Dude, have you been drinking? ;)-
The Stuffy Grammarian is gonna be riding your ass hard today!
Oh my, yes. But not liquor this time, despite my avatar. After six cups of coffee to offset sleep deprivation, this is what I get for starting one sentence and changing it midway through... ;)
Excuses, excuses! You, Kirth Gersen, are a very bad pupil.
|
Well, when firearms were first developed, longbows WERE superior. The reason the musket eventually took over wasn't its inherent superiority as a weapon, it was because, after the manufacturing process was refined a bit, it became cheaper to make than a longbow, and it took less time to train someone to use.And yet it's a requires an Exotic weapon proficiency, whereas longbows are covered under the martial weapons umbrella -- I'd maybe swap that (leave short bows as martial, but at least make composite longbows exotic).
Also, in my howebrew campaign I've given firearms a 19-20/x3 critical.
We'll talk about that. Personally, i'd make black powder weapons (i.e. muskets and flintlocks) a simple weapon proficiency (they're no more complicated than crossbows, really, and it just seems cool to have a crazy wizard with ranks in "craft - gunpowder" and "craft - firearms" playing with his new toy...).
I like keeping the composite longbow a martial weapon, however; otherwise ranged rangers would have to burn a feat to be truly effective (unless you made it a bonus feat for archers).
Furthermore, I think a lot of people are confusing the effectiveness of primitive firearms with their modern equivalents. There is a reason why soldiers lined up 100 feet from each other, in three rows, abreast, in the early days of firearm warfare. Early firearms weren't terribly accurate or dependable (even with rifling - accuracy wasn't dramatically improved until machined, jacketed ammo became the norm around the 1870s...), so the "volley" combat style (and a nice, stationary target) was completely neccesary for the firearm to be effective.
Whomever said "three shots in one minute" is correct, and that translates to, at best, one shot every third round (six second rounds, y'all!). So, "verisimilitude" isn't "destroyed" by a low rate of fire...
Ten paces. It was a practicality issue. Outside of twenty yards, early pistols were essentially worthless.
We'll talk about that...
Yeah. My homebrew campaign, with "D-Hoppers," has modern and primitive firearms, all with different stats; the Glock is a masterwork semi-auto pistol; an antique flintlock is poor quality (-1 to attacks) and has longer reload, bigger misfire range; etc. And gunpowder's ignitibility depends on the plane of existence you're on, so in some places they work perfectly, in some places they don't work, in some places they draw unwelcome divine attention, and in some places they just explode when the trigger is pulled...
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
In game balance terms, it's true, firearms don't stack up at all to bows.
However, in metagame terms, the question isn't whether firearms stack up to bows. The real question is whether they stack up to wands of magic missile, scorching ray, or fireball. Alkenstar makes firearms to compensate for its lack of magic. If you really want to make firearms a viable option, make them comparable in power to the abovementioned magic items, and price gunpowder charges somewhere in line with wand charges - somewhere in the realm of 15 gp per charge. Sidearms (pistols and revolvers) use 1 charge per shot for 3d6ish damage. Long arms (muskets, rifles) use 2 charges per shot for 5d6ish. All sidearms and long arms use ranged touch attacks (like a spell would). Scatterguns might use 3 charges per shot, 6d6ish damage, but target a square (no attack roll required, Reflex half in that square). Light cannon use 10 charges and do 10d6 on a direct hit (ranged touch attack, no save) and 5d6 in a 10-foot burst (Reflex half). That puts sidearms about the equivalent of a wand of a level 1 spell, CL 3; longarms about the equivalent of a level 2 spell, CL 3; scatterguns about the equivalent of a level 2 spell, CL 6; and light cannon about the equivalent of a level 3 spell, CL 10. Expenditures on gunpowder run less than the equivalent wand charges, but that's balanced by the initial high cost of the firearm itself. In metagame terms, it isn't all over the world because only one place makes gunpowder. Limit availability of the charges and the metagame problem of firearm proliferation fixes itself since anybody can get a wand or a sorceror pretty easily.
