@TClifford
Thats why Gunslingers get gunsmithing, so they can make thier ammo for 1/10th the price.
I think peeps need to just stop hate'n on classes and try playing one.
I love reading about people complaining about how weak or powerful something is when they themselves have never tried it.
All i can say is it seems that Rogue bashing has finally moved on and now gunslingers are up to bat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i don't get why people see D&D or it's derivatives as medieval european.
you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.
Listed
|
@TClifford
Thats why Gunslingers get gunsmithing, so they can make thier ammo for 1/10th the price.
I think peeps need to just stop hate'n on classes and try playing one.
I love reading about people complaining about how weak or powerful something is when they themselves have never tried it.
All i can say is it seems that Rogue bashing has finally moved on and now gunslingers are up to bat.
Thanks for the heads up. I still think there is an issue with enchanting your weapons, but the ammo thing is clarified.
I'm just not crazy about the idea of a class with full BAB, whose weapon's attack roll is against Touch AC, limited only by ammunition and reload speeds(which are almost hand-wavable when the right feats are selected). It's just my preference and taste, but guns feel like they should be in a separate game from swords and longbows. I know all about how ancient China had black powder weapons even before classical medieval times, I'm just talking about preference.
I played in a game where everyone in the world was using guns, and I was the only one attempting to use a sword. It was just like the old saying goes; "Never bring a knife to a gunfight... Even if that knife is magically enchanted and channeling arcane spells." I wound up flat on the ground with negative HP after the first round of every encounter, meanwhile the damned NPC hirelings were dishing out more damage and tactical advantage simply due to the fact they were carrying guns. I didn't play in the campaign very long...
As a counterpoint, I must say I do like what PF have done with guns, and I have no problems accepting the in-game rules for guns, but mixing them up with "traditional"(YMMV) fantasy elements just makes my brain go wonky. I'm having a hard time envisioning my favorite medieval fantasy settings with the heroes lugging around rifles and machine guns instead of swords and shields. To each their own. But if I ever do decide to run a game with guns, I will definitely be using PF's rules and Gunslingers.
On the opposite end I had a sword in a D20 modern game, and made bad guys cry. I guess we can just chalk it up to experience.
Its funny to read about how the use of guns are so inaccurately portrayed and thus banned in a game full of dragons, fey and gnomes. I like the Gunslinger as it simply adds a new option for opening up new character types and stories in the game I really love. I could care less how accurate they are.It's all about preference and opinion. No one can really tell someone else their preference is wrong, but around here they sure as heck try. I could care less about the historical aspect of guns, they don't fit in most(not all) of my games. I'll toss a player a bone and allow them in "rare" state on occasion.
I think the issue is not understanding the preference. I have things I prefer, but I also have reasons for it. It is never a "just because".
The most common reason I have seen is the historical or medieval European idea which has been shot down in this thread as legit. At best it can be said that someone thinks it violates their version of how they picture medieval European fantasy, but then someone will ask why brain eating monsters from outer space, but not guns......
Its funny to read about how the use of guns are so inaccurately portrayed and thus banned in a game full of dragons, fey and gnomes. I like the Gunslinger as it simply adds a new option for opening up new character types and stories in the game I really love. I could care less how accurate they are.It's all about preference and opinion. No one can really tell someone else their preference is wrong, but around here they sure as heck try. I could care less about the historical aspect of guns, they don't fit in most(not all) of my games. I'll toss a player a bone and allow them in "rare" state on occasion.I think the issue is not understanding the preference. I have things I prefer, but I also have reasons for it. It is never a "just because".
The most common reason I have seen is the historical or medieval European idea which has been shot down in this thread as legit. At best it can be said that someone thinks it violates their version of how they picture medieval European fantasy, but then someone will ask why brain eating monsters from outer space, but not guns......
Same reason Aragorn from Lord of the Rings isn't pictured carrying a Musket instead of a longsword. Different tastes, different flavors.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gandalf on the other hand...
Gandalf on the other hand...
