method is less bookkeeping than the current single resource pool.
It begs for metagaming. It is almost metagaming itself as in order to play the class you have to be looking for opportunities to steal kills.
When you are at the table and you have a number that moves up and down circumstantially, I find that to be more bookkeeping than a fixed number that is reduced times per day. On requires an eraser, one doesn't.
YMMV.
Yes, they did makes the breastplate useless... it just took 1500 years. Today, you would need the very powerful modern armor to stop bullets, even that would depend on the gun and the range it was being fired at.
Most of the enemies you face don't have any information you might need and if they do you aren't likely to use grit points on them, as most of them are nearly useless schmucks anyway. Also, it's definitely not metagaming to think "hmm, I shouldn't kill this guy, he might have information I need."
|
|
Yes, they did makes the breastplate useless... it just took 1500 years. Today, you would need the very powerful modern armor to stop bullets, even that would depend on the gun and the range it was being fired at.
Most of the enemies you face don't have any information you might need and if they do you aren't likely to use grit points on them, as most of them are nearly useless schmucks anyway. Also, it's definitely not metagaming to think "hmm, I shouldn't kill this guy, he might have information I need."
It isn't the need to kill, it is the need for a specific character to be the one who gets the kill to fill up a "power pool" that has no logical reason to exist.
If it were a necromantic power, sure. It isn't. Why should someone be able to do trick shots because they happened to be the guy who finished a bad guy?
They let what they wanted to be able to do be more important than it making sense for the class flavor.
Yes, they did makes the breastplate useless... it just took 1500 years. Today, you would need the very powerful modern armor to stop bullets, even that would depend on the gun and the range it was being fired at.
Most of the enemies you face don't have any information you might need and if they do you aren't likely to use grit points on them, as most of them are nearly useless schmucks anyway. Also, it's definitely not metagaming to think "hmm, I shouldn't kill this guy, he might have information I need."
It isn't the need to kill, it is the need for a specific character to be the one who gets the kill to fill up a "power pool" that has no logical reason to exist.
If it were a necromantic power, sure. It isn't. Why should someone be able to do trick shots because they happened to be the guy who finished a bad guy?
They let what they wanted to be able to do be more important than it making sense for the class flavor.
It's really not that hard to play it like you have no idea what a grit pool is, considering that every time you fire, you have a 5% chance of getting grit back, and you have approximately the same amount of need for grit, then it's really not that big of a problem all things told.
The only way it becomes a huge problem, is when you have your character go out of their way to get it back, and even then it still isn't likely to kill your target unless you get a crit or spend a grit point in the first place, since most targets don't have a really low con.
Grit also basically makes you want to go after the biggest target in the room, because they have to have more HD than you to count for it, but it doesn't always work out that way does it?
i dont remember where i got it from but its saved on my google documents when someone posted it on the forums. this is the version of the gunslinger that im going to use in my future games because i think its just much better built (no offense Paizo) and he treats guns as if they dont target touch ac.
|
|
You could always treat Grit as Team Fortress 2 treats frags : you both get the frag if you were several people trying to take down the enemy. Did you shoot the enemy in the round before it died ? Then you regain 1 grit.
As I am playing, a random event and/or killing an enemy gives me points in a usable pool to do thing completely unrelated to what I did to get the point.
The fact that this is similar to a mechanic in a first person shooter is hardly helping the case.
Grit is action points by another name in many respects. The fact “Daring act” was included, even as optional, harkens back to what I view as a mistake. Some people liked action points, but they were removed because most people didn’t.
I don’t like pool keeping, in general. It creates a lot of confusion at the table in my experience, and in the specific case of the gunslinger you are now putting a check mark down for every kill or crit to fill a pool of powers for a non-caster class.
Why?
There is no reason for it, there is no logic behind it.
Per day is simple for the player and the DM. You can do something so many times a day. If you do it more than that, I as the DM can be aware of that fairly easily. I’m not going to be arguing about how many kills belonged to you or went to someone else, because they were only unconscious, etc…I’m not going to have you stop after you confirm a crit to give yourself a grit point before continuing to roll damage.
