| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I don't hate gunslingers, but I would approve of the name change for one reason: Intimidate = "This is my BOOMSTICK!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is supposed to be a joke post right?
This is supposed to be a joke post right?
It's about half and half.
Eh you'd just be trading the anti-guns-in-my-swords-and-magic for the anti-high-magic-in-my-low-magic people.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see why people hate the idea of guns in fantasy, exp. when there is historical precedent, even in Western Europe.
One of my players has a clockwork TARDIS. Bring on the hate mail!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my players has a clockwork TARDIS. Bring on the hate mail!
Techcnically, I dont think that the TARDIS, as a time machine, can count as being out of place due to time period.
for the moment I like gunslinger, it has something easy going to it. But I would loose my respect for the class if it got called boomslinger.
First off, it reminds me a lot of the boom tubes from DC-comics. Also Boomsticks sound dirty, like: "my boomstick is ten inch long".
Let guns be guns, they are not magic staff that fire pieces of metal, they are guns, and there is nothing more satisfying than holding a gun to an ennemies face and say "well, do you feel lucky, punk?!"
Guns make you feel good when all your jokes come from bad westerns, instead of tolkiens books.
|
Well, putting aside the tongue-in-cheek, snarky half, it's an interesting question.
If I saw it and it didn't immediately register as a "Cowboy's six-shooter out West" Class, which is possible since I think of the snake when I hear "boomslang" and "boomsling" ain't much different, then I'd absolutely be interested and grab it to read over.
But within a couple minutes it'd become obvious the Class really IS a "Cowboy's six-shooter out West" Class and I'd put it in the trash where it belongs.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Would you dislike it if rogues used invisibility field generators rather than stealth? Or if they used rocket boots to ascend walls instead of climbing?
So-called "flavor" matters, because story and setting matter. Believing a gunslinger to be misplaced in Pathfinder doesn't mean someone is "determinedly narrow-minded." It just means they have different preferences than you.
Maybe if you call them wands of explosive metal.
It's one of my pet peeves when writers attempt to disguise technology as magic. It's either disrespectful of the viewer's intellect, or symptomatic of an inability to come up with any original fantasy concept.
Just like when writers disguise magic as fantasy.
Or when writers disguise naval battles as futuristic space battles.Am I right? ;)
Seriously though, the lines between magic and technology are not all that well understood. Technology seems like magic to someone who doesn't understand it and someone who masters magic can use it just like any form of technology. Though, I must agree with disdain with completely making up a word for something when there's already a word for it.
Anyway, if you change the flavor enough, guns sorta become like wands. It's a stick that you aim, and it has to be recharged.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Ignoring the parody half of the OP, I do think the name "gunslinger" makes the class harder to swallow for some people. Seeing the class in action, I don't think it really hurts the setting. But the name "gunslinger" does make me think of a wild west setting - an image that the actual execution of the class doesn't support.
If a different name could have been used, I think it might have been better received.
Well, for MY high fantasy games, I don't like commonly accessible explosives and powerful ballistic weapons, whether they're painted as guns or anything else. A few flasks of alchemist's fire and some spells are good enough for me, for the flavor I am trying to go for. It's not just the tech level, it's about a certain degree of... oh, I don't know, how much mass destruction can be achieved by a large number of people and managing that. I don't want to think about, for my game, how firearms (or any renamed equivalent) affect my world. Just my preference, personally, and it has a lot to do with specifics of my world design, and nothing to do with a grand judgment upon firearms in RPGs in general.
BUT, I also don't think the gunslinger conceptually is a horrible abomination out to destroy RPGs of all kind. I don't hate the idea of guns in any and all fantasy or fiction. I won't use it in my particular, very specific, made by me, high fantasy campaign world, but I may well use it in a different campaign setting with a different feel. I won't look down on another GM for using the gunslinger. And I think it's good that Paizo wrote up the class for people who do want firearms in their games.
I do have some specific problems with the gunslinger class specifically... grit seems fiddly and it's not quite what I personally was looking for for a gunslinger class. But I'm still glad they tried to come up with some rules for gunfighting and whatnot.
And the lovely thing about it being in a supplementary book is that if the GM doesn't want to use it, it's not a major adjustment to do so. So it's there for the people who like it, and can be disregarded by the people who don't.
Or when writers disguise naval battles as futuristic space battles.
On the clearest of nights, when the winds of the Etherium were calm and peaceful...
|
for the moment I like gunslinger, it has something easy going to it. But I would loose my respect for the class if it got called boomslinger.
