Taçin's page

Baseline free archetype falls into the same trap of the "Free Feat at level 1" popular variant of 5E, archetypes aren't as neatly balanced between themselves, and the person with a planned build and Champion dedication is just getting much more out of the deal than the thematically appropriate Pirate archetype in a sea-based campaign; it's a fine rule for the groups that run it, but it turns the complexity knob one step too far for some newer players and can provide a significant boost to some feat-starved builds, it also does work very well in 3-player or lower parties to fill in missing roles

I don't mean to derail the discussion but outside of his (natural) far sight Legolas is much more fighter-y if anything; he doesn't dabble in the tracking and herbalism nearly as much as Aragorn (the archetypical ranger), nor is he specifically tied to dealing with one type of enemy, Legolas was mostly just really good with his bow and long dagger/shortsword, and his more exoteric connection to nature (leaving no footprints, taming horses with a few words) was more from being an elf than any sort of formal training/skill ranks. In my view he's the DEX Fighter to Gimli's STR Fighter, both extremely skilled and deadly in their own way. Aragorn (the literal Ranger) is the survivalist from the wastelands that knows tracking and terrain like the palm of his hand while still being an exceptional combatant.

Back to the topic of the thread though, I'd also like to second the archery/ranged options for Rogues, and some more feat support for other classes that allow them to use guns without tanking their DPS and action ecoonomy, let the Gunslinger be the best with them, but an entire weapon group shouldn't be practically locked behind a first level class choice.

And for the Monk, I think that a Stance Master path (maybe a class archetype of some sort) that incentivizes changing stances in combat would be wonderfully flavorful, a martial artist that changes between stances for Movement/Traits/AC maybe with a circumstance bonus to your next attack/maneuver after switching stances (wouldn't work wihile first entering a stance), and at higher levels having a quickened action that can only be used to switch stances, I first thought of this concept as a series of Monk/Martial Artist feats, but seen as you already need feats to get these stances this could get a bit too feat-intensive if that was the case.

I'm also of the opinion that the Samurai and Ninja don't have enough mechanical meat on their bones for standalone classes, and are replicated easily enough with flavor more so than mechanics.

The Ninja easily fits as a racket for the Rogue, they're sneaky spies and assassins that fight through subterfuge and tricks instead of head-on, you don't get any roguier than that, designing a racket around ki-based focus spells to simulate some classical ninjutsu moves with smoke bombs, running over water/up walls and substitution techniques gets them very close to the mark with minimal adjustment, if any (also, just let Rogues in general have martial weapons like someone mentioned above, the Investigator has it and it's far from gamebreaking).

The kicker about the Samurai is because a lot of what one assigns to them in a TTRG environment is not really... unique? At least not so much for a whole class, a lot of their tropes are close to the western equivalent of the Knight (Bravery, masters of combat in and out of horseback, retainers, followers of an alleged honor code), so much so that the 1e version of them is rolled into the Cavalier, and even that wider grouping was relegated to an archetype in 2e. On the mechanical implementation side of things it gets even dicier, temp hp? Not a very exciting mechanic; standing after an attack? Fine i guess, more of a once-a-day trick than anythting, still not a very solid foundation to build a class over; Iaijutsu? Reductive enough to be a feat chain, and too restricting to be the main option for the entire class. Even if we dwelve deep into the warrior poet or sword saint territory I still don't see anything that's outside the reach of an appropriate Fighter or Monk Class Archetype.

Since the topic of the thread is new classes, I'm also on the "Let's expand on what we have/finish porting the fan favorites before expanding" camp; as long as the Cleric still has 2 doctrines and classes from the APG/SoM/GnG are mostly restricted in feat support to their original publication we're leaving a lot of design space behind chasing classes that might be better explored after we've developped more of the earlier classes' potential.

Futureproofing for the Athlete archetype: demoralize using Athletics to dribble, knock them prone by breaking their ankles.

Can't answer for the others, but Orichalcum/Aurichalcum (aka "Mountain Copper"/"Gold Copper") is the name of a lost metal/alloy mentioned in ancient historical writings and supposedly present in Atlantis, it gained a quasi-mythical status because we're still not sure what it was exactly; so it's very likely a portmanteau of Orichalcum + "Hora" for "Hour", because of its time-bending nature.