Conclusion: don't think about firearms as mundane weaponry; think of them as basically rechargeable magic items. Stat them out and price them accordingly, and players will use them, or not, accordingly. Then it becomes mainly a matter of what the players and the DM think is "cool" or what fits the aesthetic of their game.
|
|
We'll talk about that...Yeah. My homebrew campaign, with "D-Hoppers," has modern and primitive firearms, all with different stats; the Glock is a masterwork semi-auto pistol; an antique flintlock is poor quality (-1 to attacks) and has longer reload, bigger misfire range; etc. And gunpowder's ignitibility depends on the plane of existence you're on, so in some places they work perfectly, in some places they don't work, in some places they draw unwelcome divine attention, and in some places they just explode when the trigger is pulled...
So, it's kinda like "torg meets lords of creation filtered through dungeons and dragons with a liberal dose of victory games 007 as seen by Robert Aspirin"? I am SO down for that!
As soon as all this "playtest" stuff stops, we need to bust out our homebrews. Party time!
|
I agree. That's how I use firearms in my campaign. In fact, every firearm is an unique work of master technician - therefore more expensive than standard firearm in other settings, but more precise as well. During Napoleonic wars muskets were available to the rank and file soldiers, but rich oficiers could afford much better and more precise rifles. In fact, I've seen some interesting prototypes, like rifle with six rotating barrels. In my campaign, weapon like that allows the user to make six attacks per round at full attack bonus, but reloading would last two rounds. I'm treating firearms like weird magic items specific to humans, as well as the rest of the "tech".
So, it's kinda like "torg meets lords of creation filtered through dungeons and dragons with a liberal dose of victory games 007 as seen by Robert Aspirin"? I am SO down for that!
As soon as all this "playtest" stuff stops, we need to bust out our homebrews. Party time!
And I use Zelazny's Amber universe instead of (or, rather, superimposed on) the "Great Wheel."
Yes. We need homebrew worlds. Easy enough with RotRL; who's to say there are no gates still existing in Thassilonian ruins?
First, about the gun's place in the setting. Really, guns do not and can not matter much in DnD world, if you're willing to treat rules as actual physics of the world. In the real world, they had dominated muscle-powered weapons, because of limits on human muscle power that simply do not exist in DnD. In DnD, a human can crush stone and punch out giants with his bare hands, therefore muscle-powered weapons=win, except at the lowest levels (mechanically any weapon, that does not add Strength to damage automatically and irrepairably sucks past level 4-5, with bows partially avoiding this only thanks to arrow spam in conjunction with bonus damage from various sources, such as sneak attack or favored enemies). Guns also won't change the face of mass warfare, because, unless characters and monsters of CR 5 and higher are uncommon (they aren't in Golarion), there is no mass warfare in DnD, there is only groups of heroes/tough monsters that pretty much win or lose wars on their own and bunches of grunts, that these heroes/monsters drag around to do menial tasks and dirty work, such as bullying conquered population into submission or in hopes that they'll be able to absorb some of enemy heroes' impact. (If characters or monsters of CR 5 and higher are very common, there is mass warfare, but it is the mass warfare of a superhero setting, not of a pseudomedieval setting, and it is still likely to be decided by the confrontation between the top-level characters of opposing armies.) So, having guns in a DnD setting does not change the face of the setting, because they cannot replace swords and bows, they just can provide another option for lower-lewel heroes and some flavor for higher-level ones.
Second, guns absolutely shouldn't punish players for taking them by forcing to waste a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency, misfire chances and other arbitrary nerfs, because anyone who takes a weapon that adds no ability modifer to damage and takes actions to reload is already denying yourself power for the sake of concept.
Firearms don't work well in a game with no hit locations, no DR for armor to be bypassed, etc. The specific strengths of firearms have little meaning in DnD. You could give firearms a huge crit range with scaled multiplier the higher you go into the range, say 15-16 is x2, 17-18 is x3, 19 is x4, and 20 is x5. Now you have something that vaguely resembles the effectiveness of slugs tearing through flesh.
Creative Director
|
Firearms don't work well in games that don't have the goal of accurately modeling everything about firearms as one of the #1 goals for the game's design. In my experience. Because firearms are one of those things (like ships and accuracy of medieval recreation) that folk get REALLY passionate about, and unless the rules are very detailed, it's easy to disappoint.
Slugs tearing through flesh aren't really significantly more lethal than a big sword hacking said flesh. Particularly, if the said sword is in the hards of local [insert your favorite super-swordsbeing here] equivalent.
