Thanks for the update Vic.
|
Yarr Ha Harr!!
Brigands be damned, it's about time fer the good people at Paizo to show us seafaring folks a bit o' loving. I be greatly anticipatin' finding out more about the matron o' these treacherous waters - Besmara 'erself!
Now all I need to do is wait fer the lads over at the Society to get around to updatin' their "additional resources" page and ol' Cap'n Swagger will finally be gettin' that pegleg.
Well done, Amber Scott, I tip me hat to you dear lady. And if ye ever be in need of voyage 'crost the water, look no further than Cap'n Swagger and his Revelry.
order is pending, countdown has begun.
I would love to see more traits that grant acrobatics amd swim as a class skill. Maybe escape artist as a class skill as well.
A pirate archtype for a ninja would be cool.
Got my PDF- they're shipping!
What is the Hit Die type of the Inner Sea Pirate?
There's no pirate class; however, there are archetypes for bard, fighter, ranger, and (shock!) rogue. Sort of what one would expect, as they all fit well with the pirate lifestyle—except the Ranger. What's that doing there? Basically, the archetype for the Ranger puts her in the position of a crew leader, trading a few land-oriented class features for things that help her allies win fights.The Ranger approach is interesting, something I may just have to play through for Skull and Shackles.
There's no pirate class; however, there are archetypes for bard, fighter, ranger, and (shock!) rogue. Sort of what one would expect, as they all fit well with the pirate lifestyle—except the Ranger. What's that doing there? Basically, the archetype for the Ranger puts her in the position of a crew leader, trading a few land-oriented class features for things that help her allies win fights.The Ranger approach is interesting, something I may just have to play through for Skull and Shackles.
But there is the "Inner Sea Pirate" prestige class.
|
There's no pirate class; however, there are archetypes for bard, fighter, ranger, and (shock!) rogue. Sort of what one would expect, as they all fit well with the pirate lifestyle—except the Ranger. What's that doing there? Basically, the archetype for the Ranger puts her in the position of a crew leader, trading a few land-oriented class features for things that help her allies win fights.The Ranger approach is interesting, something I may just have to play through for Skull and Shackles.But there is the "Inner Sea Pirate" prestige class.
Unless you was already a pirate, got shore leave in port. Got drunk and shanghied by another crew for your trouble to start all over at the bottom again. :)
Unless you was already a pirate, got shore leave in port. Got drunk and shanghied by another crew for your trouble to start all over at the bottom again. :)There's no pirate class; however, there are archetypes for bard, fighter, ranger, and (shock!) rogue. Sort of what one would expect, as they all fit well with the pirate lifestyle—except the Ranger. What's that doing there? Basically, the archetype for the Ranger puts her in the position of a crew leader, trading a few land-oriented class features for things that help her allies win fights.The Ranger approach is interesting, something I may just have to play through for Skull and Shackles.But there is the "Inner Sea Pirate" prestige class.
Possbible.
Pirates vs. Ninjas.
GO!
Multiclass Ninja 10 / Inner Sea Pirate 10.
Where's your god now?
Multiclass Ninja 10 / Inner Sea Pirate 10.
Where's your god now?
Which still doesn't actually answer what Hit Die the Inner Sea Pirate receives. :(
Same question re hit die.
Yes, that is why I am saying it has got to be a d12. Pirate are just that awesome.
What is the Hit Die type of the Inner Sea Pirate?
Since it is a .75 BAB it should be a d8.
Same question re hit die.
Also related to the Inner Sea Pirate prestige class, is it safe to assume that the advancement table for when you get a Pirate Talent is correct rather than the text description on page 24?
The general rule is that text takes precedence over table entries when they do not agree.
EDIT: Of course, that being said, with only getting tricks at levels 4, 7, and 10, the Advanced Tricks at 6th, 8th, and 9th seem off. It seems more likely that this time, the table's right.
Since it is a .75 BAB it should be a d8.What is the Hit Die type of the Inner Sea Pirate?
I know that, I am just trying to poke the Paizo people for an offical ruling. ;P
|
...I cannot FAQ, on this thread.Psst: That's a hint that you should put rules questions in the rules questions forum!
Starting a thread in the Rules forum.
How is anyone seeing the class if the book is not out yet, or do the subscribers already have it?
How is anyone seeing the class if the book is not out yet, or do the subscribers already have it?