You're not helping! lol
Gandalf on the other hand...
well done... i have now breathed a mushroom and swiss burger.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@TClifford
Thats why Gunslingers get gunsmithing, so they can make thier ammo for 1/10th the price.
I think peeps need to just stop hate'n on classes and try playing one.
I love reading about people complaining about how weak or powerful something is when they themselves have never tried it.
All i can say is it seems that Rogue bashing has finally moved on and now gunslingers are up to bat.
Some of us don't think it is over or under powered.
Just poorly designed as it fails to be what it set out to be, while throwing a wrench into general design for classes in general.
It could have been great. It should have been great. It turned out meh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it very, very strange that ciretose desires a gunslinger with fewer "moving parts" than the presented one... And then presents a gunslinger that has a ton of moving parts.
Maybe I don't know what he thinks to be moving parts. I assume it's new abilities that you get with new levels. Because that's what grit is, and he really seems to strongly dislike grit.
I barely even can take the kill stealing critique of grit seriously. This is a game with friends. Not Call of Duty. Even the thought of kill stealing, aka working together as a team, being a BAD thing is hilariously.
Anyone can use the firearms, but the gunslinger does it better, does it more masterfully, than the rest.
I barely even can take the kill stealing critique of grit seriously. This is a game with friends. Not Call of Duty. Even the thought of kill stealing, aka working together as a team, being a BAD thing is hilariously.
To be fair it's a pretty terrible mechanic. No other mechanic in the game relies on you to try and land the last shot on someone, and it creates situations in-game which are entirely gamist / metagamey. You end up with cases where cooperative groups (as in the good kind) intentionally try to let the gunslinger get the kill-hit in, while less cooperative players might be seen as denying the gunslinger his grit.
All-in-all, it's pretty poor.
Anyone can use the firearms, but the gunslinger does it better, does it more masterfully, than the rest.
Which is why I think we should petition for a class that rocks clubs. Make clubs splinter and explode when you use them. We'll make special mechanics around clubs that don't work very well, and are neither intuitive from a gaming perspective or solid from a realism perspective.
Then, let us repeat this until we have a class specifically dedicated to being the only people in the whole mother loving world that can use a weapon semi-correctly. NPC classes, of course, can spit on people.
I was specifically responding to ciretose desire for the gunslinger to be the best with guns.
And deathknell has been in the game since the CRB.
I like the idea of guns in my fantasy games, i just don't tihnk they deserve a class dedicated to them. Leave it classes like the fighter, rouge, alchemist, and inquisitor; classes that would use wild and exotic things such as guns in a world where they are just becoming known (albeit the fighter would need some help, given his low Skillpoints per level).
EDIT: the Bard would fit too now that i think about it, along with certian aspects of Wizards and Rangers
I was specifically responding to ciretose desire for the gunslinger to be the best with guns.
And deathknell has been in the game since the CRB.
Deathknell must be preformed on a person already downed into the negatives. You cannot get grit from such enemies. Likewise, Death Knell is a mild buff. Grit powers your whole class.
Surely you can see the differences here are large.
|
|
I find it very, very strange that ciretose desires a gunslinger with fewer "moving parts" than the presented one... And then presents a gunslinger that has a ton of moving parts.
Maybe I don't know what he thinks to be moving parts. I assume it's new abilities that you get with new levels. Because that's what grit is, and he really seems to strongly dislike grit.
I barely even can take the kill stealing critique of grit seriously. This is a game with friends. Not Call of Duty. Even the thought of kill stealing, aka working together as a team, being a BAD thing is hilariously.
Anyone can use the firearms, but the gunslinger does it better, does it more masterfully, than the rest.
Grit requires me to keep a running tally of grit points, which change based on how many kills I make/criticals I roll.
That is bookkeeping.
I'll post my suggestions for a gunslinger class in another thread.
I find it very, very strange that ciretose desires a gunslinger with fewer "moving parts" than the presented one... And then presents a gunslinger that has a ton of moving parts.
Maybe I don't know what he thinks to be moving parts. I assume it's new abilities that you get with new levels. Because that's what grit is, and he really seems to strongly dislike grit.