However, for the game balance purposes, guns should do way more damage than they do. Crossbows too, for that matter - the only mechanical reason to ever use them is lack of martial weapon proficiencies at starting levels. And if they should be weaklings' weapon by design, which is understandable (see my previous post), this, perhaps, should be mentioned in the book, to avoid trapping newbies.
Slugs tearing through flesh aren't really significantly more lethal than a big sword hacking said flesh. Crossbows too, for that matter - the only mechanical reason to ever use them is lack of martial weapon proficiencies at starting levels.
Dunno, a bullet can deliver an awful lot of kinetic energy because of its velocity.
Start with a bow: aside from puncturing of vital organs (obviously a key consideration), greater strength imparts greater energy upon impact. A crossbow trades time and string length for strength, by applying a mechanical advantage: in essence, you take a 10 Str guy, and give his "arrow" (bolt) the equivalent of an 18-Str pull by allowing him to crank the thing (winding the string) instead of just pulling back a bowstring. So a light crossbow should be exactly equal to a mighty short composite bow with, say, a +2 Str modifier, dealing 1d6+2/x3 damage. And it would be a simple weapon. A heavy crossbow would deal 1d8+4/x3. Instead, 3e gave them different crit characteristics, and different base damages.
Think of a musket ball as a sling bullet (both are small lead projectiles), but the ball has a much greater velocity (read: higher Str bonus). So a musket should really deal like 1d4+6/x2, by that token.
Unfortunately, all this totally defies the "hit point" model, in which grazes and outright misses still deal hp damage. So what can you do? Exactly what the game designers have done: scrap "realism" altogether and assign weapon damage and crits based solely on game needs.
To be frank (and to be off-topic), I hate "HPs as representation of one's plot shielding" idea. Yes, I know, they were that from the beginning, but, please, can we stop pretending that DnD heroes are anywhere near "realistic" (even if you expand realistic to "action movie realistic") level of skill past about level 5? If a hero takes just a graze, that's because he's just that agile/tough and can avoid a deathblow. Also, maybe I am strange, but I prever to desribe criticals and other solid hits on human-sized opponents as horrible injuries ("man, I can see most of your lung"-level horrible) that charactes can withstand without flinching just because they are that badass.
Also, I don't agree, that firearms and crossbows are statted according to the game's needs. Cuz they are traps past the first couple of levels and dice help you, if you have wasted some feats on them.
I pre[f]er to desribe criticals and other solid hits on human-sized opponents as horrible injuries ("man, I can see most of your lung"-level horrible) that charactes can withstand without flinching just because they are that badass.
Purely a matter of personal preference. I like human heroes in my games; you like Superman-like denizens of Krypton. The game mechanics accommodate us both; all that changes is the fluff.
No, I'm afraid the game mechanics do not accomodate you. Even the most limited DnD characters, with only one worthy superpower (hitting things) are about as "human" past the first couple of levels, as the most extreme incarnations of Batman. Cutting stone? No problem. Bludgeoning ogres to death with a stick? No problem. Shooting an arrow per second, all actually aimed? No problem. Falling from castle tower and surviving? No problem. And that's before magic or high levels come into play. You might think that some of these feats are stupid or result from stupid rules, but according to the mechanics they are possible and aren't even seriously hard.
Evidently my imagination is flexible enough to get around the apparent contradictions. That might make me schizophrenic, but it doesn't make me "wrong." So you go ahead and think of things your way, and leave me to mine -- there's no sense at all in telling other people what they're supposed to think, unless you're a lot more interested in Flamewar than in Pathfinder. I'm not.
|
|
Evidently my imagination is flexible enough to get around the apparent contradictions. That might make me schizophrenic, but it doesn't make me "wrong." So you go ahead and think of things your way, and leave me to mine -- there's no sense at all in telling other people what they're supposed to think, unless you're a lot more interested in Flamewar than in Pathfinder. I'm not.
Yes. It does make you wrong. DooDooHead.
(so, three o'clock sunday cool? i have to work until 2pm...)
Yes. It does make you wrong. DooDooHead.
(so, three o'clock sunday cool? i have to work until 2pm...)