We started shipping subscribers their shipments yesterday, I believe.
What are the new archtypes like?
Any interesting new spells?
What is your favorite thing(s) in the book?
I'm curious to know if we'll get more ship stats in the associated AP or Player's Guide as this book mentions several different types of ships, but all the ships in Ultimate Combat are either too big or flat bottom.
I agree with one lament above, that we didn't get Taldan corsairs.
Also missing:
A trait for the "minor" pirate groups they do list. :(My second grief so far is a) Andoran Pirates and b) NG Andoran Pirates. Can we please remember that Andoran isn't happy shiny land?
Andoran Privateers are actually a good idea. Some people actually like the idea of "Pirate Paladins."
And, just except the fact, one of the reasons so much of Golarion is dark and grim is that all the goodness and light are concentrated in Andoran (CG) and Lastwall (LG).
Anything interesting?
I was really hoping for some Gunslinger support in this... :(
You aren't the only one. Now Rogues have 2 pirate archetypes, and can easily go into shackles pirate or the new pirate PrC.
I'm really thinking they should create an actually list of professions though if they are going to start building feats/prcs that require a certain amount of ranks in a specific profession.
Cause my Mysterious Stranger Gunslinger can't qualify for this Pirate PrC cause I took Profession: Pirate.
|
|
I was really hoping for some Gunslinger support in this... :(You aren't the only one. Now Rogues have 2 pirate archetypes, and can easily go into shackles pirate or the new pirate PrC.
I'm really thinking they should create an actually list of professions though if they are going to start building feats/prcs that require a certain amount of ranks in a specific profession.
Cause my Mysterious Stranger Gunslinger can't qualify for this Pirate PrC cause I took Profession: Pirate.
Unless you are playing PFS, talk to your GM. I'm guessing that it needs Profession Sailor? Any sane GM would allow you to use ranks of Prof: Pirate to count.
Also there sort of is a list of pre set professions in that there is a list of common professions in the skill description. I'd be shocked if a PrC ever used a profession that isn't on that list.
On the bigger point of Gunslinger support, Paizo have repeatedly said that Golarion Pirates aren't gun toting 18th century style pirates.
Really? Where has Paizo said this? Every single picture of a pirate I've seen looks exactly like a classic 18th century pirate, just don't have a pistol on them.
In the pirate gear section one of the things they have is bayonettes, like the one that appeared in UC.
Mentioning UC, Pirate Archetype for rogue suggests firearm training.
Also regardless of what they said in the past.. The entery in this book on shackles pirates pretty much overrules them now. Just like how most adventures aren't firearm toting hobos, but some are, Captian Kerdak Bonefist's ship is one of the few that does carry firearms and cannons.
|
|
Aevux,
How does that overrule them? It calls him out as being unusual for having cannons. That means rthe vast majority of pirates don't have them, which is exactly what the official position has been. If anything, that's support for the existing position, not overruling it.
As for bayonets, they are also mentioned as fitting crossbows, so nope, still no firearm support there, either.
|
|
Aevux,
How does that overrule them? It calls him out as being unusual for having cannons. That means rthe vast majority of pirates don't have them, which is exactly what the official position has been. If anything, that's support for the existing position, not overruling it.As for bayonets, they are also mentioned as fitting crossbows, so nope, still no firearm support there, either.
Part of the problem is the lack of Gunslingers in Golarion all together, which means for support it is going to be a very sad class... :(
However, for those who want guns to be very rare such as myself, one man's bug is another man's feature. I'm very glad the official stance didn't change.
Aevux,
How does that overrule them? It calls him out as being unusual for having cannons. That means rthe vast majority of pirates don't have them, which is exactly what the official position has been. If anything, that's support for the existing position, not overruling it.As for bayonets, they are also mentioned as fitting crossbows, so nope, still no firearm support there, either.
It overrules it because they say that there is not, but then there is. And its not just some random minor pirate ship either. It is the leader of the shackels pirates. But then it also DOES NOT SAY that its ONLY that pirate leader that has it. But one of the few pirate ships with firearms. What does this mean? It means there are a few pirates beyond that that do have firearms, just as there are a few adventures out there who have firearms.
Yes the vast majority of pirates(and adventures) do not have firearms, however SOME do. Like for example a random ragtag band of six hobos who do various adventuring jobs.. AKA your players. Perhaps a random villain (course as a GM is far easier to justify anything you make, cause you are well.. The Game master.)
