My players have been interested in it... but having your main 'item' blow up in your hands isn't something they've wanted to deal with. Currently the most we've had is guns as secondary weaponry or something for a caster to fall back on.
I think the gunslinger becomming part of fantasy is simply due to the 2-3 extra generations since D&D was formed adding more distance between the gamers and the time when we actually had gunslingers. To our world of instant communication and constant technology, a world of people settling things with guns at high noon is closer to knights and wizards than it is to us.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the worst ideas I've seen spouted in the gaming community is that we must hold our games to some realistic ideal.
I say thee, nay. This is fantasy, and fantasy can be anything.
Ban things you don't like, not things that are historically inaccurate.
Thats not what i'm advocating or talking about, i'm talking about in-game versimilitude. I just think a mundane bullet shouldn't pierce +5 adamantine full plate because of some awful mechanic the class needs to compete.
We don't give crossbows a penetration value nor do we allow huge sized greataxes wielded by Titans to render a mundane set of armour irrelevant to AC by its nature, whats with the 'bullets go through everything' rule? Yes i'm sure someone will say any minute that the rule is necessary for Gunslingers to achieve appropiate level DPR etc. etc... But there would be other ways to go about it.
I don't think this thread is going to produce anything productive...
I think the gunslinger becomming part of fantasy is simply due to the 2-3 extra generations since D&D was formed adding more distance between the gamers and the time when we actually had gunslingers. To our world of instant communication and constant technology, a world of people settling things with guns at high noon is closer to knights and wizards than it is to us.
*laughs* This is very well possible. I admit that I do not allow for firearms (or the classes depending on them) in my fantasy campaigns; to me, it just doesn't feel right.
If the setting is more steampunk-esque (e.g. Iron Kingdoms, or Zeitgeist), well, that's another story... but not in classic fantasy.
I feel old...
I will answer your topic title with yes and the entirety of your post with no.
|
*laughs* This is very well possible. I admit that I do not allow for firearms (or the classes depending on them) in my fantasy campaigns, to me, it just doesn't feel right.
If the setting is more steampunk-esque (e.g. Iron Kingdoms, or Zeitgeist), well, that's another story.
I feel old...
im 25 and agree 100% with what you said.
i curse Paizo under my breath every time i flip through those pages. had they said we're making a new world that has guns in it here is a class you can use, then i wouldnt care... but people walking around with guns, and guns that suck by comparison to other forms of attacks, just seems like paizo catered to people who wanted them because "its cool".
-deadly aim
I've seen this around a bit. But:
...the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is
within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type
of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes
of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.
Unless they went back on this just after printing it, deadly aim works with guns.
This, pretty much. My issue with the gunslinger is flavor, as I mentioned above, not mechanical. The class itself is fairly balanced.Another big difference is that the Gunslinger almost NEVER misses. I mean, the only way a Fighter can compare to that kind of raw damage output (which is basically a guaranteed damaged output) is to make sure that they always crit.You should probably take a look through the DPR olympics threads. Last I looked, Fighters, Rangers and Barbarians were all well ahead of Gunslinger in damage numbers. The class isn't really broken at all. It stays viable through the game, but still has some annoying aspects to it (like misfires) to keep it even. Want to talk about broken? Look at a min-maxed fighter using a Falcata and tell me Gunslinger is still broken.Grit is a really cool mechanic that I hope is given to some other classes in archetypes.
You mean there is now an in-game incentive to hopping on a raging wyvern's back, shooting it in the head to kill it, and while riding the wyvern on its death spiral, hop off the dead one onto another wyvern?
Hell, I was gonna do that before grit came along, if I figured I'd have a great chance of survival. Now? there's an incentive other than "it's cool!" to do it. Makes such situations come up a lot more often.
I never really liked it. I just don't like any guns older than a flintlock musket. I'm not saying the Gunslinger is stupid or a mechanically poor class, it's just not a class I particularly like. I like the idea of guns in Pathfinder, I'd just prefer a world in which guns are the primary weapons to a world in which they are new and somewhat rare. As I said, it's a flavor thing. I understand that others like the flavor of guns in a sword and bow setting, and that's fine. Do whatever you like. It's your game, and it's yours to play however you want. That's the whole point of Pathfinder. I, however, prefer established guns as the main weapon or no guns at all.
just seems like paizo catered to people who wanted them because "its cool".
