The question wasn't "do you hate gunslingers:" it was, essentially, "Is it the fact that guns are tech, not magical, that makes you dislike the gunslinger class?"
Discussion? - oh, and let's not do this:
John: Do you want salt?
Andrew: Uhhh, no. I'm drinking coffee.
John: So you don't like salt.
Andrew: Not in my coffee, no.
John: From that, it's obvious that you hate salt as a food additive or indeed in any context. How dare you say that salt sucks! And since I like salt, that implies that you hate me!
Oh, didn't you know? Salt has been around way, way longer than coffee has, so it's completely normal to have salt in coffee. I mean, c'mon. It's historically accurate, so you have to do it, or you're a narrow-minded imagination fascist. You don't want to be a fascist do you? Have some salt in your coffee.
Well, first of all, I don't hate the Gunslinger, although I don't allow them in my campaign setting for the same reason that I don't allow Dr. Who, Captain America or the 1952 Yankees in it.
Do you allow Monks?
Seriously if guns were magical weapons called Boomsticks & powered by alchemical dust and only useable by Boomslingers would people hate them less?
If you transform the gun into a magical weapon that produced a ray like damaging effect would you hate guns less?
If the Gunslinger could only fire 5+ level of these ray like effects per day would you hate them less?
If the Gunslinger had all weaknesses of a wizard and none of the benifets of an archer would you hate them less?
If you stopped thinking of the wild west when someone mentions a gun would you hate gunslingers less?
Flavor-wise, I think the Gunslinger belongs in genres other than swords-n-sorcery inspired fantasy. I'd have no issue with it, say, in Iron Kingdoms. I don't think that in Golarion, as presented, firearms are anywhere near common enough to warrant a class based upon them. I also highly averse to Golarion retconning to allow for it.
So, reskinning it doesn't really change that.
Mechanics wise, I've been very underwhelmed by the Gunslinger implementation.
So, I guess, yeah, I'd still hate them.
No they wouldn't. A change of name isn't going to open up the determinedly narrowminded. I'd be less likely to play the class out of sheer embarrassment on such a silly name.
For what it's worth, one person's "determinedly narrowminded" is another's "thematically consistent".
|
In a setting being worked on by a few friends and I, we decided that we didn't want gunpowder-based guns. However, we did want a decent bit of "high magic" going on. We came to the conclusion that eventually something gun-like would be made using magic because it would be just too easy to train people to use to not do so.
Therefor, in our setting, guns are magically powered (they require ammo, but not powder). And because they don't use powder or any mechanical parts, they don't misfire. To balance that, they do not ever get to use touch AC.
(My main problem with gunslinger is the guns. They are so wonky to use that I'd rather just not. I would have been much happier with guns being a glorified crossbow.)
I prefer guns in my fantasy. Some folks don't. I don't object to those who don't who decide to ban it at their tables. I do object to folks who slag off about guns at every mention of them saying "It's not fantasy" etc.
It IS fantasy, as much as crossbows, alchemist's fire and advanced sewerage are fantasy. I am glad to have guns in my game, at my table as an option for my players. If you don't like it, ignore it. Nobody says you have to use guns, but it's nice to have the option.
So was Star Wars. It's clearly science fantasy much more than it's science fiction. While I like Star Wars, if I need that experience in a RPG, I want a game & setting tailored to it. I don't want Star Destroyers hovering above Korvosa or Magnimar or the Death Star showing up in orbit.
Having options is great, and generally speaking, I'm all for it. However, the Paizo business model (setting + adventures + RPG rules all as core lines/products) means that an option that doesn't play across the board is a wasted option.
For many of us, it takes us to a place where the setting, tone, and campaign is fundamentally altered. For a precedent of such, I direct you to the early Pathfinder art that had gun-toting explorers in pith helmets fighting off a gorilla attack. Wrong tone, wrong genre. To this day, I'm grateful that Paizo realized it was too radical a departure. Otherwise, the Serpent's Skull AP might have been a direct Tarzan or Indiana Jones analogue. While it would have been an interesting AP or setting, it's NOT what I want from swords-n-sorcery style fantasy RPGing.
YMMV.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...wasted option
But at my table we have a gunslinger, and even our rogue carries a long-rifle. We are playing Kingmaker, on Golarion. So that option wasn't wasted on us.
Skull and Shackles is coming and while the AP will assume the Golarion standard of ships without cannons, I certainly won't and cannons and gunslingers will be an option.