Bayonett is both crossbow and firearm. Yes there is crossbow but it is also firearms.
However, you did not answer the third point, Rouge archetype says that firearm training is good for it.
However, for those who want guns to be very rare such as myself, one man's bug is another man's feature. I'm very glad the official stance didn't change.
Then don't allow it in your game. Seriously. You have like what? Six or seven players in a game right? If one of the builds a gunslinger.. and for some reason you allow it, does the ability to choose a piraty archetype some how make fire-arms less rare?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
It overrules it because they say that there is not, but then there is. And its not just some random minor pirate ship either. It is the leader of the shackels pirates. But then it also DOES NOT SAY that its ONLY that pirate leader that has it. But one of the few pirate ships with firearms. What does this mean? It means there are a few pirates beyond that that do have firearms, just as there are a few adventures out there who have firearms.
Yes the vast majority of pirates(and adventures) do not have firearms, however SOME do. Like for example a random ragtag band of six hobos who do various adventuring jobs.. AKA your players. Perhaps a random villain (course as a GM is far easier to justify anything you make, cause you are well.. The Game master.)
Bayonett is both crossbow and firearm. Yes there is crossbow but it is also firearms.
However, you did not answer the third point, Rouge archetype says that firearm training is good for it.
I think you're reading too much into Enlight_Bystand's comment, I don't think he intended to make an absolute statement ("NO GUNS FOR PIRATES! NYAH :P"). I remember reading the comments he referred to, and they were along the lines of what Paul Watson said--guns aren't common outside of Alkenstar, so most pirates don't use them.
As for the Pirate archetype from UC--well, that's from UC. The rulebook line is (for the most part) setting neutral, it suggests firearm training for the pirate because that fits the generic pirate flavor, not specific Golarion flavor.
However!
the first fact is that there are some pirates out there that do use guns. Now if it just said that guy, the limitation would infact be applied, however it isn't just that guy with guns.
They are rare, but really are gunslinger pirates any rarer than gunslinging hobos? (I say hobos, because most PCs don't actually have a home when you think about it.)
That is by far, the first most important fact. They do exist even in Golarion. And they exist even in the innersea.
So I'm not here saying they must put in this book, but debating the whole idea that in order for an archetype to exist, that it MUST be something common. I mean look at all the bloodlines for sorcerer.. If all those bloodlines are suppose to be so utterly common.. You have like a couple hundred sorcerers being born during plagues. Another couple hundred are destined. Another are both plagued and destined.
Adding a rare archetype to a rare class does very little, other than giving a new option to a rare class that the GM can outright deny because it is a rare class. Right now I'm playing a gunslinger pirate, even if I don't have an archetype to use for it. But its not like now every time we smash a vase suddenly we are attacked by a pirate with a firearm.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
However!
the first fact is that there are some pirates out there that do use guns. Now if it just said that guy, the limitation would infact be applied, however it isn't just that guy with guns.
They are rare, but really are gunslinger pirates any rarer than gunslinging hobos? (I say hobos, because most PCs don't actually have a home when you think about it.)
That is by far, the first most important fact. They do exist even in Golarion. And they exist even in the innersea.
So I'm not here saying they must put in this book, but debating the whole idea that in order for an archetype to exist, that it MUST be something common. I mean look at all the bloodlines for sorcerer.. If all those bloodlines are suppose to be so utterly common.. You have like a couple hundred sorcerers being born during plagues. Another couple hundred are destined. Another are both plagued and destined.
Adding a rare archetype to a rare class does very little, other than giving a new option to a rare class that the GM can outright deny because it is a rare class. Right now I'm playing a gunslinger pirate, even if I don't have an archetype to use for it. But its not like now every time we smash a vase suddenly we are attacked by a pirate with a firearm.
I don't think anybody is saying that it must be common in order to make it in the book.
I think the point is that if you put a gunslinger archetype in the book, you need to cut something else out to make room for it. Buccaneers, freebooters, corsairs, and smugglers take precedence since the bulk of Inner Sea Pirates are going to be represented by those classes, and so those archetypes are going to be more useful for more people.