That is the underlying premise for a lot of things in the game even if they do work better than guns.
As to what works better than guns, well that is mostly left to individual opinion.
Uh...yea.
Everything that is in this game is "because it's cool".
Or, to borrow a term that LazarX uses: because it's "wish fulfillment".
|
|
This attitude never ceases to disgust me. Heaven forbid a company whose job is to produce a game based around imagination and to do so for a niche market cater to their customer base who wants things in their game to be "cool."
Its posts like this that just continue to reinforce the stormwind falacy and give optimizers a bad name as "roll players."
its funny that you mention falacy, you stating that im a "roll-player" when my POV is that it doesn't make sense in the fantasy aspect of the game. technology doesn't exist when cheaper and similarly effective forms of that same end result (killing people at a range) exist. ask beta-max what happened to it and why VHS kicked its ass in sales lol.
my point is that the introduction of firearms was a useless addition to the game. the cost of ammunition is something no army could purchase, average citizens cannot afford one unit of ammo for a months work, but they can get a quiver of arrows and actually kill something.
if Paizo had introduced firearms in a way that fit the lore of the world better then it would be ok with me to introduce them... but with the way the world is set up its more of a fashion statement then a useful weapon, with the exception of it being in the hands of a gun slinger.
It seems rather odd to not allow even basic guns and to allow the Spellslinger whom I feel only belongs in a world with advanced firearms or at least an Eberron-level feel of magitek. I like the archetype myself but the iconic looks like she belongs on Eberron more than Golarian.I'm ambivalent about gunslingers in particular. I don't see anything inherently broken with the gunslinger as a whole - I raise an eyebrow at the pistelero archetype, though. I don't permit gunslingers in my games at the moment, however. While I think guns are a good fit in fantasy, I also prefer good ol' fashioned swords, hammers and fireballs.
What I do permit is the spellslinger. There's a very... scientific feel to guns, in my opinion, and I might be stereotyping slightly but I can imagine a "modern-esque" wizard creating the guns in Pathfinder. I've allowed them in my games, and I'm glad I have. Go go Professor Cain and your Kobold Riflemen Brigade.
Good times.
I never said I didn't allow guns. I simply said I didn't allow Gunslingers.
The justification for the particular spellslinger is: he's a mad scientist who delves into scientific pursuits, and tries to advance technology as a whole, rather than only magic. In the Kingmaker game, for that is the adventure we are currently running, we oft jest that we're playing the prelude to Eberron with the way things are going.
This attitude never ceases to disgust me. Heaven forbid a company whose job is to produce a game based around imagination and to do so for a niche market cater to their customer base who wants things in their game to be "cool."
Its posts like this that just continue to reinforce the stormwind falacy and give optimizers a bad name as "roll players."
its funny that you mention falacy, you stating that im a "roll-player" when my POV is that it doesn't make sense in the fantasy aspect of the game. technology doesn't exist when cheaper and similarly effective forms of that same end result (killing people at a range) exist. ask beta-max what happened to it and why VHS kicked its ass in sales lol.
my point is that the introduction of firearms was a useless addition to the game. the cost of ammunition is something no army could purchase, average citizens cannot afford one unit of ammo for a months work, but they can get a quiver of arrows and actually kill something.
if Paizo had introduced firearms in a way that fit the lore of the world better then it would be ok with me to introduce them... but with the way the world is set up its more of a fashion statement then a useful weapon, with the exception of it being in the hands of a gun slinger.
Most monsters in Golarion are based on monsters from our myths, and there were a very few of those like the medusa and her sisters. In Golarion they(very dangerous monsters) come in hoards, and the ecology could not realistically support them and civilization, so the "realistic support" pretty much kills the game system system.
I might try to find the thread later, but human civilization would have seriously taken hold if reality was a factor.
|
my point is that the introduction of firearms was a useless addition to the game. the cost of ammunition is something no army could purchase, average citizens cannot afford one unit of ammo for a months work, but they can get a quiver of arrows and actually kill something.
Except that the most common users of firearms as quasi-wondrous items, like they are in a setting where guns are emergent, are the kind of people who can afford it through adventure and discovery of treasures.