First off, it reminds me a lot of the boom tubes from DC-comics. Also Boomsticks sound dirty, like: "my boomstick is ten inch long".
"Honestly, officer, we just pulled into this layby, to clean it, when it went off."
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.
Seriously if guns were magical weapons called Boomsticks & powered by alchemical dust and only useable by Boomslingers would people hate them less?
lol. I wouldn’t be surprised. Some posters freely admit they dislike the class on principle alone. I bet if you changed the flavor, they would be more receptive to the concept.
But ‘Boomslingers’ probably doesn’t go far enough. It is still pretty on the nose ‘Girt Archer’ that uses an ‘Alchemical Hand Crossbow’ maybe?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only complaint with the gunslingers, is you can't just throw in one gunslinger and have it be a super rare exception to the world. It's not particularly bad, but having guns commonplace to me means a remarkably different world in almost every aspect. (shops in town obviously have to have good stocks of bullets everywhere, which means to make sense there has to be many people with guns in the town), and also since it's a completely different weapon, that also means a gunslinger needs to be able to find an occasional nice gun off a villain, which means now I have to have gunslinger enemies. Alchemists you can pretty much assume they work with materials that others consider mundane etc... all other classes you can add in without greatly changing the setting to fit them in. Gunslingers not so much.
I don't see why people hate the idea of guns in fantasy, exp. when there is historical precedent, even in Western Europe.
There's a historical precedent for firearms in the broader sense, but not for the sort of things that Pathfinder allows. Now, I realize that Pathfinder allows for some things are not, shall we say, realistic -- ancient dragons, teleportation and raising the dead spring to mind -- but we're talking mundane technological advancements, the sort of thing that should be witnessed around the time period most people would envision would be more like a somewhat-cumbersome two-hand cannon, not the relatively easily reloadable musket and certainly not the easily portable pistol or even worse, revolver.
Whether the mechanics make these items balanced or not isn't the issue. Lincoln Hills made a great point about the "feel" of the scenario. If a Mechanist class was added that could program (primitive) computer-style robots to do work for him, but only for a couple hours each day until their batteries recharged (possibly in sunlight), it might wind up being balanced in the end but it wouldn't "feel" right in the game, and that's how the Gunslinger seems for me in most Pathfinder campaigns or scenarios. The very usage of "slinger" in the name makes these items feel sleek, quick and deadly which is at odds with how they shoud (as a new, primitive and potentially fatal to the user) advancement should feel.
|
|
Is it narrowminded to dislike guns (in D&D)?
No.
Absolutely not.It has nothing to do with "narrowmindedness." Despite the lovers defense mechanism to attack those of us who hate six-shooters and wild, wild west flavor in our D&D.
It's ALL about verisimilitude.
For many gamers, mixing the genres of fantasy just doesn't work. When we see it, we hate it. Our level of verisimilitude just won't accept guns in D&D. No more than most of us gamers could accept a PC named "Dingleberry" or "Runt-Boy," or a city in someone's game world named "New London" or "Alabama." Our level of verisimilitude won't allow it.
Our level of verisimilitude allows for women swinging swords and magical fireballs and nations of devil worshippers but not gummy bears or Gargamel. You put guns or cowboys or transformers or the USS Enterprise in our D&D and we hate it.
The argument that "real life history" has guns in the middle ages is ludicrous.
Sure, some gamers LOVE "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks." Lots of us, though, Hate it. (except for the Froghemoth, of course!)
Personally, im not much a fan o the gunslinger class. I tend to think of old flintlock guns when I think of guns in Pathfinder, and these guns weren't advanced nor effective enough to justify specializing in them. I admire Paizo's efforts, but i think that adding firearms as a fighter weapon group would have done it more justice. It makes more sense having them used by fighters, rogues, and alchemists then to have a seperate class for them altogether.
|
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.
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?
No because they are still wielding guns. I don't even like magic missle wands, as they too closely resemble a pistol of some kind. Boomsticks, guns, pistols - call them what you like, I don't want any of them in my game.
|
we can always turn the gunslinger into a crossbow slinger just fine. just change a few words.
and by the way, a repeating crossbow is already essentially a revolver. i'm sure that by the time one developed the magazine fed technology for a repeating crossbow, it would make sense that they can do the same for a revolver.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it narrowminded to dislike guns (in D&D)?No.