Those options aren't wasted on my group. It would be like me campaigning against words of power, saying Paizo wasted page space on an option that I don't like.
Pathfinder is more than just one table, and one vision of fantasy. It is all fantasy for every table. Use what you like, ignore what you don't. Prefer not to have ninjas, monks and samurai in your game? Ban them and avoid Minkai.
Prefer not to have guns and awesome robots in your game? Ban then and avoid Alkenstar and other tech heavy regions.
I and my players *like* these things, and a philosophy of inclusion means everyone can have their favorite kind of fantasy. The fans don't own Golarion except at the privacy of their own tables. Actively denigrating my gunpowder filled fantasy because it doesn't fulfill some other vision of fantasy ultimately hurts the community and the games they play.
To sum up: If any table uses an option from a book, it's not a wasted option.
In fact, until a few months ago, nobody even knew that Golarion had guns in it.
Heh? That's not accurate at all, at the latest guns have existed in Golarion for about 3-4 years at the least. Pathfinder Chronicles was made around 2008, and if I recall Alkenstar was presented some time before that in one of thier adventure paths...least I think it was an adventure path?
Either way guns in Golarion are not new but the Gunslinger class is, prior to now a 'gunslinger' was anyone that used and was proficent with firearms.
Just wanted to clear that up.
"I hate divine magic. It has no place in fantasy. Everything should be ruled by the laws of nature and science. Arcane magic should be based on mathematical equations that control the elements. Clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, oracles and inquisitors have NO place in fantasy. And neither do their gods!"
[/joke]
I've spoken out on this before, many-a-time. Guns fit just fine into fantasy if you can learn to accept them. Some people can't. I've got ninjas wielding laser guns in my fantasy world (which is still, on the whole, renaissance-era fantasy). Will that work for most gamers? No, probably not, but it works for me.
That being said, I hate the Paizo guns mechanically. I think they're too complex and don't do a very good job of emulating firearms. The gunslinger's fine, though it feels a bit pigeon-holed as far as what it's supposed to do.
I've created my own Gunslinger as well as my own Firearm rules. And they function quite well in my game.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are things people can't accept, even if they do understand them.
Pathfinder is more than just one table, and one vision of fantasy. It is all fantasy for every table. Use what you like, ignore what you don't. Prefer not to have ninjas, monks and samurai in your game? Ban them and avoid Minkai.
Prefer not to have guns and awesome robots in your game? Ban then and avoid Alkenstar and other tech heavy regions.
I and my players *like* these things, and a philosophy of inclusion means everyone can have their favorite kind of fantasy. The fans don't own Golarion except at the privacy of their own tables. Actively denigrating my gunpowder filled fantasy because it doesn't fulfill some other vision of fantasy ultimately hurts the community and the games they play.
To sum up: If any table uses an option from a book, it's not a wasted option.
And you missed the entire point of my "wasted options" comment. Paizo will include firearms & gunslingers in other Golarion-centric products. They already upped the availability of firearms beyond "rare" in the updated Inner Sea Campaign Guide. You option is having an unwanted impact on products that I want.
Also, just to illustrate how ineffectual your argument is, why should I have to take something out of a product at my table? Why shouldn't you just have to put it in?
One of the things I love about Golarion is the breadth of the setting and its ability to allow for various play styles. It's a feature. However, there have to be some limits & some choices made to ensure a coherent, consistent setting. Otherwise you end up with a hodge-podge that lacks sustainability.
Well, first of all, I don't hate the Gunslinger, although I don't allow them in my campaign setting for the same reason that I don't allow Dr. Who, Captain America or the 1952 Yankees in it.This, this, so much this.
I wouldn't hate a Gunslinger class in a game with the appropriate setting (there are plenty of D20 Steampunk RPGs out there, I am certain) but they don't belong in a world whose society is meant to be technologically the equivalent of 16th Century Europe. Yes, the concept of the gun was technically invented in 1424, but they did not actually come into use for another 3 centuries. And even then, the idea of somebody hauling a six-shooter blasting baddies wouldn't make since until the 19th-century at the earliest. It feels completely alien to the setting.
I don't like Gunslingers in a Pathfinder game for the same reason I wouldn't like Jedi Masters. But that doesn't mean I hate Star Wars.
