Mysterious Stranger / Pistolero legality


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge 5/5

Except that you cannot have two archetypes that replace or modify any class abilities.

Gun training is modified to pistol training. That negates any other archetype that also modifies or replaces gun training.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Michael Brock wrote:
What I will advise is it is a loophole that allows a very cheesy build. A large majority of people know it is a loophole. Do not be surprised when the loophole is closed through errata and we do not allow any type of rebuild. If you are abusing the combo now due to the loophole currently in place, do not complain when you do not get any form of rebuild what so ever in the future.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cao Phen wrote:
Michael Brock wrote:
What I will advise is it is a loophole that allows a very cheesy build. A large majority of people know it is a loophole. Do not be surprised when the loophole is closed through errata and we do not allow any type of rebuild. If you are abusing the combo now due to the loophole currently in place, do not complain when you do not get any form of rebuild what so ever in the future.

Which strongly indicates that there was a typo.

What's written in the book is not an excuse to claim RAW vs. RAI or even argue such, when it is abundantly clear what RAW is supposed to be.

I can't think of any other cases such as this one with this particular distinction.

But in this case, claiming RAW vs. RAI as an excuse to try and force a PFS GM to play the way you want, is paramount to bullying and being a jerk.

You know what RAW is supposed to be, so stop saying its RAI.

This isn't a situation of mistaken interpretation or commonly mistaken interpretation where a developer or contributor posts about the way the ability was/is intended to work. That's a valid RAW vs. RAI argument.

This is not. This is clearly an error in what made it to print, so RAW IS that these two archetypes don't work, and that pistol training replaces gun training. And just because we have to wait for a reprint to get this made official is not an excuse to be a dufus about it.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Oh, I agree that this does not suppose to stack. Just referencing to those who want to try and do this thing that once they fix it, people can not complain that their characacter can NOT have a rebuild.


But Pistol Training Doesnt Replace gun Training. It doesnt say it explicitly so RAW it is legal?

Dark Archive

It is legal until otherwise noted.

HOWEVER, once it becomes illegal, the character is effectively dead, without the ability to be brought back.

Shadow Lodge

hotsauceman wrote:
But Pistol Training Doesnt Replace gun Training. It doesnt say it explicitly so RAW it is legal?

Except, as I pointed out much earlier in the thread, Pistolero is a parallel to Musket Master, and Musket Training, the Musket Master version of Pistol Training, says it replaces Firearm Training.

If you want to say that Pistolero/Mysterious Stranger is RAW legal, then Musket Master is RAW illegal because no gunslinger has Firearm Training for it to replace.

Musket Master wrote:
Musket Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a musket master increases her skill with two-handed firearms. She gains a bonus on damage rolls equal to her Dexterity modifier, and when she misfires with a two-handed firearm, the misfire value increases by 2 instead of 4. Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), the bonus on damage rolls increases by +1. At 13th level, a musket master never misfires with a two-handed firearm. This replaces firearm training 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Pistolerp wrote:
Pistol Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a pistolero increases her skill with one-handed firearms. She gains a bonus on damage rolls equal to her Dexterity modifier, and when she misfires with a one-handed firearm, the misfire value increases by 2 instead of 4. Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), the bonus on damage rolls increases by +1. At 13th level, a pistolero never misfires with a one-handed firearm.

Tell me, why should one of these replace something while the other one is free?

5/5 5/55/55/5

Because MORE DAKKA!

That's why.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Titania, the Summer Queen wrote:

It is legal until otherwise noted.

HOWEVER, once it becomes illegal, the character is effectively dead, without the ability to be brought back.

...THAT IS CORRECT!

Since you are unable to retrain a conflicted archetype, you have an invalid character. With that, the now illegal/invalid character has no way to become valid. It is a time paradox!!!!

So it is your choice if you want to run it. But once they make the eratta, your character will have is mind blown.

/insert Jackie Chan image

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

So...this has been a known issues for MONTHS now. There has been a FAQ and errata since this has been a known issue and they still have not fixed it yet (which seriously tells me that the rules dev thinks it SHOULD stack). They then going well...if it becomes illegal in the future, you don't get a retrain sends a really bad precedence. Your ALWAYS suppose to get a retrain option when the rules change out from under you. Now if Mike REALLY does not like it stacking for PFS, he can just say you can't do it in PFS and be done with it. He has that power.