I barely even can take the kill stealing critique of grit seriously. This is a game with friends. Not Call of Duty. Even the thought of kill stealing, aka working together as a team, being a BAD thing is hilariously.
Anyone can use the firearms, but the gunslinger does it better, does it more masterfully, than the rest.
Grit requires me to keep a running tally of grit points, which change based on how many kills I make/criticals I roll.
That is bookkeeping.
I'll post my suggestions for a gunslinger class in another thread.
I don't know if you haven't heard but every class requires some form of book keeping.
I don't know if you haven't heard but every class requires some form of book keeping.I can balance my checkbook fine, but I don't want to be auditing ledgers for a multi-corp.
But you're already doing that. Play a summoner. :)
Actually, I don't. I play melee beatsticks, with the only book keeping being HP totals.
And the only one of those that fit that description is fighter. :)
I find it very, very strange that ciretose desires a gunslinger with fewer "moving parts" than the presented one... And then presents a gunslinger that has a ton of moving parts.
Maybe I don't know what he thinks to be moving parts. I assume it's new abilities that you get with new levels. Because that's what grit is, and he really seems to strongly dislike grit.
I barely even can take the kill stealing critique of grit seriously. This is a game with friends. Not Call of Duty. Even the thought of kill stealing, aka working together as a team, being a BAD thing is hilariously.
Anyone can use the firearms, but the gunslinger does it better, does it more masterfully, than the rest.
Grit requires me to keep a running tally of grit points, which change based on how many kills I make/criticals I roll.
That is bookkeeping.
I'll post my suggestions for a gunslinger class in another thread.
In my experience, it was ammo that was far more of a bookkeeping issue than grit. This actually plays well into the gunslinger, though, as counting shots in the heat of battle is a matter of focus, and a skill that gunslingers (in the old west, at least) valued highly.
As for grit, well, it hasn't been that long of a play time for myself, but I'll ask my gunslinger player in a few levels. For both of our GSs, so far, we haven't even used any grit, much less gained it back. I think it's just fine with the high risk/reward flavor the class and gun rules emphasize (And every alternative I've bothered to read tones this idea down dramatically, and looks like less fun to me).
If you really don't like what you got mechanically, fine, let's just say I wasn't referring to you on the badwrongfun claim. I can't remember addressing you directly anyhow.
Let's remember that so many people on these boards have stated that their game has house rules specifically for the gunslinger or gun rules because of their thoughts on the matter, so that isn't new. My POV is that people should play it out for a while before thinking it needs changes.
TL;DR Play more before you decide for sure. With my play XP I'm not certain any changes are needed, but I'm pretty sure it's fine.
You'd be surprised how little work you really need to do on rangers and monks.
The same as paladins. You still have spells perday to keep up with, Ki Points, Stunning fist attempts, hunter's bonds or animal companions to deal with. I'd say a gunslinger has about as much paperwork as a zen archer monk. The difference is that a gunslinger has mechanics to get their grit back.
I'm just curious why ciretose feels that a Gunslinger in the mold of an Eastwood character or Roland Deschain would be better modeled as a 3/4 BAB class. To me, the level of precision shooting suggested by those archetypes demands a full BAB. Sure, throwing out a wave of hot lead is part of that, too, but the really iconic moments to me are the impossible shots--Mal Reynolds making a head shot on the guy with a gun to a hostage's head, without breaking stride, for example.
I'm just curious why ciretose feels that a Gunslinger in the mold of an Eastwood character or Roland Deschain would be better modeled as a 3/4 BAB class. To me, the level of precision shooting suggested by those archetypes demands a full BAB. Sure, throwing out a wave of hot lead is part of that, too, but the really iconic moments to me are the impossible shots--Mal Reynolds making a head shot on the guy with a gun to a hostage's head, without breaking stride, for example.
Balance reasons are why most likely*. Even low BAB casters can hit a touch AC a good amount of times. I also think a lower BAB would have made the gun mechanics easier to deal with. Less damage, but more trick shot type things would have been cool.