Completely valid preference of course, though it sidesteps the OP’s question. Would you feel more receptive to including a gunslinger-type class in your game if they were flavored as magical sticks with alchemical ammo – like a vamped up, slightly unreliable blow gun, crossbow, or slingshot?
Anything from baseball to the internet can be reflavored into ‘classic fantasy’ trappings. Some things easier than others. Crossbow-guns seem like an easy fit on that scale. It is all personal preference, but the question is would you be more okay with ‘guns’ if they were lumped in with all the other magical and fantastical peanutbutter in your medieval Europe chocolate?
Ooh, nice try. But sugar ain't salt.Do you allow Monks?Well, first of all, I don't hate the Gunslinger, although I don't allow them in my campaign setting for the same reason that I don't allow Dr. Who, Captain America or the 1952 Yankees in it.
Pardon?
Look, I reserve a GM's right to reserve their game from some classes.While guns and gunslingers may not fit in someone's particular theme, at the same time ki and monks may not fit in another's particular theme.
It's all still fantasy, however for some reason the monk gets the protection of seniorship since its been there since pretty much the beginning.
'Gunslinger' makes me think of cowboys, and that just doesn't fit. This is Carrion Hill, not Boot Hill.
Guns in the game? Maybe, I reckon they fit well in a pirate themed campaign. Or Orcs n Goblins. Maybe its my Warhammer schtick coming out,
Execution? I am dubious how firearms are handled crunchwise.
Completely valid preference of course, though it sidesteps the OP’s question. Would you feel more receptive to including a gunslinger-type class in your game if they were flavored as magical sticks with alchemical ammo – like a vamped up, slightly unreliable blow gun, crossbow, or slingshot?Are you asking EntrerisShadow, or are you asking me? 'Cause I already answered the question back in post #7.
Sorry about that. I was responding to EntrerisShadow’s post that only quoted part of what you said. So you’d dislike it even more because not only does it not fit your idea of proper ‘fantasy’, you’d also be insulted and take it as the developers eliciting praise on a false premise? I don’t get it, but fair enough. It is interesting to learn how others feel about it.
I’m also curious (honestly, not in a smartass way)… you don’t consider your viewpoint/attitude to be narrow minded?
I must obey the limitations of genre (as I see them) whenever I set out to portray a classic genre. For example, when I run Aces & Eights, which is a straight-up western, I feel that including samurai, the planet Barsoom, or sorcerors would do a disservice both to the general feel of the setting and to my players' suspension of disbelief. I love those memes - but they aren't Western memes.
Not to say that pure genres are the only worthwhile ones. "Hybrid" genres can be remarkably entertaining if they're not dealt with in a ham-handed manner... but they carry the unspoken agreement with your players that the greater suspension of disbelief will be rewarded with Inexpressibly Cool Things Happening. (Superhero universes, probably the worst offenders when it comes to bleeding genres into each other, are built on the concept that All Is Forgiven once you achieve a given level of awesomeness. And I'm not saying they're wrong: 'Nyarlathotep vs. Godzilla on Mars' is indeed forgiven.)
This I can totally agree with.
The thing is Golarion is a kitchen sink with pretty much everything washed in. The things that Paizo presents are explained by the setting.
If a GM is using Golarion and doesn't want a particular class, it's because of the GM's personal preference and not a limitation set by the setting, more often than not. I'm not saying it's wrong, you should run the games you are comfortable with.
I do think it's kind of messed up though when people say that Paizo shouldn't print something that is consistent with their setting, Golarion, simply because a few people don't like it in their campaigns.
As for feeling insulted when somebody uses 'magically accelerated pellets of adamantium' fired from 'six-chambered wands': I feel... patronized. Pandered to. Do they think I am incapable of detecting allegory? Or are they ashamed of mixing genres? (If you're going to break the rules, break 'em hard and unapologetically!) Or do they think I'll giggle when I realize that those clever boots have slipped guns in right under the noses of those other, not-as-clever-as-me people?
I too am of the 'call a gun a gun' category, however not very many game developers respect that level of honesty. Okay Final Fantasy, those slender pointy eared people are clearly elves under another name. And why do people get mad when I call a clockwork construct a robot!? Really, because that's what it is. Or if I call their wingless Dragon a Dinosaur, why shouldn't I? I actually pissed a GM off because I used the term "drugs" to describe the mind affecting substance that some kids hiding behind a building were eating to get off.