Cold Napalm wrote:
(which seriously tells me that the rules dev thinks it SHOULD stack).

Feel free start a thread asking this, just for FAQ clicks.

It's annoying to have to actually go to that length for something so obvious, but you know, sure.

A pity that e-mails aren't publically link-able, but oh well.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Cheapy wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
(which seriously tells me that the rules dev thinks it SHOULD stack).

Feel free start a thread asking this, just for FAQ clicks.

It's annoying to have to actually go to that length for something so obvious, but you know, sure.

A pity that e-mails aren't publically link-able, but oh well.

Because I don't really care and I have zero intrest in making such a build (I have better things to do with gunslingers that amuse me more :P ). However, I have no problem with anyone who wants to do such things.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cold Napalm wrote:
known issues for MONTHS now. There has been a FAQ and errata since this has been a known issue

I'm pretty sure they have not printed UC 2nd printing and as a result there has been no errata published for UC. So any kind of "they didn't fix it yet" argument is moot. They have not had a chance to state it has been changed yet.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Cold Napalm wrote:
So...this has been a known issues for MONTHS now. There has been a FAQ and errata since this has been a known issue and they still have not fixed it yet (which seriously tells me that the rules dev thinks it SHOULD stack). They then going well...if it becomes illegal in the future, you don't get a retrain sends a really bad precedence. Your ALWAYS suppose to get a retrain option when the rules change out from under you. Now if Mike REALLY does not like it stacking for PFS, he can just say you can't do it in PFS and be done with it. He has that power.

This isn't Mike's lane. It is the developers or designers, or whoever, if he makes a rule like this, people will be asking left and right for him to give a ruling on such and such build. He has consistently said it is not his lane.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Risner wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
known issues for MONTHS now. There has been a FAQ and errata since this has been a known issue
I'm pretty sure they have not printed UC 2nd printing and as a result there has been no errata published for UC. So any kind of "they didn't fix it yet" argument is moot. They have not had a chance to state it has been changed yet.

Correct there as no been a second printing of UC, therefore there has not been an errata. They only print Erratas when there is a new printing.

Except for a very small few exceptions they also don't add to the FAQs errata issues.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ow7c&page=2?Mysterious-StrangerPistolero-l egality#77

This should answer everything about the topic.

Shadow Lodge

Netopalis wrote:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ow7c&page=2?Mysterious-StrangerPistolero-l egality#77

This should answer everything about the topic.

You would think so, but apparently the campaign coordinator coming out and stating that it's a loophole (which by very definition means it's unintended) isn't enough for some people to accept the fact that they're NOT supposed to stack.

Yes, they left out the part that explicitly states that Pistol Training is supposed to replace Gun Training. Yes, that means that technically you can use it in PFS... for now.

But the campaign coordinator has straight up called it a loophole, identifying it as NOT RAI. He has flat out stated that while this is technically permitted, it is a flat-out abuse of a loophole. To make this simple:

You CAN do this, but you really, REALLY shouldn't.

You've been told that it's not intended. Even if you think it's not an over-powered combination, you've still been told that you're not suppose to be able to do it. You know you shouldn't do it, so don't do it.

Seriously, guys, if you're this much of a munchkin, you'll be going to the special hell, with the people who talk in the theater.

Side note:
On a different note, when Mr. Brock wrote his "no rebuild" statement, this was before the Ultimate Campaign retraining rules were introduced. Under the current rules, if the player had a copy of Ultimate Campaign, they could use it to make the character legal again, but it would be prohibitively expensive, costing either twenty five or thirty prestige, depending on whether or not the modified weapon proficiencies count for the retraining cost.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

Cold Napalm wrote:


Because I don't really care and I have zero intrest in making such a build (I have better things to do with gunslingers that amuse me more :P ).

Like continuously trying to kill both of mine.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Dragnmoon wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
known issues for MONTHS now. There has been a FAQ and errata since this has been a known issue
I'm pretty sure they have not printed UC 2nd printing and as a result there has been no errata published for UC. So any kind of "they didn't fix it yet" argument is moot. They have not had a chance to state it has been changed yet.

Correct there as no been a second printing of UC, therefore there has not been an errata. They only print Erratas when there is a new printing.