Many, if not most of the grit feats could be made at will (or are currently functionally at will), and many others should be limited to times per day. Particularly the ones that act without defensive saves (most of which I would either remove or heavily redo)
Again, it all comes down to a basic problem I have with the class. They took a very simple concept and added a bunch of unneeded complicated mechanics because of a number of poor choices made at the initial design phase.
The gunslinger is a person who is good with a gun. If you need to add a point pool mechanic to make that concept work, something has gone horribly wrong.
Pool keeping is the same as per day. It's like hp tracking, only it's a lot smaller, how complicated is that? Not at all.
They added a pool mechanic to make it more versatile, while keeping them from going all willy-nilly with their abilities.
|
|
Pool keeping is the same as per day. It's like hp tracking, only it's a lot smaller, how complicated is that? Not at all.
They added a pool mechanic to make it more versatile, the best option is probably to remove grit, keep all of the abilities that use grit, and have them work for free.
I agree with the 2nd part and disagree with the first part.
Pools go up and down, per day only go down. As a DM I can keep an eye on how often you do something, but it is harder to keep track of an every changing point pool.
Pool keeping is the same as per day. It's like hp tracking, only it's a lot smaller, how complicated is that? Not at all.
They added a pool mechanic to make it more versatile, the best option is probably to remove grit, keep all of the abilities that use grit, and have them work for free.
I agree with the 2nd part and disagree with the first part.
Pools go up and down, per day only go down. As a DM I can keep an eye on how often you do something, but it is harder to keep track of an every changing point pool.
The one thing you are calling a pool, is the one thing that isn't actually called a pool anywhere else. Ki, Arcane, and Evolution are the only things described as pools in this game, and they all go down, with the exception of the Evolution pool, they then come back at the end of a rest period.
Grit is the only ability that can regenerate over the course of a day and it's not a pool.
Ok. Lets start off by clarifying a few things.
There is no such thing as "killstealing" in pathfinder. Lets agree to stop referring to it as that. It implies there is some bonus to landing the killing blow. There isn't. It simply doesn't matter.
Now, bookkeeping...
Having a list of abilities with a tally beside them is simply far more work than having a single resource pool. The introduction of an eraser does not change the reality that having a list of abilities with uses per day is far more to keep track of than a single pool. Don't want to erase things? get a piece of scrap paper and just scratch out and re-tally the number
Moving on to grit.
First off. There is more than one way to regain grit. Dramatic maneuvers and Critical hits also regain grit for the gunslinger. Do these encourage metagaming? What if someone builds a character designed to crit often? Dramatic Maneuvers are entirely at the discretion of the DM so thats hardly game breaking. If anything, dramatic maneuvers can be used to encourage and reward roleplay, the very thing that suffers because of grit according to you. There are multiple methods that the gunslinger can regain grit, only one of them that requires any sort of metagaming.
Second, the mechanic for regaining grit has been around in Pathfinder for some time now. The Hungry Ghost Monk has been out for a year and half and uses the same mechanic for regaining Ki. There are some good and fun builds that keep the Ki pool of the Hungry Ghost Monk quite full and rely entirely on getting the killing blow. The builds in question won't function the same way for the gunslinger, so he's already behind on resource generation (vs an archetype, not a base class).
Moving on, orchestrating kills can be very difficult so long as the fights are difficult for the players. Fights are not obligated to favour the players. Monsters getting low on HPs? They can withdraw to deny the gunslinger access to their touch AC. At that point, the gunslinger is required to spend Ki to gain the killing blow. No net gain there. The Grit pool requires resource management, but also helps to balance the class. Assigning per day uses to abilities removes that element of balance.
Another problem is that as players, you almost always have no way of knowing a creatures current HP. If the GM is giving you that information, metagaming is already involved. At that point, you can remove that by not telling players that information or requiring players make perception or heal checks to determine that information. That eats up Action economy of the party and reduces the desire to metagame some. Another option is adjusting fights to change the HP of creatures. Not all creatures need have the same HP value. Players have no way of knowing, without making a check or casting status on them, to know how creatures are doing. Even if you don't make these changes, the party must, by consensus, sacrifice action economy-- an implied resource-- to improve the resources of a single party member. This is not always going to be a fair, easy, or reasonable action. In a vaccuum yes, but play does not occur in a vaccuum, even organized play.