I honestly believe Smeerps are more for the people who come up with the names to hide their shame than for the audience.
Anyway, there's a difference between changing some names around to hide a concept and modifying how something works so that it is consistent with the world / genre.
Okay Final Fantasy, those slender pointy eared people are clearly elves under another name.Which one did I miss this in? Because the original FF had elves, robots, and dinosaurs IIRC.
Not to mention liches, krakens, mind flayers, fighters, thieves, pirates, etc.
The newer ones seem more reluctant to show their roots
Honestly, I have no problem at all with Gunslinger as a class (although I think far fewer people would have their panties in a twist if it was named along the lines of muskets somehow.) I have no issues allowing them at my table at all. They're definitely not a commonplace thing yet at all, though. Any new guns that my players would end up with would have to be smuggled from Alkenstar, and the cost would go along with it.
The one thing I'm not a big fan of is advanced firearms. Those are something that I would never put into my game. I can envision muskets in the game. The feel of it is right to me. Musket, cannon, all good. But revolvers and the like? No thanks.
But let me be clear. I don't begrudge the rules existing. I'm seeing a lot of people in this thread who seem to be ready to lynch Paizo for publishing these rules because it destroys THEIR idea of a fantasy world. Well, to those of you who feel that way: You should probably remember that if you're using Golarion, it's not actually YOUR fantasy world. It's Paizo's. And if you're using your own homegrown setting, I don't see what the big deal is in saying no to a very small game option.
The last OP campaign with which I was greatly invested had guns (my primary PC had a rifle and a pistol), so I am not against the idea of them existing in a fantasy setting. Indeed, since most of the clothing and contraptions are going to be from the same time period as early firearms (or later), I don't see any disconnect.
However, knowing how other companies handled firearms in 3E/v3.5, I was hoping that the Gunslinger and firearms rules in general would have turned out more to my liking than they did. Yes, I have a ridiculous objection to the term "grit" (because it makes me think we should be tracking it, sand, and wounds with paper clips), but I also don't think the implementation of it was well or wholly presented. There are a few examples of that being the case with the UC material.
I would ask if the people who are fine with the number of eidolons which appear to be robots or clock-work creatures (I have seen three, so I'm assuming there are more) in an attempt to have some of that steampunk flavor have any problem with the inclusion of firearms. Because that would represent some form of inconsistency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, until a few months ago, nobody even knew that Golarion had guns in it.Heh? That's not accurate at all, at the latest guns have existed in Golarion for about 3-4 years at the least. Pathfinder Chronicles was made around 2008, and if I recall Alkenstar was presented some time before that in one of thier adventure paths...least I think it was an adventure path?
Either way guns in Golarion are not new but the Gunslinger class is, prior to now a 'gunslinger' was anyone that used and was proficent with firearms.
Just wanted to clear that up.
Yeah, I remember that book. The only mention of firearms was in the section on Alkenstar (about 3-4 pages for the whole country) No specifics for stats on firearms were given, IIRC, but there were a few figures presented. The Gunworks produced only 1 small firearm per day, and 5 siege engines per year, 90% of the gun stayed in Alkenstar, and no masterwork guns were produced, although a master gunsmith could rebuild a gun into a masterwork gun at double the normal cost and time. The entry seemed to imply that guns weren't exactly commonplace in Alkenstar, and to call them rare in the rest of Golarion was vastly overstating their abundance.
Once the Inner Sea World Guide came out, none of those figures were reprinted. In fact, guns are now the chief export of Alkenstar. Guns are also mentioned in several places in the guide, and the text seems to imply that price, not supply, are the only thing keeping guns from being everyday common. The guide even says that until recently, guns were pretty much only found in Alkenstar, implying there's been a recent surge in exports not only in guns, but also gun technology.
Until a few (perhaps several) months ago most residents of Golarion hadn't heard of guns. Now, they're somehow as common as +1 weapons, and black powder went from being "exceedingly rare" to "available at any thorp" (Only 10gp a dose).
Oh, but guns aren't common and only Alkenstar makes them. They're just all of a sudden supposed to be readily available to any PC (or NPC) with the coin to purchase them.
So "Golarion has guns, except it doesn't have guns, only Alkenstar has guns." And that's my problem.
One of the things I really like about Golarion is that, like certain fantasy worlds that preceded it, "they have a country for everything." No matter what flavor of play you like, somewhere in Golarion facilitates that style. Enter Alkenstar.