Except for a very small few exceptions they also don't add to the FAQs errata issues.

Opps...your right. The errata was for UM.

As for the FAQ...maybe they SHOULD then if they are gonna be slow with the errata. Or just accept that they are slow to fix thing and not punish people with what is currently a legal build with an ad hoc you can't rebuild it later because the dev team wants to be slow about fixing known issues.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

thistledown wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:


Because I don't really care and I have zero intrest in making such a build (I have better things to do with gunslingers that amuse me more :P ).
Like continuously trying to kill both of mine.

Hehe...well yes that too. Also I find the blunderbuss WAY more fun then pistols. Not as good mind you...but more fun.

Liberty's Edge 1/5

Cold Napalm wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
known issues for MONTHS now. There has been a FAQ and errata since this has been a known issue
I'm pretty sure they have not printed UC 2nd printing and as a result there has been no errata published for UC. So any kind of "they didn't fix it yet" argument is moot. They have not had a chance to state it has been changed yet.

Correct there as no been a second printing of UC, therefore there has not been an errata. They only print Erratas when there is a new printing.

Except for a very small few exceptions they also don't add to the FAQs errata issues.

Opps...your right. The errata was for UM.

As for the FAQ...maybe they SHOULD then if they are gonna be slow with the errata. Or just accept that they are slow to fix thing and not punish people with what is currently a legal build with an ad hoc you can't rebuild it later because the dev team wants to be slow about fixing known issues.

The dev team doesn't want to be slow about fixing things and you damn well know it. They may be slow to fix things, a point I do not necessarily agree with, but I can guarantee that if they had unlimited time in their work day that all faqs would be resolved in a very short amount of time. Not that that would stop some people from complaining.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

graywulfe wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Cold Napalm wrote:
known issues for MONTHS now. There has been a FAQ and errata since this has been a known issue
I'm pretty sure they have not printed UC 2nd printing and as a result there has been no errata published for UC. So any kind of "they didn't fix it yet" argument is moot. They have not had a chance to state it has been changed yet.

Correct there as no been a second printing of UC, therefore there has not been an errata. They only print Erratas when there is a new printing.

Except for a very small few exceptions they also don't add to the FAQs errata issues.

Opps...your right. The errata was for UM.

As for the FAQ...maybe they SHOULD then if they are gonna be slow with the errata. Or just accept that they are slow to fix thing and not punish people with what is currently a legal build with an ad hoc you can't rebuild it later because the dev team wants to be slow about fixing known issues.

The dev team doesn't want to be slow about fixing things and you damn well know it. They may be slow to fix things, a point I do not necessarily agree with, but I can guarantee that if they had unlimited time in their work day that all faqs would be resolved in a very short amount of time. Not that that would stop some people from complaining.

Fine, they may not want to be slow, but like you said, that doesn't negate the fact that they ARE slow. To punish players because the dev team is being slow is unreasonable and quite frankly unfair IMHO. That is the problem I have with this whole issue and how it is being handled.


It really has nothing to do with the dev team. They do errata when they print new books. When a new printing of ultimate combat comes out the errata will happen. If you want it faster buy more copies of the book.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

Well if not an errata (which I get that they match with printings), then at least a FAQ or...I don't a dev team member saying SOMETHING about this issue at least would be nice. It's been a thorn for how long now?!?

Besides which, the main issue isn't so much that the dev team is slow, it's the whole well you either don't use these two archetypes...despite us knowing NOTHING of how the dev team will go with it or risk an illegal character because for some reason, unlike EVERY OTHER RULES THAT GETS CHANGED, you don't get a rebuild option.

Dark Archive 4/5

You guys just need to give it up. Seriously you're beating a horse that's dead, and animated. It's legal, it's cheese, but it doesn't matter. Until campaign says otherwise, just deal with it.

Just because someone play's a cheesed character, doesn't give anyone the right to say "You can't do that" much as I'd be looked at as if I were out of my mind if I said "You can't do that" to someone who wanted to talk with an accent or roleplay their character.

By the way, I have had both of these things done to me in the past. "You can't use an accent to talk. It distract's from the game".