*I dont know that for sure since I have no way to ask him.
I'm just curious why ciretose feels that a Gunslinger in the mold of an Eastwood character or Roland Deschain would be better modeled as a 3/4 BAB class. To me, the level of precision shooting suggested by those archetypes demands a full BAB. Sure, throwing out a wave of hot lead is part of that, too, but the really iconic moments to me are the impossible shots--Mal Reynolds making a head shot on the guy with a gun to a hostage's head, without breaking stride, for example.
Mostly because higher BAB isn't strictly about precision. In fact, it's mostly about getting extra attacks, because the core of PF fighting men is "stack static damage bonus, stack opportunities to apply static damage bonus, ensure chance to hit enemy is high enough to apply many static damage bonuses". It's why trying to play a fighter without Power Attack or something similar simply isn't done.
If you want a class that's about big damage on single shots, then you're better off with a lower BAB to ensure you get less attacks and therefor can afford to hand out bigger static damage bonuses (or maybe "on-hit" status effects) to simulate those big hits. Then you can make up for the decreased chance to hit with some other mechanic...like possibly targeting touch AC. :p
Oddly, a full-BAB class would be better suited to the "waves of lead" model than someone all about impossible shots, because they'd have more attacks and would therefor be better suited to shooting over and over again. This is sort of a good microcosm of the Gunslinger rules and lot of PF rules at large. More concern is spent on what the mechanics look like the [i]should[/] do, or how they feel upon cursory examination, than how they actually function.
|
|
I'm just curious why ciretose feels that a Gunslinger in the mold of an Eastwood character or Roland Deschain would be better modeled as a 3/4 BAB class. To me, the level of precision shooting suggested by those archetypes demands a full BAB. Sure, throwing out a wave of hot lead is part of that, too, but the really iconic moments to me are the impossible shots--Mal Reynolds making a head shot on the guy with a gun to a hostage's head, without breaking stride, for example.Balance reasons are why most likely*. Even low BAB casters can hit a touch AC a good amount of times. I also think a lower BAB would have made the gun mechanics easier to deal with. Less damage, but more trick shot type things would have been cool.
*I dont know that for sure since I have no way to ask him.
I explain here.
You'd be surprised how little work you really need to do on rangers and monks.
And psionics. If you can track HP, you can track psionic power expenditure. I have a player who loves playing Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Psions, but hates playing anything that has prepared spellcasting, and even finds the sorcerer too complicated.
To be fair it's a pretty terrible mechanic. No other mechanic in the game relies on you to try and land the last shot on someone, and it creates situations in-game which are entirely gamist / metagamey. You end up with cases where cooperative groups (as in the good kind) intentionally try to let the gunslinger get the kill-hit in, while less cooperative players might be seen as denying the gunslinger his grit.
All-in-all, it's pretty poor.
I would offer up an opposite opinion on this point. To me this is pure greatness as it offers up a new mechanical idea that we have never before seen. So rare is it to long time gamers to see ways that the game can be played with new mechanics fit into old attack concepts. The idea of a last kill boosting the Gunslinger is a new concept and totally in line with a flavor idea. This is what makes the Gunslinger so interesting and fresh.
As for the metagaming concept... well I reckon most folks are playing with their friends and metagaming left right and center concerning how they will set up a flank, who need the healing or any number of other situational points. This is just another. To me if the argument that this adds more metagaming is bad then really we should toss out all the other teamwork aspects to the game that need to be discussed before executed as they too will fall under metagaming.
To be fair it's a pretty terrible mechanic. No other mechanic in the game relies on you to try and land the last shot on someone, and it creates situations in-game which are entirely gamist / metagamey. You end up with cases where cooperative groups (as in the good kind) intentionally try to let the gunslinger get the kill-hit in, while less cooperative players might be seen as denying the gunslinger his grit.
All-in-all, it's pretty poor.