"Alkenstar? Ain't never heard of that place before"
"It's a country down south what ain't got no magic."
"No magic?"
"Ayuh. And I heard, in Alkenstar they've got 'Guns in Fantasy'."
"Well I'll be. I bet they got plenty of them thar 'Gunslingers' in Alkenstar, too."
"I bet they do"What is the link between the sentences "there isn't any magic" and "there are guns"?
Guns replace bows and crossbows. Which don't rely on magic at all. Unless they are able to dominate peoples, heal them, or transport them, they don't replace magic.
The link is: "Name two things they have in Alkenstar (a country in Golarion)"
In Alkenstar they have: a) "no magic" and b) "guns".
Why do they have no magic and guns in Alkenstar? I dunno. Why do they have Devil Binders in Chelax?
Yeah, I remember that book. The only mention of firearms was in the section on Alkenstar (about 3-4 pages for the whole country) No specifics for stats on firearms were given, IIRC, but there were a few figures presented. The Gunworks produced only 1 small firearm per day, and 5 siege engines per year, 90% of the gun stayed in Alkenstar, and no masterwork guns were produced, although a master gunsmith could rebuild a gun into a masterwork gun at double the normal cost and time. The entry seemed to imply that guns weren't exactly commonplace in Alkenstar, and to call them rare in the rest of Golarion was vastly overstating their abundance.
Once the Inner Sea World Guide came out, none of those figures were reprinted. In fact, guns are now the chief export of Alkenstar. Guns are also mentioned in several places in the guide, and the text seems to imply that price, not supply, are the only thing keeping guns from being everyday common. The guide even says that until recently, guns were pretty much only found in Alkenstar, implying there's been a recent surge in exports not only in guns, but also gun technology.
Until a few (perhaps several) months ago most residents of Golarion hadn't heard of guns. Now, they're somehow as common as +1 weapons, and black powder went from being "exceedingly rare" to "available at any thorp" (Only 10gp a dose).
Oh, but guns aren't common and only...
I can understand where you're coming from. There's a 3 year gap in between the first campaign setting book and the Inner Sea World guide. That doesn't seem like enough time for things to spread that much. But I choose to suspend my disbelief and let it go. I still have my game running in Golarion with guns being more rare. And honestly, it's never even come up yet.
|
In response to the whole national secret of Alkenstar thing, you've got to understand that guns are a national military secret. When a character has Amateur Gunslinger or the Gunsmithing feat, they get the training to know how to use Craft [Alchemy] make black powder and maintain a musket without it becoming a powder-clogged, cracked iron tube that is more likely to blow your hands off than give you that wonderful 'ignore touch AC' attack.
When an Alkenstar gunslinger buys bullets and black powder outside of Alkenstar and Absalom, they are not buying the ready-to-use products. They are commissioning blacksmiths to melt out some rounds and going to alchemical workshops to buy the necessary ingredients for powder, which they quickly mix and prepare themselves. All Golarion gunslingers should have Craft [alchemy] like all Clerics should have Knowledge [religion].
All Golarion needs is one stupid nobleman to blow his arm off by trying to use a poorly maintained masterwork pistol against an orc for most heroes (who don't even know any Alkenstar Captains willing to lecture on guns to begin with) to avoid that weaponry like the plague. A 10 per cent misfire chance is going to give guns (most people in Golarion can't look into the future) an enormous public perception problem. Bows are much safer.
Should people not be permitted to hate gunslingers? Is it narrowminded to dislike guns?
I haven't delved too deeply into this whole mess, as I have a lot better things to do than sift through nerdrage rants and history drones...but I got in on this one early enough, so I'll say my peace.
Why is having an actual opinion, one way or another, narrowminded? If I say, on the subject of ice cream, I don't like strawberry, am I narrowminded?
From what I've seen of the two camps, there are the people who don't like guns, and don't want them in their campaigns. And there are the people who like guns, and want them in everyone's campaign. Lastly there are the people who either like or don't like guns, and don't care what's going on in someone elses game. Unfortunately, they are the least vocal.
From what I personally have seen, there are people posting who are upset that Paizo even printed the class. Doubtless some of them have probably been berated by wiser forum-goers and have since changed their stance, but I do remember quite distinctly that there were several very heated threads about the fact that the gunslinger, samurai, and ninja were even being added to the game as such.