And they actually fulfill a technological need, since they are able to bypass armor at close range, something no arrow can do without being a highly experienced war veteran. And in a setting where guns are common, average citizens can actually buy themselves one of them.If I may ask, what's your take about the place of full plate in medieval fantasy ?
It seems rather odd to not allow even basic guns and to allow the Spellslinger whom I feel only belongs in a world with advanced firearms or at least an Eberron-level feel of magitek. I like the archetype myself but the iconic looks like she belongs on Eberron more than Golarian.I'm ambivalent about gunslingers in particular. I don't see anything inherently broken with the gunslinger as a whole - I raise an eyebrow at the pistelero archetype, though. I don't permit gunslingers in my games at the moment, however. While I think guns are a good fit in fantasy, I also prefer good ol' fashioned swords, hammers and fireballs.
What I do permit is the spellslinger. There's a very... scientific feel to guns, in my opinion, and I might be stereotyping slightly but I can imagine a "modern-esque" wizard creating the guns in Pathfinder. I've allowed them in my games, and I'm glad I have. Go go Professor Cain and your Kobold Riflemen Brigade.
Good times.
I never said I didn't allow guns. I simply said I didn't allow Gunslingers.
The justification for the particular spellslinger is: he's a mad scientist who delves into scientific pursuits, and tries to advance technology as a whole, rather than only magic. In the Kingmaker game, for that is the adventure we are currently running, we oft jest that we're playing the prelude to Eberron with the way things are going.
Since when is a campaign world that is designed to be open to things from other setting a bad thing, since it only works to free up the GM's creativity and not hinder him?
This attitude never ceases to disgust me. Heaven forbid a company whose job is to produce a game based around imagination and to do so for a niche market cater to their customer base who wants things in their game to be "cool."
Its posts like this that just continue to reinforce the stormwind falacy and give optimizers a bad name as "roll players."
its funny that you mention falacy, you stating that im a "roll-player" when my POV is that it doesn't make sense in the fantasy aspect of the game. technology doesn't exist when cheaper and similarly effective forms of that same end result (killing people at a range) exist. ask beta-max what happened to it and why VHS kicked its ass in sales lol.
my point is that the introduction of firearms was a useless addition to the game. the cost of ammunition is something no army could purchase, average citizens cannot afford one unit of ammo for a months work, but they can get a quiver of arrows and actually kill something.
if Paizo had introduced firearms in a way that fit the lore of the world better then it would be ok with me to introduce them... but with the way the world is set up its more of a fashion statement then a useful weapon, with the exception of it being in the hands of a gun slinger.
I'm a historian of technology and science, and the first statement here is flat out false.
|
|
my POV is that it doesn't make sense in the fantasy aspect of the game. technology doesn't exist when cheaper and similarly effective forms of that same end result (killing people at a range) exist.This is flat wrong. Humans are always researching new ways to kill one another and many of those ways start out inferior. In the modern age we have nuclear weaponry, which is about as good at killing as can be imagined, but yet chemical and biological warfare is still being researched.
For an in game example, look at melee weapons. There's tons of options to choose from, and yet no one has ever stated "Realistically, these weapons wouldn't exist, they'd only make optimized weapons A, B, and C and never bother trying to make D, E, or F. Same with spells.
actually i will argue that point. i have NEVER seen anyone choose a long spear over a glave or a guisarme. i have never seen anyone take a warhammer over a morning star. now this might happen in some games, but in my PFS games, home games, and all 200+ people i have gamed over the years with these are truths. and this proves the point i was making, a gun will never be used over a bow UNLESS they are playing a gunslinger, maybe a gun varient of a class. BUT NO ONE i repeat NO ONE will see the value of choosing a gun over a bow in practical terms not just optimizers.
also your example of biological weapons being inferior to nuclear weapons... not true at all. we have collected strands of viruses and stored them in the cdc that have been altered by man to be so dangerous that if released they could kill an entire contenant, so by logic lets take the black plague. how many people do you think dies as a result? in the 10's of millions, and during that time 7 billion people world wide was a pipedream it was closer to 3 billion, of people and almost completely wiped out all of europe. no nuclear bomb could achieve that 20 yeah maybe but it only takes one cell of the plague to obliterate everyone on earth. but thats off topic.
Gunslinger is banned in my games, but the reasons are not so much balance, as the very idea of a class that uses guns. No thanks, in my fantasy games that are without guns.