Sicatite might have etymological relation to the Sicarii armed zealots/assassins from roman-occupied Judea (and their name comes from a thracian weapon, the Sica)

While I personally find the idea of these booksmart superscholars struggling hard to use a sword (different types of intelligence/aptitude/hand-eye coordination, etc.) quite a funny/amusing mental image, it doesn't really fit the tiered system of proficiency that the rest of 2e embraces and should be normalized. This sets a solid foundation of The least martially adept classes start here for the rest of the system and hardly impacts balance beyond flavor. This won't move the Wizards suck at using weapons needle much in the opposite direction, if at all.

For Rogues the "upgrade" is not as expansive as it might seem at first, seeing as they already have built-in flavor/power limitations (Sneak Attack requirements); the argument for keeping the funky proficiencies also became weaker when the closest class to it (Investigator) has access to the full martial list but is still limited to certain weapons to use their main damage-enhancing feature (as this hypothetical "buffed" Rogue would function).

The tagging solution suggested above seems like an adequate middle ground since there's some flavor value for Rogues to have less formal training than other martial classes and instead excel in straightforward weaponry fitter for those that rely on dirtier tactics to "get the job done" (like Monastic Weaponry involves a certain group of weapons thematically aligned with the class), but this solution involves a much wider reprinting effort of all weapons wherever they appeared to include these tags (while the martial upgrade would be a single change in the CRB), and still wouldn't solve issues such as thematically appropriate weapons (bombs or sword-canes) wether existent or yet-to-be-printed possibly not being included under the tag (since this classification is so subjective), but I digress.

The Bard is also tricky; with their reputation for versatility downgrading them to simple weapons wouldn't be a good option, and a full upgrade to martial would make the already middle-of-the-road Warrior Muse redundant while also pushing ahead of the other casters; for them specially the tagging solution seems like the most sensible choice.

tl;dr: I believe upgrading Wizard to Simple and Rogue to Martial would be fine and increase consistency while barely changing much in the balance end; but the Bard is a weirdo is making me consider another solution.

5e would need rebuilding from the ground up to end with a cohesive system, and I'm not sure WOTC is willing to flip their golden goose upside down even if it resulted in a better game for casual and experienced fans alike; through my experience with the system (two campaigns and a few oneshots as a player, one larger campaign as a DM) it's just gotten more clear to me that what someone calls "playing 5e" is just adopting the familiar framework and name of D&D to entice players and then adding dozens of houserules to solve any shortcomings the GM considers egregious, all while tiptoeing around broken supplemental material that feels completely disconnected from the core line; I've never seen pure RAW 5e being played, and the moment one of my former GMs chose to do so significantly decreased the group's enthusiasm, although the campaign was ending a short while after regardless.

All I've got to say is that in my time GMing 2e (certainly less time than I've done it for 5e, with the pandemic and all) I've never felt the need to modify written material beyond very simple on-the-fly changes like allowing a creature to die with 2 hp left if it fits the narrative and pacing better. Simply following the encounter guidelines saved me hours of planing because I knew I could trust them, items have level and price recomendations, risky material is tagged as rare and needs GM approval, proficiencies and tasks scale naturally, etc.

In my time playing 2e I learned very early on to trust the system, while running 5e felt like having to weave my personal touch at every corner, but at that point I wasn't really playing 5e. Playing 5e was never a problem, as long as I could figure something out, it was fair game to try it, but being a DM for 5e quickly opens one's eyes to what's behind the veil

Every single DM tool in 5e is dysfuntional:

Encounter balance? CR does not work, it's that simple; while 2e gates abilities like invisibily and flight under level restrictions and tries to make them comparable to players, 5e just throws stuff at the wall and sees what sticks. A werewolf duel in 5e is bound to end in an eternal draw because neither can be harmed by non-magical means, and it just gets sloppier the further you dive into it. If the usulessness of the numbers wasn't enough most monsters are just meatbags with sharp teeth and at most a single ability, boring to the core. Boss encounters adding lair actions and legendary actions simply feel like cheating the economy because the system was unable to translate the "boss" feel to its natural flow of combat.

Loot tables? May as well handpick it instead, seeing as gamebreaking items lurk even in low-level tables and regardless of rolls your players will be Bezos rich by the time they clear their third dungeon, although they can't spend any of that money in magic items, because supposedly they're beyond rare and magic shops are next to nonexistent (a tidbit ignored by 95% of groups).