So it isn't JUST "people who think the gunslinger sucks and they aren't going to use them" vs "people who think the gunslinger is fine and everyone else should too." There are several differing opinions.
W E Ray has even stated in this thread that the gunslinger should be trashed. Not that his opinion is wrong, because it's relative to him, but that opinion reflects more than just an "I won't use it" attitude.
The OP, it seems to me, is an advocate of the gunslinger and wants to know what it would take to get folks like Ray to change their mind. That's not just an "I will use this class" attitude.
These threads wouldn't pop up if people weren't trying to be persuasive in some way. The posters want their opinion to be heard so that it might spread. If a class stops receiving support because it isn't as popular, then fewer people will ask to play one in any given campaign and there is less of a likelihood that those who dislike it will have to deal with firearms. Or vice-versa if they are advocating guns.
I am neutral. We have a gunslinger in a game I'm playing in. I will say I'm a little underwhelmed with their effectiveness. The flavor is meh. Guns are just weapons to me.
|
|
I love the gunslinger and I think it's a breath of fresh air in the setting, but I do have major issues about the mechanics of two firearms in particular.
DOUBLE MUSKET - Somehow when you add another barrel (capacity 2 instead of 1) to a musket, the range becomes 10ft instead of 30ft. Don't understand how or why.
DOUBLE HACKBUT - Is listed under two-handed firearms, allowing archetype musket masters to use their class features with them. Is better than the Double Musket in every possible way. Hits touch AC at 50ft. Hits for 2d12 per bullet (capacity 2) Reloads the same as the Double Musket. It's clearly a siege engine but it isn't labelled so. There's many methods to ensure it's mounted to avoid being knocked prone by recoil and it's only a matter of time before the 'cannon and his boy' characters start rolling out the doors.
Both these firearms need to be errata'd quickly before the DPR olympics (for the hackbut gunslinger) goes into overdrive, imho.
|
|
Why would someone who can look in the future be interested in an inefficient and hard-to-use weapon? In the future of Golarion, peoples will see that guns are crap and will soon forget them, while laughing at "the great Alkenstar's secret".The real mystery is: why Alkenstar uses guns? And why would Alkenstar have more gunslingers than bow fighters?
I think the main allure for Alkenstar is that they have some genius engineers who recognise the future potential for the technology. The key point for the engineers is the future potential.
There's also two other factors.
1. Dual Bludgeoning/Piercing damage. When you're beset on all sides by skeletons and other undead, any weapon that can punch through DR is welcome.
2. Targets touch AC. Town guards across Golarion would be intrigued at the firearm's ability to punch through armour and natural armour as it suddenly makes a number of frightening enemies quite easy to kill for a squad of 6 musket wielding soldiers.
Consider a 7th level Cavalier with +3 fullplate, +3 fire-resistant heavy steel shield and an amulet of natural armour +3. He has DEX 10. What used to be a nigh unkillable AC29 juggernaut of steel can now be shot to death by peasants targeting touch AC10. Cavaliers and Samurai would DESPISE this technology, and would launch a concerted campaign to snuff it out.
|
|
For me it's not so much the name so much how badly designed the guns are. Expensive reuire a feat to use csn misfire and explode form use with one benefit targeting touch ac. Gunslingers, Boomslingers, Adventure with a rubberband and a paperclip whatever they would imo still be disliked. to make matters worse the reasoning given imo is rather poor. If they made guns too good no one would take anything else which imo does not help the situation either.
Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arthur C. Clarke's 3rd Law:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
And it's corollary, "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
Wat's da deal with dis thread? Buz already be Boomslinger! 'Cuz his guns go BOOM BOOM ah in ya face. Now where's me cheese, Buz thought there was cheese here
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are two seperate issues at play, so I'll deal with the larger one for me first;
There are two, broad ways, to handle 'guns' in an RPG. There is the 'historical-simulation' way, or there is the 'thematic' way. Many games opt for the later, and rightly so. When playing say, an Urban detective game, I want gun-fights to be potentially deadly, but mostly I want people getting winged and walking away. If I'm playing something inspired by John Woo, I want my characters to be able to fly through the air, firing twin-pistols side-ways while bullets explode everything around me without me getting seriously hit. There are games that emulate this. Other games, like say GURPS, attempt, not to 'balance' weapons in the strictest sense, but to make them 'simulate' how those weapons 'work' in the 'real world'(if your noticing all the scare quotes, it's because this sort of thing is always generalized, and there are always compromises).