Depends on the world, but you're a purist, guess you don't like steampunk stuff...
Me, I love it.
In time gunslingers and guns may be come as common as monks. I remember grumping about them when they were re introduced in 3.0So...
Gunslinger is banned in my games, but the reasons are not so much balance, as the very idea of a class that uses guns. No thanks, in my fantasy games that are without guns.Depends on the world, but you're a purist, guess you don't like steampunk stuff...
Me, I love it.
A purist would have guns in their world.
A "medieval Europe plus magic"ist would not.
Oh yeah? Well you know who else was a purist?
Gygax, however, guns were in the back of the 1st edition DMG. So they've been in the game for a long long time...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
actually i will argue that point. i have NEVER seen anyone choose a long spear over a glave or a guisarme. i have never seen anyone take a warhammer over a morning star.
I have never seen actual, mathematical rules applied IRL about a lance being "better" than a guisarme. Just because a tabletop game presents a design weak point about actual weapons balance in terms of utility doesn't mean anything about the utility of these weapons in real life.
I don't even know what fantasy RPG weapon choice has anything to do with the statement that in history, no one has ever used or created weapons different and arguably less useful than counterparts, which by all ways is in itself a fallacy.By the way, you didn't answer about Full Plates. Do you cringe when you see them in game ? Do rapiers give you nightmares ?
Are you ok with removing full-plates and adding tomahawk missiles, since, after all, there is less years of "cultural difference" between full-plates and these (1400's-2000 AD) than between firearms and full-plates (700's-1400's AD) ?
In a medieval setting, shortswords and firearms are less anachronistic than most weapons and armors from the rulebooks.
Oh yeah? Well you know who else was a purist?Gygax, however, guns were in the back of the 1st edition DMG. So they've been in the game for a long long time...
Gygax was in no way a purist. The Greyhawk campaign was a mix of various influences, including various pulp short stories like Conan, Fafhrd and the Mouser, the works of H.P. Lovecraft, the Barsoom stories, and just a bit from the Lord of the Rings, mostly things that Tolkien himself had taken from earlier sources and only a little bit that was mostly unique to Middle Earth (i.e. Hobbits, Ents, the Balrog, and and few others).
[trollface]I find it amusing that the OPs username is the same as a 3.5 class that many regard as a broken in its own right.[/trollface]
Gunslingers are not broken. Our group's gunslinger is at the bottom of our (non-existent) damage dealing charts. He has misfired at least once in every combat he's been a part of. Granted, that's an issue of luck, but regardless, his effectiveness is questionable.
My str/dex/con dump rogue is dealing more damage than the gunslinger, truth be told. Sneak dice go a long way when you know how to work the angles.
What I find funny is that in Golarion, the place that came up with weapons is also the place with no magic.
It's almost as if there was some sort of need, and technology solved that need...
Nah, it's just there because "it's cool" and "wish fulfillment."
I'm a historian of technology and science, and the first statement here is flat out false.This attitude never ceases to disgust me. Heaven forbid a company whose job is to produce a game based around imagination and to do so for a niche market cater to their customer base who wants things in their game to be "cool."
Its posts like this that just continue to reinforce the stormwind falacy and give optimizers a bad name as "roll players."
its funny that you mention falacy, you stating that im a "roll-player" when my POV is that it doesn't make sense in the fantasy aspect of the game. technology doesn't exist when cheaper and similarly effective forms of that same end result (killing people at a range) exist. ask beta-max what happened to it and why VHS kicked its ass in sales lol.
my point is that the introduction of firearms was a useless addition to the game. the cost of ammunition is something no army could purchase, average citizens cannot afford one unit of ammo for a months work, but they can get a quiver of arrows and actually kill something.
if Paizo had introduced firearms in a way that fit the lore of the world better then it would be ok with me to introduce them... but with the way the world is set up its more of a fashion statement then a useful weapon, with the exception of it being in the hands of a gun slinger.
I'm sorry you are playing in a world where humans can throw fire balls and turn into dragons why does science and technology have to apply to guns when they don't really apply to anything else in pathfinder.
I personally like the Gunslinger, it is not overpowered as a Fighter with a great sword can still out damage a Gunslinger with great regularity.