Just have fun. if its cheese gaming do it, if it's roleplaying do it. have fun, and remember, its a game.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dude, you're comparing apples and existential philosophies.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Cold Napalm wrote:
at least a FAQ ... dev team member saying SOMETHING about this issue

I believe this is how the meeting went when it was offered up as FAQ:

FAQ Submission: Pistol Training and Gun Training stack right?
Dev: Who let the joke questions get past the filter? Of course they don't stack! Filter guy! Come here and explain yourself! ;-)

Sin of Asmodeus wrote:
It's legal, it's cheese, but it doesn't matter. Until campaign says otherwise, just deal with it.

There has been enough push back on it from Paizo that I don't consider it legal ;-)

Dark Archive 4/5

I certainly don't allow it, and I chalk it up to 'expect table variation'.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

I think RAI completely meant for someone to get double Dex on damage with the Pistolero. The Pistolero sacrificed the ability to use other guns without a spending a feat. Therefore it is stuck essentially fighting in close quarters... which require more feats. To make up for it the developers essentially gave it a super weapon specialization... on a weapon that can jam in combat and require a full round action and a roll to continue. No other class is built around a weapon with a fumble and thus no other class can fumble. So... I do think the Pistolero is meant to do more damage god... they deserve it. By high levels the extra five to seven points isn't going to be the huge difference maker... it's not like they get a WHOLE extra arrow with damage modifies and all when they full attack.

I am biased for two reasons. I am now making a Mysterious Pistolero and I think a class built around ranged combat should at least be as good as a fighter with a bow - at least AS good. Because of the whole fumbling thing, I have not given the Gunslinger a lot of credit, so really anything that makes it a bit better is OK with me. I know at high levels gunslingers can be really cool but as I see it, and I could be wrong, you are sweating the early levels - cause you are broke from buying ammunition and your attacks don't do lots of damage for a time... oh and there is chance EVERY attack that you just broke your class's, not your character's, your class's chosen weapon. In fact I have not seen a pure gunslinger YET they all seem multiclassed cause... I think the early levels are kind of a chore. Oh yeah and since it is REALLY hard to have more than one attack a round, a first of second level monk and completely nullify the only real attack the whole class has.

Please, I am not trying to sound like a jerk, I just think gunslinger was a good idea - a rather well executed class - but because archery is SO powerful (there are lots of things that are powerful Archery is probably not the most of which) it dominates ranged combat and if you want to make a ranged character; by the numbers you buy a bow and that is sort of sad. So that is why I sound like a jerk. I really mean no offense.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Amenhotep wrote:

I think RAI completely meant for someone to get double Dex on damage with the Pistolero. The Pistolero sacrificed the ability to use other guns without a spending a feat. Therefore it is stuck essentially fighting in close quarters... which require more feats. To make up for it the developers essentially gave it a super weapon specialization... on a weapon that can jam in combat and require a full round action and a roll to continue. No other class is built around a weapon with a fumble and thus no other class can fumble. So... I do think the Pistolero is meant to do more damage god... they deserve it. By high levels the extra five to seven points isn't going to be the huge difference maker... it's not like they get a WHOLE extra arrow with damage modifies and all when they full attack.

I am biased for two reasons. I am now making a Mysterious Pistolero and I think a class built around ranged combat should at least be as good as a fighter with a bow - at least AS good. Because of the whole fumbling thing, I have not given the Gunslinger a lot of credit, so really anything that makes it a bit better is OK with me. I know at high levels gunslingers can be really cool but as I see it, and I could be wrong, you are sweating the early levels - cause you are broke from buying ammunition and your attacks don't do lots of damage for a time... oh and there is chance EVERY attack that you just broke your class's, not your character's, your class's chosen weapon. In fact I have not seen a pure gunslinger YET they all seem multiclassed cause... I think the early levels are kind of a chore. Oh yeah and since it is REALLY hard to have more than one attack a round, a first of second level monk and completely nullify the only real attack the whole class has.

Please, I am not trying to sound like a jerk, I just think gunslinger was a good idea - a rather well executed class - but because archery is SO powerful (there are lots of things that are powerful Archery is probably not the most of which) it dominates ranged...

So Mike basically saying that what you said above is not the case, doesn't sway your opinion at all?

And its been proven, that even a pistolero, can very much be on par with an archer. They don't need any beefing up.

I would seriously advise against making a Mysterious Pistolero.