This comes to D&D, Pathfinder, it's derivates, etc. Pathfinder, like it's predessors, tends much more towards 'thematic' than 'simulation'. Cross-bows and bows that end up having equivalent rates of fire. That is also mostly equivilent to the number of attacks melee weapons do. Weapons that, over time, loose their definition to the supremeacy of magical enhancements anyways. I mean at 15th level, whether you use a crossbow, a bow, or a boomerrang, is much less important than whether you use a Flaming Fiery-Burst Crossbow, or a Icy Construct-Bane Crossbow.
This is where, for me, guns tends to fall down. Because the thematic presentation of them makes their introduction pointless. They don't add anything new and exciting, and what they do tend to add is modern thematics with regards to fire-arms that just seem out of place. A Historical rendition of fire-arms would have them take forever to load, because really, pre-cartridge weapons take forever to load. Can it work? Maybe, but for me it just doesn't. I've seen fantasy games that have firearms and work quite well. Hell I've designed a few, but part of their rules implementations makes them 'feel' thematically like 15th or 16th century fire-arms, not like Glocks with the file-numbers filed off.
Okay, that being said, there is also, with the Gunslinger class, the issues of class proliferation. For me, if your going to have a 'class system' you should try to ensure a certain degree of 'tightness' to that system. classes should be broad, and cover a host of arch-types and assumptions. This was what I 'felt' in earlier D&D, i.e. you want a good fighter, you play a fighter, want to be the sneaky guy, you play teh thief, etc. Now mechanical complexity has undermined that to a certain extent, and 'niche-protection' can often make it...odd, but essential a new class to me should either fill a thematic niche that is empty, or supply something essential mechanically that is missing. I don't think the Gunslinger really does either of these things. I think that's one of the things that bugs me about 4e's implementation, is just class upon class upon class for 'gamey' reasons. It's what bothered me about Prestige class proliferation, classes made to test or expand certain mechanical game-issues, not game-mechanics designed to support certain things. I suppose it's a chicken and egg situation where you ask which one comes first. For me, Mechanics should extend from fluff.
No they wouldn't. A change of name isn't going to open up the determinedly narrowminded. I'd be less likely to play the class out of sheer embarrassment on such a silly name.
How does someone that does not like the gunslinger earn the term narrowminded?
Do you allow Monks?Well, first of all, I don't hate the Gunslinger, although I don't allow them in my campaign setting for the same reason that I don't allow Dr. Who, Captain America or the 1952 Yankees in it.
I don't like Gunslingers but I love monks. For the simple fact that the Linnorm Kings need to raid abbeys.
|
|
Yeah, I totally agree that up against masses of lightly armoured enemies, such as orcs, the gunslinger gets murdered horribly. But no army equips every soldier with the same weapon anyway. Soldiers would ready their 1d12dam shots for when the charging orcs come at them, then either battle with bayonets or drop their weapon-corded muskets, pull out their sabers and descend into traditional melee.
My argument was that the 'touch AC' aspect of the new weapon creates a new niche for soldiers, and this niche allows mundane soldiers to easily target heavily armoured threats in a way that only magic users could do before. I'm sure it costs more for a state to train wizards than it does to produce guns. That 7th level cavalier would laugh at 6 3rd level warriors with longswords, but he wouldn't at 6 3rd level Alkenstar warriors with gun training and muskets.
And also, for defense of forts, you now have mounted double hackbuts blasting away from relative safety, making life very unpleasant for commanding officers leading an attack on a fort.
I can see the discussion that happens afterwards:
Commanding Officer: What news of Sir Outdatus's campaign?
Messenger: Sir Outdatus fell in battle, melord. He was slain on a charge against the scouts palisades.
CO: Preposterous! Sir Outdatus was clad in Azlanti steel and bore Heartstone, the shield of his forefathers. What rival knight or cowardly wizard claimed him?
M: 'Twas a baseborn recruit that did the deed. The nameless private shot Sir Outdatus in the neck with one of those new pipe-rifles as he lead the charge. Left a hole clean through the steel.
CO: Impossible! You lie sir! Not Sir Outdatus, who emerged from the melee of orc hill without even a scratch when he fought 20 warrior orcs singlehandedly!
M: It seems that even the best armour cannot protect an officer from these devices. Melord would do well to learn from Sir Outdatus's death.