Yeah, see you at three, Mr. Poopy-Pants. But I'll have to leave slightly early (7:30-ish) so I can pack.
|
|
Yeah, see you at three, Mr. Poopy-Pants. But I'll have to leave slightly early (7:30-ish) so I can pack.Yes. It does make you wrong. DooDooHead.
(so, three o'clock sunday cool? i have to work until 2pm...)
Ok, just don't bring any firearms for a "playtest". Might scare the neighbors.
(oh, and "I know you are, what am I?")
Ok, just don't bring any firearms for a "playtest". Might scare the neighbors.
Not even an antique matchlock? And I have a Constitutional right to a blunderbuss.
|
|
Ok, just don't bring any firearms for a "playtest". Might scare the neighbors.Not even an antique matchlock? And I have a Constitutional right to a blunderbuss.
Only if you pack it with rock-salt and go hunting with me for the dude that busted China's car window last night to steal her i-pod and digital camera...
Evidently my imagination is flexible enough to get around the apparent contradictions.
That might make me schizophrenic, but it doesn't make me "wrong."
So you go ahead and think of things your way, and leave me to mine -- there's no sense at all in telling other people what they're supposed to think, unless you're a lot more interested in Flamewar than in Pathfinder. I'm not.
If you can explain how non-superheroic humans can take, say, stone giants head-on, more power to you. Just stop saying, that rules accomodate "human" (if, by this, you mean "non-superheroic") characters past a few initial levels, because this, despite DnD novels and other fluff, is provably untrue, unless you houserule/stealth nerf.
Just stop saying, that rules accomodate "human" (if, by this, you mean "non-superheroic") characters past a few initial levels, because this is provably untrue, unless you houserule/stealth nerf.
You're going to "prove" that I can't imagine things as I like? Wow. I honestly have no response. Like I said, think whatever you wish. I'll continue to post what I think, though, even if some people feel that my heretical thoughts need to be banned or something.
Only if you pack it with rock-salt and go hunting with me for the dude that busted China's car window last night to steal her i-pod and digital camera...
Man, I spent 20 minutes this weekend giving Suzanne's sister a lecture on how stupid it was to leave her purse in the back seat when she went into Starbuck's... "just begging for some a$$hole to smash a window and steal it," was the quote, if I recall correctly. China's definitely not stupid, though, so in retrosepect I was probably being too hard on poor Meredith.
That said, if I ever stole anything, it would be the freakin' Hope Diamond, not an i-pod or a purse. A man's got to have some pride.
You're going to "prove" that I can't imagine things as I like? Wow. I honestly have no response. Like I said, think whatever you wish. I'll continue to post what I think, though, even if some people feel that my heretical thoughts need to be banned or something.
No. I'm going to prove (in fact, I did that already) that your imagination is only your imagination. It is not "accomodated" by 3E rules. The rules say, that characters with a few levels under their belt can take metal-melting fireballs in the face without flinching and a bit later they can fight back while being literally chewed on by a Gargantuan dragons (that's even on the core book illustration %)). Grabbing/snatching/swallowing attacks are, by the way, among the most logical proofs, that hit points do not represent your plot shielding, but, in fact, your physical durability. Because you can't interpret them as a near miss, and (considering, that many of the creatures, delivering them, make King Kong seem puny by comparison) you can't interpret them as an amount of lethal trauma that normal humans, no matter how tough or armored, can survive.
Hey, for what its worth, the latest issue of Kobold Quarterly (Issue 7) has an article with spells that affect firearms.
Just sayin' . . .
No. I'm going to prove (in fact, I did that already) that your imagination is only your imagination. It is not "accomodated" by 3E rules. The rules say, that characters with a few levels under their belt can take metal-melting fireballs in the face without flinching...
My imagination can work around the rules; they don't need to be changed specifically "accommodate" it. Indeed, all game action (unless you're LAPRing, which I don't) takes place in the players' imaginations, so saying "it's just my imagination" is absolutely correct. Yours, too. Also, I could point out that it's your imagination (or lack thereof) that says the said fireball is "in the face" to begin with. Grappling? Character is able to wriggle so that his ribcage isn't actually crushed. Swallowing whole? My guy is well-trained enough he digs his boots in and lodges in the throat, so he's not dissolved in stomach acid. Fall down a pit? He grabs the lid at the last second, drops from there, screeches down the rest of the way on his fingernails on the side: he's bruised and has broken nails, but not dead. Pick more extreme examples, and I can think of more possibilities.