4/5

Amenhotep wrote:
I am biased for two reasons. I am now making a Mysterious Pistolero and I think a class built around ranged combat should at least be as good as a fighter with a bow - at least AS good. Because of the whole fumbling thing, I have not given the Gunslinger a lot of credit, so really anything that makes it a bit better is OK with me. I know at high levels gunslingers can be really cool but as I see it, and I could be wrong, you are sweating the early levels - cause you are broke from buying ammunition and your attacks don't do lots of damage for a time... oh and there is chance EVERY attack that you just broke your class's, not your character's, your class's chosen weapon. In fact I have not seen a pure gunslinger YET they all seem multiclassed cause... I think the early levels are kind of a chore. Oh yeah and since it is REALLY hard to have more than one attack a round, a first of second level monk and completely nullify the only real attack the whole class has.

If you are making that Mysterious Pistolero for PFS you should seriously reconsider. The campaign coordinator has called out that specific combination as exploiting a loophole and you will not get a rebuild if a later FAQ or errata clarifies that Pistol Training replaces Gun Training.

/ninja'd

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

You are not sounding "like a jerk". You know that the build is technically legal now, because of a development error, and that the loop-hole will close at some point soon.

So you sound like somebody who really wants to play a cool character, knowing that many GMs will outlaw it now, and that at some point in the forseeable future, it'll be banned and you won't get to play it any longer. You're hoping that the short and turbulent life expectancy is a fair trade-off for a fun character.

Just promise us you won't give your GMs grief if they refuse to seat the character now.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

Hey Amenhotep!

Thanks for sharing your opinions. You make some good points there, which will open the door for some good discussion. That's awesome. Discussion rocks.

I would agree with the other posters here, however, when they council you against making one of these characters in PFS. Mike's statement effectively calls out this class combination as a loophole. Whether you agree with that assessment or not, that's the current state of affairs for the PFS world.

I'm only saying this because PFS rules follow two things at the moment. The first is the RAW. That is only overwritten by and Mike/Mark/John say, the Guide to PFS effectively being their written word. And since Mike has given his opinion on the matter, you're only going to end up disappointed if you start investing in your Mysterious Pistolero.

If you'd like to get an official ruling to support your belief on the RAI, then I'd recommend you direct your post to the rules forums, and flag it for an FAQ. If this issue garnered so much attention here, I imagine it will get a lot of hits over there.

Hopefully you can get a response, one way or the other, and settle this issue both inside and outside PFS.

But if you proceed with your build as planned, I imagine you'll find some resistance from table GMs that are only doing their best to interpret some pretty murky rules dialogue.

Anyway, just my thoughts.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Amenhotep wrote:
The Pistolero sacrificed the ability to use other guns without a spending a feat. Therefore it is stuck essentially fighting in close quarters... which require more feats.

How often are you more than 30-40 feet away from someone in a fight?

Specializing in one kind of gun is a non cost, since you only have one action to use anyway. Why would you even carry around two kinds of guns anyway?

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
And its been proven, that even a pistolero, can very much be on par with an archer. They don't need any beefing up.

Slightly off topic here, but I have heard of a giant thread that discussed this at length, but cannot find it for the life of me. Do you happen to know of this thread Andrew, and if so, could you kindly point me toward it?

Outside of extreme range, I have no idea how people have the perception of archer being superior, and am curious to read their view points.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Lormyr wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
And its been proven, that even a pistolero, can very much be on par with an archer. They don't need any beefing up.

Slightly off topic here, but I have heard of a giant thread that discussed this at length, but cannot find it for the life of me. Do you happen to know of this thread Andrew, and if so, could you kindly point me toward it?

Outside of extreme range, I have no idea how people have the perception of archer being superior, and am curious to read their view points.

I don't have the thread handy to point you too, but yes, that's the thread I'm referring to.

The math was all done showing that gunslingers are roughly on par with archers for DPR. Slightly better for the larger creatures, slightly worse for the quick creatures as levels are gained.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't have the thread handy to point you too, but yes, that's the thread I'm referring to.

The math was all done showing that gunslingers are roughly on par with archers for DPR. Slightly better for the larger creatures, slightly worse for the quick creatures as levels are gained.

Ok, thanks for the heads up Andrew.

I think archers have the clear edge before 5th level. It then becomes fairly comparable until 13th level, and then the gunslinger pulls so far ahead it's not even sporting.