I don't mind the gunslinger. Golarion, and other, fantasyscapes are changing in ways that leave a place for them.
I'd just prefer that guns in a fantasy/magic game not be compared as heavily to real-world equivalents and development trends.
The history, structure, and development of guns in fantasy are open to our imagination.
...because the porn industry chose VHS as its standard?ask beta-max what happened to it and why VHS kicked its ass in sales lol.
Oh porn where you go our genitals will follow. Generally they happen to be attached to the rest of us as well.
I think the gunslinger only becomes "overpowered" if you make it multiclass, use advanced firearms, and build it in an extremely specific way. Which at that point it's more accurate to describe it as the cumulative effect of 2-3 different classes, in conjunction with very powerful weapons, that normally aren't allowed in the game.
Though I do think that if any class is going to get guns, then all classes with martial weapons should get guns, if you plan on giving the gunslinger the opportunity to use advanced firearms.
I have less issues with the Gunslinger then the Spellslinger...
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I too feel dread every time I open a D&D book and see that it will contain guns. Not because of fluff reasons but because they always feel the need to give guns their own extra special awful fiddly rules that never work well.
To Hades with the DPR threads. After seeing gunslingers in actual PFS play as opposed to nerdrage armchair theorycrafting, I don't see anything to scream about balance-wise, at least in the 1st to 3rd level range that I've witnessed so far. Aesthetics problems in your world I can understand, in Golarian, I don't see it.
yeah i can guarantee you that gunslingers are not broken. if anything they are the most balanced class in this game. but in terms of skill, damage, and even utility for group dynamic there is way better to choose from.
now on a personal note i will admit that you wont see me playing one... ever. it make no sense to me that guns would have even been invented in this world. magic is a common place, not to mention vastly superior to mundane guns, archery is 100 times better as far as damage, range, and cost. lets not forget how CRAPPY early guns were, you would be lucky not to have your bullet spin down and hit the floor 10 feet in front of you.
guns should never have been introduced to this game simply because of how inferior they are to currently existing means of fighting.
mighty composite long bow +2 = 1d8 +2 while a musket is a d12 in terms of damage the bow and arrow is equal the best gun you can buy... i just dont see how this technology would have caught on.
For most of the past thousand years guns were inferior to bows in RL. The advantage firearms usually had was the lack of training required to use one effectively (much like a crossbow). You had to train years to use a bow effectively. Guns were simply "point and shoot" (followed by drop it and run/draw swords if you missed). The other reason is the Scattergun and blunderbuss: it didn't take pro aim to hit with them, because everything in front of the general muzzle area was toast. Never shot far, but it sure did it's job well.
We still have the same thing today with the Shotgun, even. Guns didn't come on par with bows until the invention of the cap-lock and chamber system (allowing for quick and easy reload and the invention of the revolver). In non-"western" fantasy games i don't think the gun is to replace the bow. It's just different, and you have to keep it's differences in mind to make the most use out of one in Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wake me when the gunslinger is better than any caster in the game.
I'm not gonna lie, this is by far one of the most BUSTED classes I have ever had to deal with in Pathfinder, and it really does make me ill that I ever allowed it in my campaign to begin with.
Well, let's see if you have any good arguments.
What I currently have issues with, specifically, is the Signature Deed ability combined with Lightning Reload, which effectively allows a gunslinger to reload their gun as a FREE action with a single barrel weapon that does NOT provoke attacks of opportunity.
I find it amusing that Lightning Reload / Signature Deed annoys you when I can accomplish the same thing at level 7 with a Paper Cartridge. Lightning Reload is nowhere near as powerful as it was in the Beta Test, because you can just spend a little gold on those cartridges.
Firing a firearm still provokes an attack of opportunity, however. Also, I don't think that reducing the loading action to free action negates the fact that you provoke attacks of opportunity for loading the weapon. This is supported by the fact that you need a specific feat to remove the provoking aspect of loading or firing.
Combined with other crazy ranged feats like Rapid Shot (or joy...a -2 penalty on a range TOUCH attack...what a penalty), and the 'Deadly Aim' feat. I mean, sweet Jesus, I have never seen anything so stupid before in my life.
A gunslinger, when built correctly, is designed to trade To Hit for To Damage. That is the core function of the class. And to be honest, so far you haven't highlighted a single thing that you don't like about the Gunslinger; so far, it's the firearm rules.