Exploration Pillar? I'll leave this session empty, reflecting the effort WOTC put on this one

Magic weaponry? Technically an "option", but it feels like half of the creatures above CR 5 are immune to mundane harm. Ignoring them will only skyrocket your spellcasters above and beyong martial players, but then again this would just accelarate what would happen regardless.

Class balance? No 5e class is made equal, there are Bards, Wizards and Paladins living in the Elysian fields, then there's an abyss where the rangers and monks dwell. The "hit people with a stick real good" purgatory has most fighters and barbarians in there, and some are satisfied with having no class features, options or cool abilities because this way their friend that's on the phone for half the session can still enjoy themselves. The highs just get higher and the lows just get lower with each subclass released, either forcing DMs to limit players using the broken new shiny class or having to bump up the undesirable ones because the job of balancing wasn't done properly.

Action Economy? "Can I use my bonus action to do X" is the 1º most asked question from new 5e players for a reason, the entire thing is inconsistent, and weaponizing one's bonus action is the easiest way to break the existent power curve. A worthy revision would need to define the worth of a BA in a clear manner and offer a way for every class to fill theirs with something useful if its meant to be a part of the regular Action Econ.

Does that mean 5e is a bad game? No, a bad game can't earn the praise that this edition received, but it is poorly planned, inconsistent and incompatible with anyone that likes predictability or organization in their home games; as a natural improviser running 5e never felt hard, but it was taxing, there is no such thing as a confident 5e DM simply because of how easily things in that system can get volatile. And considering the content Wizards has been putting out I'm not sure I'll return to run that system with any priority in the near future, but I'm certaintly open to being impressed.

Striking runes are a vestigial mark of feedback from those back in the playtest who preferred upgrades to come from items over innate scaling (Automatic Bonus Progression), they're not "overpowered" because the math the game is built around assumes you'll have them at the appropriate levels, but yes compared to other items of similar level they are blatantly overturned.

As I personally run my home game utilizing the ABP optional rule from the GMG (and adjust loot accordingly), they don't stand out to me because I just have them apply automatically (as the game assumes). On a regular game of PF2 however getting striking runes is far and away the No.1 priority of a martial character around level 5, and a inevitable goldsink if you don't want to fall way behind the growing HP of monsters.

Having encounters in adventures that underestimate the power of Lvl+1/+2 creatures may just be one of those early edition hurdles where the designers still aren't completely familiar with the system (AoA is a prime example), but as a general rule it feels very liberating to be able to whip out a miniboss/boss level encounter simply by choosing a creature of appropriate level instead of digging the monster books for pre-written bosses and then still needing to beef them up with legendary/lair actions or resistances (that are a band-aid fix to the gamebreaking power of save-or-suck abilities, that 2e heavily limits with the incapacitation trait); having viable solo bosses that feel strong by their overwhelming presence instead of literal cheaters (as legendary res./actions can sometimes feel) that play by a different set of rules is a huge boon.

Flourishes are meant to emulate these "strenuous, but not draining to the point they couldn't do it again next turn" abilities such as FoB/Maneuvers and Power Attack, mostly because it doesn't make much sense that someone that specializes in advanced maneuvers doesn't have the stamina to use them whenever when they can swing their sword an unlimited amount of times, it doesn't map as neatly to a game as magic resource expenditure does.

Another issue with the approach of "Martial Focus" is that as it stands Focus abilities are way too connected to magic, and that it wouldn't make sense if the resource for "Exertion Feats" - as it were - was the same as the one used to fuel magical abilities on other classes (not counting dedications, and classes that could conceptually get both such as Ranger and Champion). The other option outside of "low calorie magic" that I can see sharing the current Focus system would be a sudden surge of superhuman strength for a single special action, but that's more on the Barbarian's wheelhouse and is already implemented in the game as a cooldown ability such as Quaking Stomp instead of a focus resource, while the surges of divine inspiration/inner strength match the Champion's/Monk's focus spells.

It seems that the system is place is roughly as follows:

"minor Exertion" (Triangle Shot, Knockdown, Whirlwind Strike) = Flourish
"major Exertion" (Quaking Stomp, Mountain Quake) = Cooldown
"Magic, but not that kind" (Wind Jump, Hunter's Luck) = Focus spell

Only a few feats such as Fighter's "Overwhelming Blow" seem to not abide to these rules and instead debuff the user to simulate the exhaustion from using the move. Could more feats of the sort appear in the future? Maybe, but as it stands it seems that it won't be tied to a resource pool but either a cooldown or some other form of limitation.