Absolutely not.It has nothing to do with "narrowmindedness." Despite the lovers defense mechanism to attack those of us who hate six-shooters and wild, wild west flavor in our D&D.
It's ALL about verisimilitude.
For many gamers, mixing the genres of fantasy just doesn't work. When we see it, we hate it. Our level of verisimilitude just won't accept guns in D&D. No more than most of us gamers could accept a PC named "Dingleberry" or "Runt-Boy," or a city in someone's game world named "New London" or "Alabama." Our level of verisimilitude won't allow it.
Our level of verisimilitude allows for women swinging swords and magical fireballs and nations of devil worshippers but not gummy bears or Gargamel. You put guns or cowboys or transformers or the USS Enterprise in our D&D and we hate it.
The argument that "real life history" has guns in the middle ages is ludicrous.
Sure, some gamers LOVE "Expedition to the Barrier Peaks." Lots of us, though, Hate it. (except for the Froghemoth, of course!)
Completely agreed... I love Guns in my games, and I always include as much as I can. I think that Guns provide an interesting schism... Players have to ask themselves... WHY would I want to shoot a rock out of a tube instead of firing a bolt of magic out of my hand, or pulling back a bowstring? Their answer leads them to make a character that's a little deeper if they have to ask "Why".
we can always turn the gunslinger into a crossbow slinger just fine. just change a few words.
and by the way, a repeating crossbow is already essentially a revolver. i'm sure that by the time one developed the magazine fed technology for a repeating crossbow, it would make sense that they can do the same for a revolver.
If memory serves me correctly, the chinese had repeating crossbows around the same time they had guns. The method that allowed for revolvers was the caplock system: where bullets were stored in metal casings with the appropriate amount of powder and were ignited with a hammer striking the back of the chamber (more or less, not going to go into full deails here). If history had played differently, we could of had revolvers and (god forbid) full-auto weapons easily before the collapse of the roman empire. But we didn't. It's just how it played out : /
we can always turn the gunslinger into a crossbow slinger just fine. just change a few words.
and by the way, a repeating crossbow is already essentially a revolver. i'm sure that by the time one developed the magazine fed technology for a repeating crossbow, it would make sense that they can do the same for a revolver.
A repeating crossbow is different than a revolver. The technology for the former existed more than two thousand years before the latter, at least according to the internet. That's a huge difference. Now, whatever variation of the repeating crossbow Paizo has put in, perhaps is newer, but it's not nearly as advanced as a revolver would be.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
i have to quote this post, just for the Lulz
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.
if you already mixed so many genres, whose to say you can't put more flavors in the melting pot?
why can't one wild west cowboy with a pair of revolvers mesh with the scenario i quoted?
since you mixed so many flavors in the soup, a few more won't hurt it.
i have to quote this post, just for the Lulz
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.
If a post could "win" at posting on forums, this would be the winner
|
|
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?
well this is an interesting question. would one hate a boom stick? hmm or how about a "wand slinger?" I remember in the Stone Pact Pyramid module an NPC had a "wand rifle".
I will have to admit i disliked the wand rifle.
so would you like the "gunslinger" more if it has a magical rather then a chemical explaination? or rather less hostile?
Possibly. If the Alchemist is the "nose" of the Camel trying to get into the tent, then the gunslinger would be the rest of the camel.
Interestingly the only reason I was able to swallow the Alchemist's bombs was because it drew off the Alchemist's own magic.
Hmm I wonder if i even made any sense.
I like guns in fantasy, provided your fantasy actually has guns in it. Iron Kingdoms did a really stellar job of incorporating guns into fantasy. The problem I have is: Golarion, for the most part, doesn't have guns in it. In fact, until a few months ago, nobody even knew that Golarion had guns in it.
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"
So, in Alkenstar they have guns. Which is awesome. There's not much published material in Alkenstar, which is both good and bad, but it does mean that a DM can do pretty much whatever he wants in Alkenstar without contradiction.
So what if a player wants to play a Gunslinger, but my campaign is in Ustalav? They don't have guns in Ustalav. That means the player will be stuck with his starting weapon for most, if not all of the game.
That's doable, there's a spell to make his gun masterwork, and he can enchant his gun even if he can't buy a new one.
He has to make his own bullets and powder, though. That can take as long as two or three weeks to make one adventure worth of bullets, unless he has a back up weapon and conserves ammo, in which case, why play a Gunslinger at all?