Should you happen to stumble across the thread again, I'll thank you for the link. I've searched gunslinger vs. archer, guns vs. bow, swapped the word comparison, and a few other varieties but cannot seem to find the thing. I am admittedly terrible with the internet, however.

Scarab Sages 2/5

Bah, who need arrows or guns when you can throw a rock for 2d4+21 at level 8 that Auto-Crits on a 20?

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Lormyr wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't have the thread handy to point you too, but yes, that's the thread I'm referring to.

The math was all done showing that gunslingers are roughly on par with archers for DPR. Slightly better for the larger creatures, slightly worse for the quick creatures as levels are gained.

Ok, thanks for the heads up Andrew.

I think archers have the clear edge before 5th level. It then becomes fairly comparable until 13th level, and then the gunslinger pulls so far ahead it's not even sporting.

Should you happen to stumble across the thread again, I'll thank you for the link. I've searched gunslinger vs. archer, guns vs. bow, swapped the word comparison, and a few other varieties but cannot seem to find the thing. I am admittedly terrible with the internet, however.

If I run across it, I'll definitely let you know. I don't recall the name either... and I'm thinking it was actually on the public forums and only linked here.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

I have no idea why so many people are against the idea. Elvan Chainmail is light armor because there was a mistake and it was printed as light armor... and they decided it was nice that Elvan Chainmail was different than standard mithral armor. Sometimes mistakes make the game better.

The Mysterious Pistolero is actually the smallest reason I am disappointed. Who cares if the gunslinger can use Charisma instead of Wisdom. Honestly this should have been a Charisma class from the get go; that just corrects something. But really this is about players and a fun game. I think it would have been nice to see double dexterity damage. I am not trying to break the game nor do I condone that. It's pretty easy to break this game - it's just math after all; We could all just play summoners cause Eidolons break the game everyday. I would have liked double dexterity damage because I want to see a player who took the chance to play a risky, flavor based class have as much fun as the great-sword fighter or the wizard. Being a Gunslinger is hard. Period. What other class has to pay so much gold just to use their class abilities? And again, what other class has fumble rules written into it? And I keep coming back to that because I have seen how deflating those fumbles can be. People are trying to play a something right out of Unforgiven (double pistol wielding Pirate); something incredible cool you know a Pistolero or a Mysterious Stranger that comes to town on a dust storm (people are playing exactly what the developers wanted)and when they roll poorly, which happens, it almost like they can't play the character they intended. It becomes almost slap stick. In fact, I have been suggesting that anyone who seriously wants to play that type of character should just play a light repeating crossbow character who duel wields (just a dip into Inquisitor). Yeah you don't get touch attacks or dexterity to damage but you don't fumble, you don't pay a mint for every attack, your exotic weapons are cheaper than the guns, and you can actually play the "Two Guns" character you really wanted. With some fighter levels (cause that is what you are taking instead of Gunslinger) you get Weapon Mastery and specialization - now you aren't so far behind the dexterity for damage. Sure the grit stuff is nice, but when you really think about it half of the grit deeds seem just to mitigate a whole bunch of suck... spend a grit point and this class is a bit better.

I am being harsh. I know. But this class is a roll playing class more than so many other classes (it gives carrots for good roll playing while summoning up images of Americana that we all understand) and I want to see it live. Double dexterity damage would have helped and that is all this class needs - a little help.

I'm not saying that guns are completely useless - touch attack at short range with an amazing critical multiplier - I don't see why a fighter can't be a better gunslinger than a Gunslinger.

Regarding the range of pistols: The range is fine but the touch attack range is... shorter and that is what people are going for. The musket is like forty feet. The pistol is twenty feet. Against one big bad guy with fighters to block - you are correct. But if it is a virtual melee with lots of enemies, I think at twenty foot range you are in the thick of it pretty much all the time and will be provoking or having to avoid AoO's a lot.

Grand Lodge 4/5 **

I have seen plenty of powerful gunslingers without double dipping dex. I am all for these stacking...but to say that gunslingers NEED it isn't quite true. gunslinger if you want them newbie friendly needs it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

So you want to blow away the bad guy, making attack rolls you can't miss, from so far away that they can't move up to you and attack?

No. Just no.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
If I run across it, I'll definitely let you know. I don't recall the name either... and I'm thinking it was actually on the public forums and only linked here.

