|
Fabios's page
Organized Play Member. 16 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 5 Organized Play characters.
|
Gortle wrote: Fabios wrote: now spamming Two flourishes a turn Is actually a viable damage strategy Er what did I miss that allows 2 flourishes a round let alone per turn? Nothing, i'm a dumbass and worded It poorly because i rushed.
I meant to Say that now attacking twice a turn, if possible, Is a consistent and viable damage ztrategy on a swash. Not two finishers i'm dumb. My mistake
Fabios wrote:
In my experience every gunslinger i've ever saw was utterly useless/very subpar compared fo everyone else.
A single person's experience... I think you better read what you write yourself and take it to heart:
Because your experience with Gunslingers is bad, it doesn't make the class bad. And that's the point i wanted to drive home! What i Just Said Is basically what everyone Said before me "well but in my campaign the gunslinger was great" which Is as valid as an argument as "well in my campaign It was useless" since, no matter how many there May be, anectodes are not valid data!
I can turn around whatever you said and you can turn around whatever i Say if we argue in this way, It becomes a relativistic ping pong of opinions, and that's not productive nor interesting.
OrochiFuror wrote: Fabios wrote: OrochiFuror wrote: Higher then martial level of to hit isn't good enough? Seems better then many dex martials to me. it really isn't, this is a combat focused game and the most lethal encounters are often the ones that involve enemies So then swash, rogue, dex fighter and inventor must all be trash as well, being low damage dice and not a lot of bonus damage to attacks.
The pistol slinger in my group for kingmaker did really well and that's chock full of single higher level encounters. Swash has been buffed to infinity, now spamming Two flourishes a turn Is actually a viable damage strategy if you want to focus on that. It was cool but niche before, now with being able to get oanache 90% of the time It's great.
About rogue, like, c'mon, we both know that rogue Is great let's not kid ourselves.
I hate inventor but not because it's weak or anything, i Just hate It. But, i'd Say, i wouldn't gamble half of my class on a roll every game with a 5% chance to be SEVERELY impaired (overdrive)
I personally don't like damage Fighter, but with Its enormous feat array and utility array IT IS still a fighter so pretty good.
In my experience every gunslinger i've ever saw was utterly useless/very subpar compared fo everyone else.
Fabios wrote: Problem is, what your class is designed to do might not be enough for the highest tier of encounter.
as an example Gunslinger in an extreme encounter is useless no matter what, the class itself doesn't work at that difficulty level
What are you basing this on outside of nothing, and why does whatever that is count for more than what everyone else has to say? Does a gunslinger do good damage? not really, casters outdamage him and so does rangers, this is less true at high levels but still stands true.
does a gunslinger have great utility? fake out is absolutely insane but other than the the class doesn't have the utility to match a caster's, no "huge" debuffs, no heals, no summons.
does a gunslinger have great defensive capabilities? can it contribute to the frontline in any significant manner? not really, the class is designed to be a ranged martial so it makes sense.
so, to wrap it up, it doesn't have enough utility nor enough damage/tankyness to be considered on the top of the food chain
as i said, i'm not saying that gunslingers shouldn't be played at all, but that if my gm isn't pulling their punched the gunslinger doesn't shine as much as he normally does
GameDesignerDM wrote: Fabios wrote: GameDesignerDM wrote: I also played a Sniper Gunslinger who was the single greatest contributor to combat and out of combat. Once again, i don't mean to be mean but you can understand that singular experiences are not absolute statements and they don't account for the absurdly singular and unique experience everyone has. i've seen, on multiple accounts, a warpriest outdamage a barbarian, should we say that warpriests are better damage dealer than barbarians? The same can be said of your statements too, though. Like, whenever someone comes to the forums and says some declarative X statement, there are always people coming out being like "actually no, that's not been my experience" - so I really don't think any of this is some outlier or anything like that, and just that everyone's experience is actually different, and maybe we shouldn't be making blanket statements about something being universally true. Problem is, my statements are not backed up by my singular experience but my personal analysis of the class, which could very as well be wrong, but which claims to be applicable in every situation, accounting for the average and not the exceptions. everyone's experience is different but if we try to analyze a situation, in this case a class, we can come out with some near-objective statements; like: gunslinger doesn't offer significant utility nor significant damage (doesn't have the utility of a caster, doesn't have the damage of a ranger, nor the melee capabilities of almost every other martial) and is therefore a weak class.
doesn't mean that whoever played one is some kind of freek who ought to be educated on "how to perfectly play the game" since this inbalance applies only in the high tiers of difficulty.
GameDesignerDM wrote: I also played a Sniper Gunslinger who was the single greatest contributor to combat and out of combat. Once again, i don't mean to be mean but you can understand that singular experiences are not absolute statements and they don't account for the absurdly singular and unique experience everyone has. i've seen, on multiple accounts, a warpriest outdamage a barbarian, should we say that warpriests are better damage dealer than barbarians?
arcady wrote: Cyouni wrote: Fabios wrote:
sadly in an extreme encounter i think that a gunslinger would never ever find space, and that everyone would prefer a cleric or a bard over a wizard or a psychic I played a level 6 gunslinger into a level 10 encounter in Outlaws and contributed tons, but clearly that's not possible, so I must exist in an alternate universe. Most lethal results in a PC I've ever played was a pistolero gunslinger using two dueling pistols. Not the same model as yours, but another one of those 'things that apparently don't exist despite my experience of imagining that I remember playing it.' :)
She was also my second most "out of combat potent" PC. Behind only the Thaumaturge I just started playing - so this is just a guess that my Thaumaturge will outshine what I was able to do with my Slinger. With my Slinger I was basically both a dynamic 'face' and 'detective' because I dipped into an archetype that gave skills that synergized well with where I'd put my stats.