Do I completely overhaul the crafting rules? Do I let him make bullets faster? How fast? If he wants to shoot 100 shots a day, do I let him make bullets that quickly in his downtime? I know a lot of people don't, but I happen to like verisimilitude.
So, in Alkenstar, I'm all for guns. Woo, guns! Everywhere else, I'm not sure players will want to deal with the headaches I'd be inclined to present them because I don't like to hand wave away problems like: guns where there are no guns; and I don't feel like rewriting volumes of published material to have guns be prevalent in Ustalav.
Of course, I don't like Grit, either, but that's an entirely different rant.
|
|
i have a lot of buddies who have a hard time spelling and properly using grammar. i guess that when i read thier posts, it must have eventually rubbed off on me.
my pitching arm isn't as good as it used to be.
but spending 3 years in hgh school twiddling your thumbs because you got all your credits in the freshman year isn't that good for your intellect, nor is it good for your sanity either. actually, the high school i went to was the worst place for one's sanity.
Apathetic, Lazy, Sinful teachers who played board games and looked up porn. students who looked up porn, the school newspaper staff of only 2 or 3 people wrote poorly written bad shonen style violent sexual fanfiction. worst overpriced smut ever.
students got graded progressively better for progressively more aggressive violence. knocking a classmate out for 2 hours was effectively an A plus for the day.
my high school was Hell.
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!
But a pinch of salt is a very good way to take away some of the bitterness of extra dark roasts, letting you enjoy more of the other flavors unique to them.[/Good Eats]
I dislike the Gunfighter class, and I'd still dislike it if you called the guns something silly. If Paizo had published a setting based on 15th or 16th century Europe (Musketeers, Swashbucklers, Steampunk, Renascence Fantasy, etc.) I would feel differently.
I also dislike the Ninja and Samurai classes, but wouldn't mind them a bit if they were published with an appropriate game setting.
Ultimate Combat is a setting-neutral book, so it is up to the GM how much or how little a place firearms and gunslingers would have in their setting. And if you are talking Golarion specifically, advanced firearms do not exist, so you cannot have the stereotypical Wild West gunslinger in Paizo's setting without house ruling it. I just wish that there was a Golarion-specific version of the gunslinger that used a different name for the class because of this.
|
|
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.
|
|
I like guns in fantasy, provided your fantasy actually has guns in it. Iron Kingdoms did a really stellar job of incorporating guns into fantasy. The problem I have is: Golarion, for the most part, doesn't have guns in it. In fact, until a few months ago, nobody even knew that Golarion had guns in it.
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"So, in Alkenstar they have guns. Which is awesome. There's not much published material in Alkenstar, which is both good and bad, but it does mean that a DM can do pretty much whatever he wants in Alkenstar without contradiction.
So what if a player wants to play a Gunslinger, but my campaign is in Ustalav? They don't have guns in Ustalav. That means the player will be stuck with his starting weapon for most, if not all of the game.
That's doable, there's a spell to make his gun masterwork, and he can enchant his gun even if he can't buy a new one.
He has to make his own bullets and powder, though. That can take as long as two or three weeks to make one adventure worth of bullets, unless he has a back up weapon and conserves ammo, in which case, why play a Gunslinger at all?Do I completely overhaul the crafting rules? Do I let him make bullets faster? How fast? If he wants to shoot 100 shots a day, do I let him make bullets that quickly in his downtime? I know a lot of people don't, but I happen to like verisimilitude.
So, in Alkenstar, I'm all for guns. Woo, guns! Everywhere else, I'm not sure players will want to deal with the headaches I'd be inclined to present...
Well the nice thing about the Kitchen sink approach to Golalrion is that you can take what you want and leave the rest. No guns in Ustalav? No problem, you can put them there yourself.
I think one interesting tid bit about the fire arms rules in the UC, is that you can decide if you want primative or advanced fire arms avaiable, and depending on their availability that also dictates your price. We as GMs are encouraged to make the world our own. So if you want guns in your campaign, great, you can put guns, six shooters, and fire belching flame throwers if you want in your campaign. I think the good thing for all of us, is by limiting the published materiel saying that guns are in alkenstar, and they jelously guard their secrets, is that it lets those that want guns have a reasonable explanation for them being there. And those that don't want guns, like myself, can keep them locked up in Alkenstar. Heck if Alkenstar particularly offends me, as a GM i could unleash a heard of purple worms and have them eat Alkenstar if i want to. Blame it all on Roguvug.
I hope this helps.