The world's most pigeonholed blaster-caster ever stills has access to their tradition's entire spell list through scrolls and wands, and is only limited to the boundaries of their imagination in how they can use them to impact the field, not counting all the out-of-combat utility they present, even if some will just fixate on rolling however many d6 instead; so it isn't fair to tag them as a sickly archer that gets gassed after a few big shots, because on a fundamental level they're applying this limitation themselves.

The problem with the blasting paradigm is that it feels terrible for the Caster to hold back their daily "Flaming Phoenix Arrow of Doom" the entire dungeon just to have it be resisted by the Big Bad (because statistically, it will, that's how Bosses work), but the other members of the party also aren't interested in fending off threats all day while Mr. Phoenix Arrow sits back throwing rocks just to gets his chance to shoot the big one at the dragon when (and if) the time comes, and possibly miss. So you eventually move back to the current situation where effects don't simply shut down an encounter on a success (which as a GM is greatly appreciated) but aren't completely nullified on a regular save either, as that's what frustrates many about spell-attacks at the moment (No potency runes and completely wasted on a miss) because let's be honest humans hate risks, specially if the payoff isn't inordinate.

What's an "Infiltrator"?

By the stats provided, a Mastermind Racket Rogue, but since this is an NPC it's possible they might not line up perfectly with a Rogue Kobold PC of the same level.

The Alchemist has to put in the biggest amount of effort for the payback of being "on par", which makes the class extremely beginner unfriendly and also drives away experienced players that aren't keen on putting all that work to barely keep up.

In terms of complexity it does feel a lot more like an APG class than a CRB one, requiring a high degree of system mastery and finesse to compete, all the while juggling through a list of items and formulas for contingency, requiring some real bookkeeping; 2e has shown that it values flexibility and discourages overspecialization (by making bonus-stacking much harder and baking direct power mostly in class features), but the Alch goes too far in the opposite direction, to the point that the sheer breadth of their options assumes a pilot that is constantly aware of all their possible outcomes and acts on them deliberately; but that makes the Bomber (built for consistency more than "explosiveness", ironically), Mutagenist (A dip into the Jekyll/Hyde territory that doesn't go all the way) and Chirurgeon (An elixir of life dispenser with an initial feature that essentially reads "+2/3 to Medicine checks" since you still need to rank both it and Crafting to be of any use) feel quite underwhelming in their chosen fields, even if the core class itself allows for every single Alchemist to provide bombs, elixirs, mutagens, lamp oil etc. for their allies regardless of specialization. The poisoner at least feels like a solid foundation that could be raised with the introduction of newer interesting options for toxins or a higher weapon proficiency to have them apply more consistently.

There is the argument that the Alchemist is a class that gets stronger as new options for alchemical items are printed, but that doesn't bode too well for it when other options with alchemical backgrounds (Alchemical S. Investigator, classes with Alch dedication) would still benefit from those options AND have strong features to complement them.

Having strength be a viable secondary stat is fine, the Swashbuckler (a DEX key stat class) has an entire style dedicated to Athletics (a STR skill), but still values DEX highly (For AC and to-hit with finesse weapons); A class path that incentivized STR wouldn't be that out of the ordinary, but having it as a primary score sounds like too much when the class as a whole is defined by Crafting (an INT skill), no matter if you're building tiny gizmos or large siege engines.

Besides, on the class with the most flexible key stat allocation (Rogue) it's very rare for a mental key stat to be valued over Str (Ruffian Racket) or Dex (for Thief and pretty much any other non-ruffian rogue not pursuing a spellcasting dedication) as we're dealing with a primarily martial character here.

When the identity of Fighters in 2e is "the best at using weapons" and a class comes along with "the best at a specific weapon type" as their schtick the line that separates them ought to get very muddled; honestly for the Gunslinger to feel unique they should lean fully into supporting reload weapons (Dual-Weapon Reload as a baseline, different Running Reload style feats to alleviate action economy, options to reload without incurring AoOs, potent options in their first range increment such as flanking from a distance, maybe additional precision damage to pick up the slack from needing to reload if the proficiency is bumped down to Master) and trick shots alongside more class features (Grit&Tenacity and True Grit would make for fantastic class-fantasy aligned defensive boosts).