You've "proved" only that you personally are unwilling to imagine anything except in very literal terms. That's fine, but it's not a requirement for everyone who plays to imagine their characters as video game icons or caped superheroes.
If you want "proof" of what hp are intended to represent, read Gygax's description of hp in the 1st edition Player's Handbook, and get back to me after you do (if you're not familiar with the name, he invented the game, so he probably has a pretty good idea what he's talking about). Notice, however, that I'm in no way telling you that you personally somehow have to imagine things Gygax's way. So please return the favor, and quit "proving" to me that I'm imagining them "wrong."
|
Why in the world am i entering into the HP thing????
OK to me (and this is just how *I* make HP work in my game)...
A character develops skills as he improves in martial abilities. Just like a boxer learns to take bone crunching blows and turn them into glancing blows or even builds his body's tolerance to shock and pain. Just like a martial artist learns to roll with falls that otherwise would knock someone out, or deflect an attack that would surely have killed him.
An adventurer learns skills to help him survive more dangerous fights.
Now, if I had my ways I would make the mechanics mirror that exactly, which they don't but come close to doing. I would use the alternate HP system in Arcana Unearthed. Your actual HP equals your CON score. Crits don't do extra damage but go straight to CON. HP is you ability to deal with damage as I spelled out above.
That is the perfect mechanic for me.
But I can certainly live with the basic system of HP.
No big deal.
|
|
No. I'm going to prove (in fact, I did that already) that your imagination is only your imagination. It is not "accomodated" by 3E rules. The rules say, that characters with a few levels under their belt can take metal-melting fireballs in the face without flinching...My imagination can work around the rules; they don't need to be changed specifically "accommodate" it. Indeed, all game action (unless you're LAPRing, which I don't) takes place in the players' imaginations, so saying "it's just my imagination" is absolutely correct. Yours, too. Also, I could point out that it's your imagination (or lack thereof) that says the said fireball is "in the face" to begin with. Grappling? Character is able to wriggle so that his ribcage isn't actually crushed. Swallowing whole? My guy is well-trained enough he digs his boots in and lodges in the throat, so he's not dissolved in stomach acid. Fall down a pit? He grabs the lid at the last second, drops from there, screeches down the rest of the way on his fingernails on the side: he's bruised and has broken nails, but not dead. Pick more extreme examples, and I can think of more possibilities.
You've "proved" only that you personally are unwilling to imagine anything except in very literal terms. That's fine, but it's not a requirement for everyone who plays to imagine their characters as video game icons or caped superheroes.
If you want "proof" of what hp are intended to represent, read Gygax's description of hp in the 1st edition Player's Handbook, and get back to me after you do (if you're not familiar with the name, he invented the game, so he probably has a pretty good idea what he's talking about). Notice, however, that I'm in no way telling you that you personally somehow have to imagine things Gygax's way. So please return the favor, and quit "proving" to me that I'm imagining them "wrong."
Looks like i'm going to need extra cashews this week...
;)
Looks like i'm going to need extra cashews this week...
I got 'em at the store last night, so I'll bring the cashews this week. Just be sure to hide them from J.J...
My imagination can work around the rules; they don't need to be changed specifically "accommodate" it.
They do need to be changed. Stop denying the obvious.
Indeed, all game action (unless you're LAPRing, which I don't) takes place in the players' imaginations, so saying "it's just my imagination" is absolutely correct. Yours, too. Also, I could point out that it's your imagination (or lack thereof) that says the said fireball is "in the face" to begin with.
The rules say that the fireball is in the face. You have rolled natural one on your save. Your shield and helm have just been actually damaged by the heat, perhaps to the point of being turned into useless slag. You, however, still have 3/4 of your hit poits. Stop denying the obvious.
Grappling? Character is able to wriggle so that his ribcage isn't actually crushed.
Ability to wriggle so good that your ribcage is not crushed by a local Godzilla equivalent is a superpower. (Doubly so, when this ability is 100% reliable.) Stop denying the obvious.
Swallowing whole? My guy is well-trained enough he digs his boots in and lodges in the throat, so he's not dissolved in stomach acid.