Organizing the party to benefit the gunslinger also suggests that the party is consistently dominating fights. If this is the case it is because the players are (a) very good at max-mining or (b) the encounters are not challenging enough. It could easily be both. The risk of prolonging a challenging encounter so that one player can benefit is not nearly beneficial enough in the long run to justify the risk. After all, wounded creatures can kill just as easily as healthy ones.
I'm going to quote a friend of mine directly on the last bit, because he summed it up far better than I ever could:
"Statistically speaking, building closer to the Hungry Ghost Monk crit builds would provide better odds for consistently regaining grit. Dual-wield pistols, build for crit. Targetted shot (torso). Reloads as a free action or weapon cords or whatever other method you have for full, dual-wield, iterative attacks. Odds are, with enough attacks you will regain the grit spent and perhaps a point or two more thanks to an extended crit range and multiple attacks. Even then, this build won't hit its stride until level 11 or higher. That's 10 levels of carefully managing a limited resource.
I still fail to see how killstealing for grit is broken, promotes metagaming more than any other mechanic currently present (Steal ki! circa 2010!) or otherwise upsets play. This is all theory. Has anyone actually had an experience where a gunslinger was changing the way the other players acted in combat or, god forbid, organized the party into a giant grit generator factory?"
Again, it all comes down to a basic problem I have with the class. They took a very simple concept and added a bunch of unneeded complicated mechanics because of a number of poor choices made at the initial design phase.
And again, you've yet to describe how Grit, a single resource is more complicated than a significant number of times per day abilities.
Grit gives players the flexibility to play the class how they want and on a case by case basis. It keeps the class interesting and balanced while still allowing players to have their own distinct flavour of gunslinger.
|
|
Ok. Lets start off by clarifying a few things.
There is no such thing as "killstealing" in pathfinder. Lets agree to stop referring to it as that. It implies there is some bonus to landing the killing blow. There isn't. It simply doesn't matter.
"Killing Blow with a Firearm: When the gunslinger reduces a creature to 0 or fewer hit points with a firearm attack while in the heat of combat, she regains 1 grit point. Destroying an unattended object, reducing a helpless or unaware creature to 0 or fewer hit points, or reducing a creature that has fewer Hit Dice than half the gunslinger’s character level to 0 or fewer hit points does not restore any grit."
As to the rest, are you saying gunslinger is stealing life force from those it kills to fill it's grit pool.
No.
So why would they get points for it?
It isn't needed, it adds nothing but complexity to what should be a simple concept. We aren't going to agree on this point. You apparently also use the optional dramatic deeds feat, so I'm guessing you are a person who missed hero points as well.
We play very, very different games.
I'm still not sure how this makes the class complicated, it's not exactly like you have choices to make most of the time, almost all of the gunslinger's abilities are incredibly situational, and 90% of the time you won't have any real options.
|
|
I'm still not sure how this makes the class complicated, it's not exactly like you have choices to make most of the time, almost all of the gunslinger's abilities are incredibly situational, and 90% of the time you won't have any real options.
It isn’t just complication for the player, it’s complication for the GM.
As the GM, you try to keep an eye out for cheating. If it is a per day or at will mechanic, you can pretty easily keep an eye on how many times someone used something.
When you throw in an ever changing point “pool”, suddenly you have to keep an eye on how many crits/kills a player rolled.
And to what end?
There is no need to add the complexity. The “deeds” are basically feats/rogue talents with fancy names. Some of them are painfully broken, as they don’t allow defensible saves, but most of them are perfectly fine as at will abilities rather than requiring a grit point in your “pool”.