When comparing the gunslinger to anyone, you should compare him or her to an archer. After all, there are PLENTY of archery-specific feats that a gunslinger does not get access to. For example, they can make an extra attack beyond the Gunslinger via the Manyshot feat or add both Strength and Intelligence to damage rolls by using a Composite bow and the Focused Shot feat. Also, every feat you've mentioned so far (save Signature Deed) works with the archer. Ultimately, an Archer can do more damage per attack and has a few more attacks, but the Gunslinger can hit more and needs to be at a closer range.
And to add even MORE insult to injury, the archtype known as the Pistolero just makes things even more ridiculous (Up Close and Deadly and Pistol Training make the friggin damage of this class simply INSANE).
No worse then a Sniper Rogue that uses firearms.
Moreover, is anyone else having issues with this class (I mean, hell...imagine a Pistolero DUAL WIELDING their weapons...which only gives them a -4 penalty of course...but who cares...they are shooting with RANGED TOUCH ATTACKS with a FULL BaB AND they have an insane amount of DEX)
Nope. I GM for one, and I have no issues with it at all. It's just like GMing for any other class; if you want to challenge the player, you play to the character's weakness. Corner the Gunslinger in melee. Disarm them of their gun. Put them up against foes with damage reduction (Damage Reduction KILLS the Gunslinger, because if you're keeping them correctly in an on-value encounter, those specialty damage reduction-piercing bullets get expensive very quickly). Use incorporeal creatures; all weapon damage is reduced by half against them. For your pistolero, use elementals and oozes; they're immune to Up Close and Deadly. Use Tiny creatures that can cast debuffs and laugh as your Gunslinger can't hit them. Use things with Miss Change (invisibility / blurr / concealment). For them out of their touch attack range (unless you have a special sight on your gun, the Gunslinger can't make touch attacks out of their first range increment, which is usually 20 to 30 feet if you're using early firearms). Fight firearms with firearms and place the party into a gunfight.
Your conventional tricks and standard monsters don't work well against a Gunslinger; this is true. It's a class that represents a completely different time period after all. However, it has its weaknesses and as a GM, your job is to exploit it.
Also, be advised that there's a 99.9999% chance that Pistol Training was supposed to replace Gun Training (based on the wording of the two abilities and looking at the Musket Master as a similar concept); if you play that wrong, then you're adding your Dex bonus to your damage rolls twice, which is silly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, Golden-esque brings up a topic that has really been getting my goat for awhile, but I haven't said anything about it.
When do you guys think guns were invented?
When do you think Plate armor (specifically the full-plate presented to us in the core rulebook, the other suits of armor are much older, even thousands of years older) was invented?
Answer: around the same time, in Europe, in China, the gun predates plate armor by 600 years.
Now, there might be a few suits created earlier than that, but those appear to have been destroyed, as the oldest suits of armor we have found are circa 1300AD. The gun was created by China in 700AD, but it wasn't really a gun until later innovations were made.
The gun is a lot older than people think it is, simply because the idea we have of it is the Wild West, meanwhile back in reality the gun was used back before full-plate became popular. The end result is that most complaints about the fluff of the gun in Pathfinder only amounts to one thing: NOT MY FANTASY ROLEPLAYING SETTING.
Okay, Golden-esque brings up a topic that has really been getting my goat for awhile, but I haven't said anything about it.
When do you guys think guns were invented?
When do you think Plate armor (specifically the full-plate presented to us in the core rulebook, the other suits of armor are much older, even thousands of years older) was invented?
Answer: around the same time, in Europe, in China, the gun predates plate armor by 600 years.
Now, there might be a few suits created earlier than that, but those appear to have been destroyed, as the oldest suits of armor we have found are circa 1300AD. The gun was created by China in 700AD, but it wasn't really a gun until later innovations were made.
The gun is a lot older than people think it is, simply because the idea we have of it is the Wild West, meanwhile back in reality the gun was used back before full-plate became popular. The end result is that most complaints about the fluff of the gun in Pathfinder only amounts to one thing: NOT MY FANTASY ROLEPLAYING SETTING.
I am going to put this in my list any repost it every time I see the "history" excuse used.
Now I am don't care if anyone allows rule/option X or not, but I would like to see if they stand by their initial reason.