Atticus Bleak's page

Atticus Bleak wrote:

I am going to be honest, if you came to me and explained this reasoning, and then the rules above, I would ask to reroll a character, and feel like you were unfairly crippling my character for your desires that our fantasy game be "more historically accurate". The gunslinger class revolves around firing guns, their class features all make them better at firing guns, and you admitted you want him to only be able to do this once a combat.

And as far as historical accuracy, for Treasure Island and Three Musketeers were set in the mid 17th century, when Wheel-lock, Dog-lock and Match-lock weaponry were more common, although Flintlock was being introduced. The guns in Pathfinder seem more based on the late 17th-early 18th century Flintlock weaponry.

Sorry, for "Forget everything PF said about guns before" includes forgetting the entire Gunslinger class.

I'm not proposing this as a solution for Gunslinger, I'm proposing this as how guns could be in integrated into a table running Pathfinder, at all.

We've banned gunslinger from our tables for a while, it always ended up a mess. In fact the most problems we've had has been with builds that focus on ranged attacks.

** spoiler omitted **...

Oh. See you used an existing gunslinger as an example, so I assumed this was an attempt to fix him, I apologize.

I would still argue that no one would bother ever buying guns with this system, and I do mean anyone, including NPCs. The gun industry would die and we would continue using arrows forever, because it is impossible to really reflect the danger of guns.

The primary killers in an early firearm is shock from the pain, organ damage, infection, lead poisoning, and bleeding out. Guns were a thing everyone carried in those books and movies because they were essentially one use "Avada Kedavra" wands, even if you hit someone in the arm or leg they were out and probably dead unless a doctor is present. You can't really reflect that expectation without making them a 1 use wand of Finger of Death.

WHY IS THE DRUG WORSE THAN MOST POISONS? WHAT IS THIS STUFF? ITS WORSE THAN ARSENIC!

Because the dosage size is 8 oz? If you drank 8 oz of arsenic you would be taking 8d2 Con.

I was about to say with that list it sounds like an artifact until I read #4. Basically you are going to need GM Fiat for most of that stuff. If might be better to assign this acquisition of such as item as a quest because if he puts a price tag on it, you may not be able to afford it.

The question is this---->Are you trying to be as good in melee as a full BAB class or are you looking to be more defensive?

No, like you are super missing the point. He isn't asking for advice, or a strategic weapon for a character. He is asking for a cool item that a Powerful Wizard might buy to have, when he doesn't want to waste spellslots on peons, in an entirely hypothetic setting.

Saying "What situation made your wizard desperate enough to rely on melee?" or "Well, entering melee makes you die so nothing." Is literally failing a multiple choice question that has no wrong answers. Its like if I asked if you wanted to ride a Pegasus or a unicorn and you said that neither exist so my question is invalid.

Its a hypothetical, which could be phrased as "Whats the kewlest magic weapon to give someone with infinite money and power?"

And the worthiness of the winners follows from their picks. Once upon a time in the fair kingdom of Sweden, we had a prize called Årets svensk, Swede of the year. It was awarded for something like four years, until it became obvious to every thinking person that things always went to s++@ for the laureates. It was heckled in humour shows, people realized they would be very loath to accept it if offered. At that point, the politicians giving it had picked too many wrong winners, and the status was gone.

I don't...Think you understand my point. It doesn't matter how useless, pointless, or meaningless the award actually is. It is their right to give it, and saying that it should be disbanded because you do not approve is like saying a movie should be banned because you don't like the plot.

To anyone. It's a useless prize and has outlived every iota of its credibility. It did so ages ago. If this was done, a new prize that meant something could be instated.

Here is my question. Why do you think it has to have credibility? Or mean anything? Why should your, my, or anyone but the 5 member councils opinion matter? They award money from the Nobel fund on someone, chosen by them, that they believe fits the criteria. They have no responsibility to you or anyone else.

If you want a prize that means something to you, go start one. There is no reason for the Nobel Prize committee to stop giving out prizes because you think they lost their meaning, there can be more than one Peace Prize.

Its like saying I should stop buying people dinner so that a different guy can choose deserving people for free dinner.