The gunslinger I proposed is much simpler for everyone involved. It is a guy with a gun who has gun feats and bonuses to damage with guns. With a gun you basically get full BaB with the TWF chain. As I said I would be fine with the BaB for them with firearms being full BaB.
The current gunslinger is a weird mash up that gets points for crits and kills and is only marginally better than any other class with guns.
Ok. Lets start off by clarifying a few things.
There is no such thing as "killstealing" in pathfinder. Lets agree to stop referring to it as that. It implies there is some bonus to landing the killing blow. There isn't. It simply doesn't matter.
"Killing Blow with a Firearm: When the gunslinger reduces a creature to 0 or fewer hit points with a firearm attack while in the heat of combat, she regains 1 grit point. Destroying an unattended object, reducing a helpless or unaware creature to 0 or fewer hit points, or reducing a creature that has fewer Hit Dice than half the gunslinger’s character level to 0 or fewer hit points does not restore any grit."
As to the rest, are you saying gunslinger is stealing life force from those it kills to fill it's grit pool.
No.
So why would they get points for it?
It isn't needed, it adds nothing but complexity to what should be a simple concept. We aren't going to agree on this point. You apparently also use the optional dramatic deeds feat, so I'm guessing you are a person who missed hero points as well.
We play very, very different games.
I'm saying the same mechanic that grit uses has existed for well over a year and half. The flavour is different but the idea is the same. You don't like the flavour, fine. Define it differently. The mechanic is sound and works well within the class. Nothing you have said changes that.
I'm not sure why you quoted my statement on killstealing. You have said nothing to counter my point nor has anything you said lent credence to your statements.
I thought hero points were an interesting mechanic, but not for every game. I don't long for a day that hero points are returned, but I certainly don't discount mechanics I don't like as "bad" or "broken".
No one was ever in doubt that we play very different games. The issue is not the games we play. You built this thread to propose changes to a class that you state is broken. I'm countering those statements with facts. Until you can actually provide evidence to back up your claims, your arguments boil down to "I don't like grit or the gunslinger so I'm changing it".
Thats totally fine. You're allowed to make whatever changes you like. That doesn't mean the class is broken or the mechanic doesn't work.
If your players are cheating, then they have their own problems to deal with, you don't track ALL of your player's spells/day, hp, etc. do you? No? Then it's not a problem now is it? If you do then you are putting way too much effort into making sure your players don't cheat, if that's actually a problem, you may want to find another group.
Edit:@CaptainSockPuppet: that also means he shouldn't be bringing this here and should instead ask his players about it, because it doesn't pertain to anyone but them.
|
|
If your players are cheating, then they have their own problems to deal with, you don't track ALL of your player's spells/day, hp, etc. do you? No? Then it's not a problem now is it? If you do then you are putting way too much effort into making sure your players don't cheat, if that's actually a problem, you may want to find another group.
Edit:@CaptainSockPuppet: that also means he shouldn't be bringing this here and should instead ask his players about it, because it doesn't pertain to anyone but them.
When I'm playing with Wizards/Cleric/Druid and they cast a spell they have already cast that day, I will check to see if they memorized it multiple times or in the cast of a wizard are using the arcane bond feature weapon.
When I'm playing with a spontaneous caster and they cast something they have never cast before, I'll check to see if it is on the spell list and keep an eye on spells per day.
I won't generally stop the game to do the checks, but I'll make a mental not and usually take a look at the sheet during breaks. Often if it was wrong, it was an honest mistake by the player. They have a lot to keep track of, particularly at higher levels. That is GM 101 basic stuff.
If there is an ever changing number of points in a pool, this gets much harder. I can't keep track of who killed who and how many crits you rolled vs how many points you spent in what battle.
As to CaptainSockPuppets comments, I quoted it because the current gunslinger creates a rule that specifically encourages players to kill steal with no flavor reason behind it. The Developers wanted an action point like mechanic and made up a reason to implement it.
The hungry ghost monk has a specific flavor reason attached to it, along with stigma against doing it attached. I'm not a huge fan of the class (nor has it seemed particularly popular on the boards) but at least in that case there was a reason for it.
