| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While reading through the playtest document, I came across the Uncommon classes sidebar, and it made me think about something relating to the Gunslinger class:
It seems a bit wierd to make crossbow Gunslinger a core alternative so that you can reasonably play a Gunslinger that has never seen a firearm in their entire life, only to turn around and still make Gunslinger Uncommon, with the justification that many parts of Golarion aren't familiar with gunpowder weaponry.
Without gunpowder weapons, Gunslinger is just someone who mostly trained with ranged weapons, and I don't see why that particular fighting style has to be Uncommon since the problematic element (Gunpowder Weapons) is already Uncommon on its own.
2e Gunslingers don't get a free gun like 1e Gunslingers did, so it's not like Gunslinger can bypass the usual access rules either.
All this led me to wonder if Gunslinger really should be an Uncommon class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uncommon gunslingers are there to satisfy the fairly sizable portion of GMs who don't want guns in their games / idea of fantasy
People may not agree but it is not exactly an uncommon viewpoint
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Uncommon gunslingers are there to satisfy the fairly sizable portion of GMs who don't want guns in their games / idea of fantasy
People may not agree but it is not exactly an uncommon viewpoint
Yes, but as I said, Paizo made sure to make Crossbow Gunslingers a core option from the start so that gunless Gunslingers are a core part of the class.
Unlike how it was in 1e, having a Gunslinger in the party does not force guns into the game since 2e Gunslingers don't get a free gun or the ability to craft guns as they please.There now is a clear separation between Gunslinger and guns since Gunslingers cannot bypass the Uncommon rarity of Guns anymore, and making Gunslinger common does not make Guns themselves Common.
All that making the Gunslinger class uncommon does is make a relatively common fighting style (Ranged weapon specialist) into something that is extremely rare in the setting, simply because said fighting style is also associated with a rare type of weapon.
I don't see the need to gate the class when the problematic part you yourself highlighted (firearms) is already gated anyways.
I'm just going to clarify right now that I don't want Guns to become Common, but rather for the Gunslinger class itself to become a common option, since there is nothing uncommon about being good with a crossbow, and Guns will still remain gated behind their own rarity rating.
There are other classes that could be considered ranged weapon specialists though. Fighter (all weapon specialist) and Ranger (several unique ranged feats)
So not having gunslinger as common does not remove the ranged fighting style
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are other classes that could be considered ranged weapon specialists though. Fighter (all weapon specialist) and Ranger (several unique ranged feats)
So not having gunslinger as common does not remove the ranged fighting style
You are missing my point. I did not say that there aren't other ranged weapons specialists. I said that that particular fighting style has nothing inherently Uncommon (as you have just proven by quoting multiple classes that also use something similar to it), so there is no reason to make Gunslingers Uncommon because Guns are already independantly gated anways and Gunslinger is now designed to be a fully functional class without Firearms, so the only thing making Gunslinger itself Uncommon achieves is make a rather common fighting style something rare.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am really enjoying the class, but I have to agree with this thread. It seems a little weird that the crossbow built into the chassis is then gated off by another level of rarity. Like, we can call the class "Ace" and make it common with a sidebar about access to gun. This class has a flavor in its abilities that doesn't step on the fighter's toes too much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as it is named the Gunslinger, it should remain uncommon. To do otherwise is to open the door for pushy players yearning for that firearm.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that it shouldn't be uncommon, since you could literally build it and never use a firearm.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as it is named the Gunslinger, it should remain uncommon. To do otherwise is to open the door for pushy players yearning for that firearm.
The same could be said for Alchemist and the Uncommon Alchemical Crossbow, or the Duelist archetype and the Uncommon Dueling Sword, or the Poisoner archetype and every Uncommon poison, and yet I've never heard of any problem players attempting to get free access to something based solely on the name of the class they are playing.
Mechanically, a Gunslinger asking for free gun access would have no more ground to stand on than a Monk asking for free access to Katanas.
Besides, problem players will be problem players no matter what options the game offers them, so I don't really think every design decision should be made around the fear of it maybe being misused by problem players. Problem players are an out-of-game problem; no in-game solution will ever solve it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As long as it is named the Gunslinger, it should remain uncommon. To do otherwise is to open the door for pushy players yearning for that firearm.
That makes little sense: a pushy player would push open any doors there are anyway no matter what form you make the door 'closed'... You could make it rare and the pushy player would have there foot in the door trying to prevent it being closed.
It's clear that they presented the crossbow as the alternative to guns for those that do not like guns so the uncommon tag seems misplaced as the reason given for the class being uncommon is the guns. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ultimately it doesn't matter all that much, I don't think, since you have to talk to your GM about whatever you're making anyways.
But it's a bit disappointing to see Paizo making design choices that basically only exist to please reactionaries.