Rules, sometimes, say that you actually take a metric ton of damage (enough to instantly incapacitate or kill a normal human) from the stomach acid. And ability to lodge your boots in someone's flesh a second after taking massive trauma is a superpower. Stop denying the obvious (and the rules).
Fall down a pit? He grabs the lid at the last second, drops from there, screeches down the rest of the way on his fingernails on the side: he's bruised and has broken nails, but not dead.
Except he explicitly doesn't do that, he just jumps (or is thrown) down. Don't you remember, that slowing down your fall by using adjacent surfaces is a specific class' ability? Yet, other characters can survive falls well. Stop denying the obvious (and the rules). And replace the pit with an airship, if you wish.
You've "proved" only that you personally are unwilling to imagine anything except in very literal terms.
No. I just do not feel necessary to straightjacket my imagination, all just to deny the obvious.
That's fine, but it's not a requirement for everyone who plays to imagine their characters as video game icons or caped superheroes.
Whatever they want or don't want imagine, the rules say that they characters are, in fact, peers of Iron Man or Kratos, and that they must be the peers of such characters to survive run-of-the-mill dangers of high-level adventuring. If you want relatively normal (and I mean LotR movies Aragorn "normal") characters in your DnD, do not play above levels 4-5. Otherwise, stop denying the obvious.
If you want "proof" of what hp are intended to represent, read Gygax's description of hp in the 1st edition Player's Handbook,
First explain, how it is relevant to 3E, where, I repeat for those who failed to catch it the first time, heroes can fight while being chewed on by a Garganuantuan dragon - on a core book illustration.
Also, I'm quite aware, that developers, and, particularly, writers, love to pretend, that characters who, during their careers, have chopped up hundreds and thousands of enemies, including giants, ravenous demons, and the like, were able to do so just because they were good with swords and somewhat lucky. [Insert your favorite exclamation of disbelief here.] If you want your character to do super-crazy things, just admit, that he has powers, allowing him to do these things, already, and stop insulting my intelligence. Anyway, even without that these characters still are about as "normal" as Batman. I.e. hardly.and get back to me after you do (if you're not familiar with the name, he invented the game, so he probably has a pretty good idea what he's talking about).
He also has nothing to do with the development of most of its editions. Had you failed to notice, that 3.5E is not ODnD? By the way, if your reading comprehension or memory fails you, I had noticed that I'm aware what HPs were supposed to represent in my very first post on that topic. It is just that this doesn't fly in 3E anymore.
Notice, however, that I'm in no way telling you that you personally somehow have to imagine things Gygax's way. So please return the favor, and quit "proving" to me that I'm imagining them "wrong."
And once again, I say, that your imagination is only your imagination. It is not accomodated by rules, and direactly contradicts mechanical abilities of medium and high level characters, as my examples prove again and again. Take a look here (but read the preface carefully, so that I wouldn't need to remind you, that straight-class fighters fail at life above a certain level):
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1090227That's what DnD characters, who actually can handle monsters of their CR, are capable of (in core that pretty much means "casters", but with supplements melees are quite capable of kicking ass on similar level). That's what high level DnD fights can look like when you actually use imagination.
Stop denying the obvious.
Gee willickers, I guess I'm just pwned by your roXXor, or whatever. You win the Internet, OK?
But I can still envision whatever I want when I play -- you can't stop me, no matter how desperate you might be to make sure that everyone sees things exactly the way you do. What does it matter to you, anyway?
Try to concede your argument with more grace next time.
Anyway, why do I care you say? Because, as it was once noticed, people who just don't wan't to see how the rules work, is the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things. In other words, irrational insistence, that 3E-based DnD actually resembles your standard heroic fantasy when we talk of levels beyond about 5-6 (at most) is one of the reasons why core warrior classes sucked at these levels in 3-3.5 and is likely one of the reasons, why they suck at these levels in PBeta. And then newbies, who make their choices due to flavor, are surprised by, say, the fact, that the only useful thing their gun-specializing marksman (let's remember the original topic) can do, after a certain level, is to shoot yourself, so that the party don't have to waste the loot on him.
Because, as it was once noticed, people who just don't wan't to see how the rules work, is the reason Fighters Do Not Get Nice Things.