And that's not getting into the guns themselves that at the moment are extremely pigeonholed into the crit-fishing territory that can swing from being devastating encounter destroyers to feeling like you're shooting pebbles if the crits decide they aren't showing up that day; they're also extremely unattractive to 90% of the other classes instead of interesting but niche picks balanced with the other options. Within the playtest rules the Gunslinger isn't just the best at using firearms, it's one of the few that can do so without dumping their DPR and action economy for the sake of flavor.

As the class stands right now it doesn't do enough to support reload-based weapons and the heavy action and DPR penalty associated with them, leading to options such as adopting Archer/Mauler/M.A. archetypes to transfer one of their biggest strengths (cream of the crop proficiency) to less-finicky weapon types such as bows, and that just feels like a very roundabout way of playing a Fighter with a cowboy hat and a straw grass in their mouth.

Now if you're talking about giving the Alchemist the regular martial progression for simple weapons/alchemical items/bombs, homogenizing caster progression to be a bit less strict or solving the Wizard weapon proficiency charlie foxtrot now that's a whole 'nother can of worms that could see tweaks here and there if the changes coming in the 2nd printing CRB errata are seen as insufficient.

The option of being legendary in a single group is deceptively strong given that legendary proficiency with a single weapon group is functionally very close to having it with them all once you're probably using only your strongest magical weapons because of the way runes work, or at most you're using a larger damage dice weapon + agile weapon of the same group for dual wielding; also archetypes such as Mauler will scale other weapons to match your highest proficiency.

With that said, it's not going to happen, Martial classes and their features are balanced around having Master prof., and upgrading it would imply stripping class features (as the language for the playtest 'slinger indicates) if the power curve is to be maintained.

Besides, how is upgrading everyone to Legendary an "oddity" when the only case of a class going to Legendary in weapons up to this point was the Fighter? They're an exception, not the rule, the same way only Monks can reach legendary in any save and Champions get legendary heavy armor; just because everyone wants a piece of that pie doesn't make it an "oddity" that others don't have it.

Weapon design

So, weapons first. While I somewhat enjoy how guns currently feel, I doubt this will last much longer. I certainly felt pretty useless in the last encounters (i.e. those that actually mattered), at least as far as my gun was concerned. The basic design makes them unique, but also really swingy on damage and functionally useless to anyone without fighter proficiency progression, as you pointed out.

Originally, my survey feedback was that we could have the distinction between guns and crossbow be the following: guns get moderate die sizes plus high fatal, while crossbows get high die sizes plus high deadly. I no longer think that is a viable solution, guns simply feel too disappointing on regular hits. Doing the same damage as a bow, but paying two or three actions for each attack just feels bad. That is even without accounting for hunted shot or other class feats, which create even further imbalance favouring the bow.

Reload weapons need to hit significantly harder on every hit and crit. That is just not the case for hits. And as long as that is the state of affairs, reload weapons will always play second fiddle. They feel like simple weapons, not martial weapons. Reload alone is such a significant drawback in both theory and actual-play experience, but it is currently not even remotely compensated for.

To that end I propose the idea to o away form the crit-focus of guns.

Legendary Proficiency

As guns currently operate, this is indeed mandatory.

The "Fighters outshine Monks with unarmed attacks, Rangers with bows and Champions with their deific weapon" (and completely ignoring every class feature in the aforementioned martial classes) talk is a constant in any class discussion, and at this point no amount of demonstration, graphs or math will change people's minds about it; Initially I was interested in the idea of having another legendary weapon proficiency class, but as OP put it, the class presented to us does feel like a Fighter with a few bells and whistles (and at that point you may as well play a Fighter and specialize in firearms, just as an unarmed Fighter offers a viable alternative with a more brawlery feel without invalidating the Monk).

I've also come to the conclusion (and have answered as such in the survey) that the playstest Gunslinger is stale and one-note, far too dependent on criticals and riding that proficiency train, and would rather have more interesting class features (different interactions with reload, trick shots, support for dual-weapon reloading) and capping at Master like the other martials (with a revision to firearms to make them more interesting choices across the board) if it's meant to feel like a class and not a glorified class archetype.