I will concede to the anti-slinger faction that Gunslinger has some 'trap options'. But that doesn't mean the class isn't viable. Just means you need to avoid the trap options and then 'learn to play' the build you do go with - as a team.
I think the term for this is 'high skill floor' - meaning it takes to player skill to get to competent with the class. This isn't a problem. It just means it's a class beginners should avoid. Beginners will be frustrated with bad results.
I feel it also has a 'high skill ceiling'. Meaning that an advanced skill player can go very far with it and get extremely effective results. So a player with a lot of PF2E expertise can thrive on gunslinger.
With all due respect for your experience i thimk that you might've been a statistical outliar. gunslinger is an extremely simple class: "abuse fake out, crit" and while the first part is really consistent the second isn't, and often completely depentent on your team, therefore while you see it as a high skill ceiling i see it as... well, just a normal class? who doesn't benefit from being hyper mega buffed and using fatal weapons in said enviroment?
OrochiFuror wrote: Higher then martial level of to hit isn't good enough? Seems better then many dex martials to me. it really isn't, this is a combat focused game and the most lethal encounters are often the ones that involve enemies
Problem is, what your class is designed to do might not be enough for the highest tier of encounter.
as an example Gunslinger in an extreme encounter is useless no matter what, the class itself doesn't work at that difficulty level
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
The problem with TTk in my opinion it's that it is completely impossible to calculate accordingly, even paizo failed to do so in my opinion (they can't me look dead in the eyes and say that gunslinger has a great ttk, it's simply untrue).
while DPR is simple but customizable enough that you CAN get something that's good enough, not precise, but good enough
i agree that the intended way for this to work is what you said, i'm simply bummed out that it's not spelled out properly and that we get off with a maybe rather than an actual direct answer.
i'm also bummed out that impulses don't interact but that's another thing y'know
"Impulses are magical, and though they aren’t spells, some things that affect spells also affect impulses. Abilities that restrict you from casting spells (such as being polymorphed into a battle form) or protect against spells (such as a spell that protects against other spells or a creature’s bonus to saves against spells) also apply to impulses."
this is everthing we have to answer, and by its look it is pretty vague! "also" doesn't mean "only this applies" otherwise it would have been written as: "Impulses are magical, and though they aren’t spells, some things that affect spells also affect impulses, such as Abilities that restrict you from casting spells (such as being polymorphed into a battle form) or protect against spells (such as a spell that protects against other spells or a creature’s bonus to saves against spells)"
i'm italian so i could very well be wrong, but as much as i know it's ultimately unclear
Wheldrake wrote: Sure, damage is important. But DPR comparisons put me to sleep, and my general impression is that DPR discussions don't take into account so many other factors. It's "white room" analysis.
i don't that dpr is inherently white room math, it depends. sure, if your dpr accounts for three strikes a turn+reactive strike then it's absolutely whiteroom math, but dpr by itself it's no more than a calculation, the important part is using sensible data.
I've been around these forums and other discussion venues for over ten years, since mid-way through the PF1 era, and can't say I've seen "selfish" oriented remarks. Perhaps if you tried to rearticulate what problem you see, more folks could engage with it.
yeah, maybe i should rearticulate but i can't find a better way to say this than "The discourse around damage has flanderized himself to the point that it presumes that anyone who talks about dpr hasn't ever played in an actual games and accounts only for impossibly good setups"
ElementalofCuteness wrote: I think I am in the wrong thread...I never seen damage being considered selfish. It's a core part of game play though? i've unironically seen damage being considered selfish and not an important part of the game, it might be the reddit effect but it's insane how people stop listening the SECOND you say "dpr" even if contextualized
Squiggit wrote: ... What are you talking about? About... What i Just Said, that It feels like the community has a crusade againts the concept of doing damage
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
This Isn't meant as an insult to anyone, this Is Simply something i noticed and that i want to talk about.
Obligatory prescriptum: i have Two Active campaigns, in One i play a purely defensively oriented character, in the other i play a Fire/earth/wood kineticist
1- The moral argument:
I see that there's this weird concept that doing damage Is inherently selfish, in my opinion It really Isn't, It's a part of the game to which selfish people tend to gather because it's prone to big Hero moments and therefore It LOOKS selfish to a lot of folks.
The game heavily emphasizes utility alongside damage for a lot of martials characters, the only genuinely purely damage focused character i can think about Is a starlit span magus. Even a barbarian that strikes three times per round (let's take an Extreme case) Is STILL contributing to the team by Simply exhisting in front of people, getting hit, and so on and so forth.
Therefore i think that being unable to discuss dpr and damage building without being labeled as a "selfish noob" Is annoying
2- the technical argument:
"Once you really think about It you realize that damage Isn't important at all" well, i might sound mean for what i'm going to Say, but then you (you as impersonal) Haven't thought about It enough.
Any Given fight Is fundamentally a race between Two cars, damage Is the ONLY thing that makes the cars go forward, everything else (heal, utility) Is setting back the other car.
-ps: technically buffs put a multiplier on how fast the car Is going, so there's that.
Both are equally important! If the car doesn't go forward you'll lose, if the other car goes faster and you don't hold It back you'll lose too!
|