And I'm sorry, I thought this was the suggestion/homebrew forum? I didn't realize I needed to screen ideas by you two first before posting.
You are having us screen it, by virtue of posting it here. That's how this works, person a shows the changes they are making to a class, persons B and beyond cast their judgement upon what person a has worked on.
It's not that hard to keep up with it, grab a die, set it to the number of grit points the player has, move the die whenever the gunslinger's grit changes, bam! You have your grit counter, you no longer have to keep that note in your head.
I'm still not sure why kill-stealing matters, it honestly sounds like you are making excuses. Most players don't care who killed the monster, just that it's dead.
|
|
You are having us screen it, by virtue of posting it here. That's how this works, person a shows the changes they are making to a class, persons B and beyond cast their judgement upon what person a has worked on.
It's not that hard to keep up with it, grab a die, set it to the number of grit points the player has, move the die whenever the gunslinger's grit changes, bam! You have your grit counter, you no longer have to keep that note in your head.
I'm still not sure why kill-stealing matters, it honestly sounds like you are making excuses. Most players don't care who killed the monster, just that it's dead.
I don’t have a problem with a mechanic that serves flavor. If a vampire is able to gain power from drinking blood, that makes perfect sense. If we were playing a highlander style game, it would make perfect sense. For the hungry monk archetype, who “…sees the life energy of the universe as a resource to be manipulated”
Creating a mechanic to serve a need makes perfect sense.
It makes no sense for a gunslinger to get power from killing in a game where no other player gets power from killing. It makes no sense for gunslingers to get powers from criticals in a game where no one else gets power from tham.
I believe the devs wanted to create something like a ki pool for gunslingers to do cool near supernatural things in the way a monk does. So they wedged a mechanic into the build that isn’t needed or helpful to creating the concept of the class.
I have no idea why they did this rather than using feats or something like rogue talents, but I do know that in order to make this work they needed to add a “refill” mechanic, which they tied to kills.
Kill stealing matters because you are encouraging a player to metagame in order to fill a mechanical pool that has no reason to exist. As a player, you basically are encouraged to kill mooks to fill your pool, regardless of the logic of your character or the setting.
There are 18 deeds listed under gunslinger. If you read through them, most of them could easily be made into talents/feats that could be done at will.
Those that can’t could easily be made into “per day” features like almost every other special feature in the game. You wouldn’t need a “special” mechanic to make it work that encourages meta-gaming.
And don’t get me started on the ammunition cost calculation stuff…
This should have, could have, been a fun straightforward class that was still able to do all the things listed. Nothing I have proposed removes deeds from the gunslinger, if anything my variation can do more things, not less.
But my variation doesn’t encourage kill stealing, or require bookkeeping beyond what is the norm for every other class. In fact it requires less.
Because it shouldn’t, because the concept of the class isn’t that complicated.
It is a guy with a gun, who is very good with guns.
I am upset that they took that very simple concept and made something none of my players (or myself) have any interest in.
Which is strange, since many of us were looking forward to it, and we had previously house ruled a number of gunslinger like builds.
We aren’t an anti-guns group. I am not anti-gun. But this class (and frankly the other classes in Ultimate Combat) is far below what I expect from Paizo, and more like what I often see from mediocre 3PP who watch too much anime.
Killing mooks gets the Gunslinger nowhere, in order to gain grit from the target it must have as many, or more, hit dice as the gunslinger.
You could have simply taken the Grit system out and left it at that, just let them use those other abilities when they wanted to, instead of coming here, and putting this in front of us, so we can scrutinize it.
|
|
Killing mooks gets the Gunslinger nowhere, in order to gain grit from the target it must have as many, or more, hit dice as the gunslinger.
You could have simply taken the Grit system out and left it at that, just let them use those other abilities when they wanted to, instead of coming here, and putting this in front of us, so we can scrutinize it.
It isn't equal hit dice, it is half of the gunslingers level in hit dice.
At level 10 could kill a cr 4 bear, boar, crab, a cr 3 cockatrice, pterandon, etc...
Those aren't mooks to a cr 10?