The argument for parity with on-level monsters is lost on me, player characters and monsters are fundamentally different, PCs are meant to be played, monsters (mechanically) are nothing but roadblocks in a fancy suit, they exist for the challenge they impose (they can be elevated to greatness through roleplay, but by statistics alone monsters are meant to be simpler, scarier foes).

PF2e is built from the ground up with teamwork in mind, not single player monster combat. The system assumes that PCs are heroes that work in parties, so much so that running adventures for a single player often presumes downgrading the difficulty by upwards of two levels and being generous with consumables, and that's not only because of action disparity, but also because players are supposed to win the overwhelming majority of the time; no player is having fun by constantly facing 50/50 (more-than-extreme) odds unless that's specifically what they signed up for.

While it's true that a level 6 Rogue can't compete with a Babau in combat prowess alone, why would they have to? Monsters are shmucks that live for 4 to 5 rounds if they're lucky, they need to be tough and scary, but just enough to pack a punch and maybe use an unique ability or two that's hopefully memorable, they'll regularly get action economy cheats simply to have a chance at doing something before being blasted off the face of Golarion; the Rogue is cunning, agile and resourceful, they can stack the deck by planning ahead, researching the enemy, buying a cold iron weapon and most importantly relying on their allies to set the stage by rendering the enemy flat-footed and exposed.

This whole discussion about a monster-pc head-on clash is a complete mismatch with the game's expectations (and personally among my players the sentiment of being outmatched by monsters never came up, it's simply another indicator that they're going against a tough customer/punching above their weight class, you don't become a hero by beating people the same standing or lower than you).

Putting your brains into strikes isn't what's missing (or should be expected) from an inventor, and certaintly shouldn't come baseline in a system that has been very conservative with using different stats for to-hit/damage (requiring extra actions, sacrificing damage or both). It also doesn't make nearly as much narrative sense as Investigator's Devise a Stratagem - which derives from their expertise in analyzing foes and finding their weakness through logic -, Inventors are masters at tinkering with machinery/equipment, not scrutinizing enemies for precise/harmful attacks.

Honestly the image of an Inventor in my head doesn't line up as being equally matched with a ranger in regular weapon combat (outside of Weapon Innovation); so sacrificing a bit of that prowess (which they already do with 8 HP and worse perception) should be rewarded with extra skill usage and out-of-combat utility, since the deadliest inventor is the one that has time to prepare, they should be extremely comfortable with downtime (which is supported with the fast feat retraining and Complete Reconfiguration, but those are more about flexibility than boosts to their crafting identity). Leaning into crafting just a bit more with minor single-use gadgets that could be mass produced/distributed to allies would add a nice dynamic where the inventor contributes all over the battlefield through their creations, even if they're not physically there to offer support because they're on the other side of the mat whacking an isolated enemy with their robo-tiger trying to gain access to the enemy's energy core.

Whichever solution Paizo comes up with should reflect the Inventor actually fighting smarter and not just being bruteforced into viability with something as uninspired as unconditional Int to hit/damage.

Alchemic_Genius wrote:

Just to add in here, musket balls traveled slowly enough that when they hit bone, they bounced, rather than went through, so it you got shot in the gut, the ball would bounce around in your ribcage until it ran out of energy (imo, the fatal trait is an AMAZING way to replicate this)

It's certainly true that bows did have some advantages over muskets and the like (they were quieter, weren't as finicky about rain and muck, and could be loaded and shot faster), but a nastier wound channel was not one of them

I think fatal is doing the opposite. Deadly and fatal as traits represent getting more from a weapon by being more accurate. There's lots of ways to get hit by arrows and on average survive well enough. Musket balls and similar nearly always did lethal damage when hit, even in extremedies.

Bows required more skill to use well, while anyone can be deadly with a gun.

I chose to rationalize the current firearm rules (with the base weapon having a low die size and compensating with powerful criticals) as a result of the inaccuracy of early firearms, so "regular hits" (that go as low as 1d4 for Flintlocks) are simply glancing blows that still hurt because of their unparalleled stopping power and the fatal criticals are the actual direct hits, this also aligns in my mind with the only ones being able to take full advantage of these imprecise engines of destruction being those whose uncanny mastery and aim with the thing is legendary in itself (Gunslingers and Gun-toting fighters).