I would have liked to see a gunslinger archetype too, but I understand why they didn't include one.
|
|
Part of the problem is the lack of Gunslingers in Golarion all together, which means for support it is going to be a very sad class... :(
The position concerning guns in Golarion when it came to pirates results from a decision that it was more important to be "true" to the Golarion setting and the preferences of some fans (and some Paizo staff) than to be "true" to the entire idea and underlying technological rationale of pirates in the Age of Sail.
It's a debate upon which I think the "official view" is, when applied specifically to pirates as a genre -- a serious mistake.
You wouldn't try and do an Eastern setting without Samurai and Ninjas or eastern weapons. Trying to do pirates in the Age of Sail without gunpowder is, imo, FAR more heretical than that.
Now, the reality is, the decision has been made and this book reflects that decision. Regrettably, we can fully expect Skull and Shackles to double down on it. However, that doesn't mean:
- That I have to like it (I don't);
- That I need to be supportive of the decision (I'm not - as it sacrifices a critical aspect of Pirates on the wrong altar); and
- That I need to be quiet about the crappy flavor that decision is going to have upon Skull & Shackles (at least as written), either.
Gunpowder is a contentious issue in FRPGs and I'm willing to defer to the non-gunpowder preferences of fans and developers in every subgenre of the fantasy setting EXCEPT when it comes to Pirates. The line must be drawn there; that far and no further.
Without gunpowder, the Age of Sail makes no sense and all warships should be rowed vessels. That is the one aspect of pirates where the entire underlying technology of the setting (the Age of Sail) REQUIRES gunpowder in order for it to make any sense at all.
Unless you want the Battle of Salamis with eyepatches, that is. (No thanks.)
|
Part of the problem is the lack of Gunslingers in Golarion all together, which means for support it is going to be a very sad class... :(
The position concerning guns in Golarion when it came to pirates results from a decision that it was more important to be "true" to the Golarion setting and the preferences of some fans (and some Paizo staff) than to be "true" to the entire idea underlying ratinale of pirates and the Age of Sail.
It's a debate upon which I think the "official view" is, when applied specifically to pirates as a genre -- a serious mistake.
You wouldn't try and do an Eastern setting without Samurai and Ninjas or eastern weapons. Trying to do pirates in the Age of Sail without gunpowder is, imo, FAR more heretical than that.
Now, the reality is, the decision has been made and this book reflects that decision. Regrettably, we can fully expect Skull and Shackles to double down on it. However, that doesn't mean:
- That I have to like it (I don't);
- That I need to be supportive of the decision (I'm not - as it sacrifices a critical aspect of Pirates on the wrong altar); and
- That I need to be quiet about the crappy flavor that decision is going to have upon Skull & Shackles (at least as written), either.
Gunpowder is a contentious issue in FRPGs and I'm willing to defer to the non-gunpowder preferences of fans and developers in every subgenre of the fantasy setting EXCEPT when it comes to Pirates. The line must be drawn there; that far and no further.
Without gunpowder, the Age of Sail makes no sense and all warships should be rowed vessels. That is the one aspect of pirates where the entire underlying technology of the setting (the Age of Sail) REQUIRES gunpowder in order for it to make any sense at all.
Unless you want the Battle of Salamis with eyepatches, that is. (No thanks.)
You know, one might just go ahead and question the whole idea of sea-faring vessels in a world where some crazy guy can teleport, sink an entire flotilla by a barrage of quick fire-based spellcasting and teleport away before anybody gets a chance to shout "abandon ship", so you might as well just let go with any pretense of "realism" in this department.
|
|
The problems of flying wizards and ships becoming aircraft carriers for flying people using wands of fireballs is another issue. That can be easily corrected with some fire suppressant ship enchantments, a few new spells, and some new rules for cannon. Cannons bigger than a swivel gun need to be treated as area affect weapons, impossible to affect via true strike, (say the entire crew needs it and coordination inherent in it prevents it) AND incapable of targeting anything smaller than a colossal target with individual fire. Cannon hit an area, not individuals. They also need their rate of fire reduced.
Star Wars: SE used this approach for ship based weapons and it worked just fine in that system.
Move on from there and it is very easy to make a magical Pirates of the Caribbean.
As for teleportation, the economy of Golarion relies upon trade of bulky and heavy commodities via ship. Teleportation does not solve that problem and it's far too expensive to install on an industrial scale. If the bulky ships are carrying cargo, you need bulky ships carrying cannon to protect them from other bulky ships trying to seize them.
So no, I'm not throwing "reality" out the window.