| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...All that insect stuff only works on the small scale. Even a fairy dragon is too big.
Pretty much. There are biomechanical tricks which can help creatures work a little better, but most dragons aren't little. I wouldn't call a fairy dragon impossible (since it is about the size of a large bird), but a house sized dragon? No way.
Suggesting that bio-mechanical tricks can overcome the absurd gulf between real life material properties and what a large dragon actually needs to exist is basically the equivalent of suggesting that improving a car's spark plug ignition timings can let it tow aircraft carriers along the bottom of the ocean.
If your campaign is set in Golarion then 90% of the world's guns are produced and remain in the city of Alkenstar in the Mana Wastes of Central-Eastern Garund. RP-wise if you're a Gunslinger you have to hail from, or have spent substantial time in Alkenstar to learn the art of gunsmithing (or have a special-snowflake case where you were taught the art by [insert random craftsman from Alkenstar who teaches PC how to gunsmith in wherever the PC decides they were taught], or you "learned yourself" (which can be very difficult to justify without the appropriate stats). It's especially problematic if a player wants to multiclass into Gunslinger while in a region where guns aren't really present let alone some roleplaying justification for learning Gunsmithing.
Gunslingers present some balance issues some of the time depending on how they are built (but so do a lot of other classes). They aren't necessarily overpowered but their ability to hit touch AC with weapons that deal DEX to damage (after a certain point) at a range, without the limitations placed on casters can be a bit... Less than appealing to some GMs. I'm not saying those GMs are right or wrong however, but I won't ever call a GM wrong for opting to omit guns from his campaign.
As well I find many don't oppose the idea of guns in Pathfinder or D&D from a perspective of "there weren't guns in medieval times" but the idea of guns usually feels more in-line with modern times and strikes many is a bit out of place in a realm of swords and sorcery. Robots also tend to feel very out of place (and yet Numeria exists).
Plus as anime and many video games have taught us, "Guns are Worthless" < that's a linkPS. I'm not really arguing in favor of or against guns, I wouldn't even call it playing devil's advocate. I just feel that nobody is really right or wrong in deciding to take an issue with guns or not, and I feel that people should be willing to accept if a GM decides they'd rather not have guns (or any other class/item/feat/etc) in their game.
Having real balance issues or problems fitting a gunslinger into Golarion is fine. I just can't stand the idea that "Guns + Fantasy = wrong." Robots are actually a modern invention created at a time when swords and spears had fallen by the wayside. Guns and swords coexisted for centuries and are the weapons of plenty of classic characters like The Three Musketeers and the Scarlet Pimpernel.
There are plenty of counters to guns ranging from flying enemies to cost to ordinary rain but these are things that may not occur to a newbie GM. If you want to be a gunslinger, try it out on a more experienced GM or let your rookie gain some system mastery first.
P.S. Love TvTropes. So check out this link
PFS has created multiple generations of rules lawyers.I don't think you understand the definition of the word "generation." PFS and Pathfinder itself have only been around...what, less than a decade?
It has certainly encouraged a multitude of rules lawyers, though, I will agree with the context of the statement...the post as intended, rather than the post as written, as it were. *snicker*
Yeah, sorry. That was my dry-hyperbole not coming through well enough. I assure you, my graph of vocabulary is quite reprehensive. Though, thank you for your rules lawyering of my post ... ;)
I do not at all have any issue with the concept and motive behind the PFS experience. Due to its restrictions and silliness on things like equipment sharing and other nonsense, it is not something I want to play regularly, but as long as you recognize it as a different flavor of the game than there is no issue.
It is just, at least in my perception of the disucssions/rants on these forums, has produced a culture of winning (not whining, though there seems to be a lot of that too) rather than experiencing and playing. For example, anything any GM does anywhere in any situation that the player doesn't like instantly draws the responses to the effect of, Your GM is trash, or is possibly out to get you, and you should just leave or kick the GM out. Maybe I am deluded, but I don't think this culture is brewed in groups just playing for the fun of it.
Just my 2c ...
PFS has created multiple generations of rules lawyers.I don't think you understand the definition of the word "generation." PFS and Pathfinder itself have only been around...what, less than a decade?
It has certainly encouraged a multitude of rules lawyers, though, I will agree with the context of the statement...the post as intended, rather than the post as written, as it were. *snicker*
Yeah, sorry. That was my dry-hyperbole not coming through well enough. I assure you, my graph of vocabulary is quite reprehensive. Though, thank you for your rules lawyering of my post ... ;)
I do not at all have any issue with the concept and motive behind the PFS experience. Due to its restrictions and silliness on things like equipment sharing and other nonsense, it is not something I want to play regularly, but as long as you recognize it as a different flavor of the game than there is no issue.
It is just, at least in my perception of the disucssions/rants on these forums, has produced a culture of winning (not whining, though there seems to be a lot of that too) rather than experiencing and playing. For example, anything any GM does anywhere in any situation that the player doesn't like instantly draws the responses to the effect of, Your GM is trash, or is possibly out to get you, and you should just leave or kick the GM out. Maybe I am deluded, but I don't think this culture is brewed in groups just playing for the fun of it.
Just my 2c ...
There will always be more players than GMs, therefore GMs will always be more valuable to the RPG community than players. This is especially true in an environment like PFS organized play.
I believe you exagerate the extent on which players can influence GM decisions even in PFS: it's true a GM has to follow the RAW but that doesn't mean the players get to do whatever they want or rule lawyer to their heart's content without repercussions. In most case sensible people will behave themselves have fun and allow other people to have fun. In those cases where you find yourself surrounded by munchkins dead set on "winning the game"... well leave them to their sheanigans, they need you more than you need them.
See, this is just one reason I avoid PFS. I am glad they have it for when you need some RPG life-support, but home games are just real living.