Gotcha, thanks big guy!

The Exchange 5/5 RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Amenhotep wrote:
And again, what other class has fumble rules written into it?

Alchemists. And they don't have magic barrel-cleaning devices that prevent their fumbles.

There's a lot in your last post, not much of it well-explained. I think that you would have served your purposes better if you had chosen one point and built support for it.

Amenhotep wrote:
... when they roll poorly, which happens, it almost like they can't play the character they intended ...

But the quotation above, I think, is telling. Every single class is at the mercy of the dice. If rangers can't make their attack rolls, if rogues can't make their skill checks, if witches keep seeing their victims make saving throws, if fate turns against anybody ... the player isn't going to get a chance to play the character as intended. If that's your benchmark, that you want to play a PC that works just fine even when the dice are against him, then you're not going to be happy with any character concept. Any legal concept, I should say.

In general, I think you're getting push-back because we think that a Mysterious Stranger / Pistolero combination is stronger than other Gunslingers. It isn't balanced, and it isn't fair.

You think it's more powerful, too. That's why you want it. That's fine, play it under the GMs who will allow it, but understand that when the revision comes down, the character will be retired from PFS play.

Dark Archive 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It could be argued that since both archetypes modify the 'Deeds' Class Feature that they cannot stack, right?

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Andrew Christian wrote:
I don't have the thread handy to point you too, but yes, that's the thread I'm referring to.

The last time I did the math, I couldn't find a 15th level build that wasn't out damaged by an optimized archer class.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

James Risner wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
I don't have the thread handy to point you too, but yes, that's the thread I'm referring to.
The last time I did the math, I couldn't find a 15th level build that wasn't out damaged by an optimized archer class.

If you happen to have a strong archer build of that type on hand, I'd love to do a little side-by-side for purposes of comparison and debate.

The archer definitely does as good or better at ranges past 40 ft. At 40 ft. in though, I think the pistolero has to pull ahead though, since none of his attacks will miss standard monsters, he has more attacks, and adds the completely insane 4d6 up close and deadly damage every shot.

We've played very few PFS combats where that 40 ft. range wasn't closed with one move action.

Silly story - do not read if you intend to play the reign of winter part 6:
After we completed this AP, we went back and had a mock "what if we had picked a fight" battle with Baba Yaga. Her stat block is fearsome, but with the thread of fate you get during that AP, both the wizard and gunslinger in our group beat her in initiative. Wizard threw up an antimagic field and then moves 15 ft. placing him 10 ft. away from her (and in the antimagic), and then the gunslinger literally shredded her 700-something hit points away in 1 round of full attacks, granted with 2 of his 12 shots landing criticals. Antimagic field aside, the gunslinger mercing the bbeg in less than a full round was a common occurrence for us from 5th level all the way through 19th.


Hi,
Long time listener, first time caller.
While I don't have a dog in this fight, something occurred to me, one of those niggling little thoughts that worms away behind the eyes and won't go away until you've finished cleaning all the knives......

Sorry, where was I?
Oh, right! Gunslingers.
While the arguments for why the 2 archetypes in question shouldn't stack, are all very convincing... isn't it remotely possible that they are actually intended to?

I know, I know, crazy talk, clearly trying to exploit loopholes, and so on and so forth. But bear with me a moment.

Flavour-wise, the two archetypes just taste so well together that it'd be a missed opportunity if, as suspected, they don't legally mix.
What if the one line that would stop the marriage being rules legal if only it hadn't been left out, was left out specifically so this combination could work, while cutting off others that aren't so delicious?

We know from other sources that you can't legally double-dip on +Dex to damage from having both gun training and pistol training anyway, so that's not really a concern with the discussion on whether pistol training replaces gun training.
If we run on an assumption that they -do- go together, what breaks? What other problems would be thrown up by pistol training not replacing gun training?

(I'm not trying to say anyone's wrong. I'm pretty convinced they don't legally go together. I just haven't seen this particular angle explored in the discussion, and it strikes me as one worth considering)

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston

They are clearly not intended to go together. Campaign staff has made that clear.


Ahh.
I'm still new to all this, and not familiar enough with the Society stuff to know who are writers, who have a hotline to development staff, and such like.

151 to 200 of 332 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Mysterious Stranger / Pistolero legality All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.