I would offer up an opposite opinion on this point. To me this is pure greatness as it offers up a new mechanical idea that we have never before seen. So rare is it to long time gamers to see ways that the game can be played with new mechanics fit into old attack concepts. The idea of a last kill boosting the Gunslinger is a new concept and totally in line with a flavor idea. This is what makes the Gunslinger so interesting and fresh.
As for the metagaming concept... well I reckon most folks are playing with their friends and metagaming left right and center concerning how they will set up a flank, who need the healing or any number of other situational points. This is just another. To me if the argument that this adds more metagaming is bad then really we should toss out all the other teamwork aspects to the game that need to be discussed before executed as they too will fall under metagaming.
Fair points.
I'm just curious why ciretose feels that a Gunslinger in the mold of an Eastwood character or Roland Deschain would be better modeled as a 3/4 BAB class. To me, the level of precision shooting suggested by those archetypes demands a full BAB. Sure, throwing out a wave of hot lead is part of that, too, but the really iconic moments to me are the impossible shots--Mal Reynolds making a head shot on the guy with a gun to a hostage's head, without breaking stride, for example.Mostly because higher BAB isn't strictly about precision. In fact, it's mostly about getting extra attacks, because the core of PF fighting men is "stack static damage bonus, stack opportunities to apply static damage bonus, ensure chance to hit enemy is high enough to apply many static damage bonuses". It's why trying to play a fighter without Power Attack or something similar simply isn't done.
If you want a class that's about big damage on single shots, then you're better off with a lower BAB to ensure you get less attacks and therefor can afford to hand out bigger static damage bonuses (or maybe "on-hit" status effects) to simulate those big hits. Then you can make up for the decreased chance to hit with some other mechanic...like possibly targeting touch AC. :p
Oddly, a full-BAB class would be better suited to the "waves of lead" model than someone all about impossible shots, because they'd have more attacks and would therefor be better suited to shooting over and over again. This is sort of a good microcosm of the Gunslinger rules and lot of PF rules at large. More concern is spent on what the mechanics look like the [i]should[/] do, or how they feel upon cursory examination, than how they actually function.
The most basic function of BAB is to determine how likely you are to hit with an attack roll. How skilled you are in combat. By definition, a character with a full BAB is a better shot than someone with a 3/4 BAB than someone with a 1/2 BAB. A fighter is more likely to hit than a rogue than a wizard. And the guy with the full BAB can then afford to take larger penalties to his attack roll--like for trying to shoot a guy taking soft cover without harming the hostage, making called shots, taking Deadly Aim--and, yes, making extra shots. Both the precision and the speed are part of the gunslinger archetype.
Shoot dimes out of the air at 50 meters, business as usual.
Since it's apparently been lost already, I'll ask again:
Is there interest for a gunslinger without guns? The question is particularly for those who want Certain Aspects of Medieval Europe With Magic as their fantasy. Crossbow, wands, slings, etc.
Actually, as a group, as long as the Deed doesn't preclude the use of guns by it's very purpose (such as Quick Clear and Expert Loading) we pretty much allow the Grit mechanics and relevant Deeds to be used with any ranged weapon. The way I see it, if an archer can nail a wanted poster between the Sheriff's fingers, if that doesn't scare the Shaeriff and his lackeys, there's something we should be afraid of instead.
This may not be exactly what you wanted, but if you could expand on that, I'd be more than welcome to entertain the idea.
It just recently occurred to me that the gunslinger has no menu choice abilities, and doesn't need to choose anything but starting weapon.
They quite literally have the least number of "moving parts" of any class in PF. Rogues need to choose talents, fighters feats, barbarians rage powers, wizards spells, etc etc.
They have the least amount of book referencing. Just look at the table, and remember what level you are. There's no need to browse through talents or anything like that.
Remember the whole spate of "is [x] evil?" threads we had awhile back? I do not want to see this happen with "hate" threads.
Also, "Does Anyone Else" threads.
On the other hand, they're sort of like social or cultural movements. In this way, we can collectively remember an "era" of the forums... except they are devoid of any meaning or value.
I line 'em up, you knock 'em down.
You almost made it out alive, but then you had to turn around.