Evidently you're confusing issues. I'm the guy in every thread clamoring for fighters to be viable above 11th level, patiently explaining to everyone ad nauseum why they're currently not. How I personally visualize the action in my head has nothing in the world to do with the fact that, mechanically, melee classes were completely hamstrung in the shift from 1-2e to 3e. I've consistently been the #1 guy lobbying to give them back the ability to intercept, to move and full attack, to make immediate action responses to enemy actions, to reliably disrupt spellcasting, to deal enough damage to matter.
So, in case you missed it, I'm not actually conceding anything. How you or I imagine the "flavor" of the action is completely irrelevant, as a quick glance at almost any of my fighter topic posts will indicate. I can easily see room to give them the Nice Things they desperately need, though, without also imagining red capes that say "S" on them -- because I've learned two things on various threads on the topic: (1) overtly magic powers for fighters scare or annoy many people; suggest a supernatural ability to ignore magical miss chances, and people rebel -- but if you give fighters a "pierce the fog of war" feat that lets 'em do the exact same thing, but attributes it to their training and anticipation, all of the sudden it's OK and people will accept it. (2) Refusing to see others' points of view is counterproductive. Above all, telling anyone that they're playing "wrong" is a surefire way to ensure that your input is rejected across the board.
|
So, in case you missed it, I'm not actually conceding anything. How you or I imagine the "flavor" of the action is completely irrelevant, as a quick glance at almost any of my fighter topic posts will indicate.
Awesome. :) But we all know you're awesome, so don't worry about his temper.
So...does your conversation with houstonderek indicate you live in Houston? Because I just moved to Houston....
For firearms, in a world like Golarion I'd have fun with them. I'd make them do a lot of damage, but the bullets are expensive, reloading takes at least 2 rounds, preferably 3-4 (with optional feats to reduce this), and a misfire on a natural 1 that makes the dumb thing explode in the user's face (maybe a "confirmed fumble"? Dunno) because they're dealing with black powder.
That said, I like the concept of just making them "reflavored" magic wands where you can purchase individual charges (bullets).
Thanks, Jess.
So...does your conversation with houstonderek indicate you live in Houston? Because I just moved to Houston....
Yes, I'm on the west side. Derek and I take turns DMing a Sunday Pathfinder playtest group that seems to have filled up pretty well, despite the low number of active adult gamers in Houston.
That said, I like the concept of just making them "reflavored" magic wands where you can purchase individual charges (bullets).
Yeah, I really like that, too. Solves a lot of rules mechanics problems in one easy step.
Above all, telling anyone that they're playing "wrong" is a surefire way to ensure that your input is rejected across the board.
I agreed with everything you said except for this part, which is just plain wrong. FAIL. :-P
I agreed with everything you said except for this part, which is just plain wrong. FAIL. :-P
<big grin> To quote some former posters, if you believe that, you're obviously "made of suck!" ;)
For firearms, in a world like Golarion I'd have fun with them. I'd make them do a lot of damage, but the bullets are expensive, reloading takes at least 2 rounds, preferably 3-4 (with optional feats to reduce this), and a misfire on a natural 1 that makes the dumb thing explode in the user's face (maybe a "confirmed fumble"? Dunno) because they're dealing with black powder.
That said, I like the concept of just making them "reflavored" magic wands where you can purchase individual charges (bullets).
I have play around with that idea once. I patterned pistols off of the casters from Outlaw Star. They looked like pistols, but fired single use magic rounds and took a move action to reload.
Reminds me, RotRL or SD this weekend?
I think Sean is back, right? So we might continue RotRL, especially since we're at a cliffhanger there and haven't really gotten into the meat of SD yet.
EDIT: Oh, yeah. "Bang! Bang!" (you ever see Real Men? John Ritter's finger in that could be the basis of a whole prestige class.)
|
|
Reminds me, RotRL or SD this weekend?I think Sean is back, right? So we might continue RotRL, especially since we're at a cliffhanger there and haven't really gotten into the meat of SD yet.
EDIT: Oh, yeah. "Bang! Bang!" (you ever see Real Men? John Ritter's finger in that could be the basis of a whole prestige class.)
I'll call him tonight.
Edit: "This is my weapon, this is my gun. This is for killing, this is for fun" *pew*pew*pew* "You want some of this? *rat-a-tat* Come get some...AAAAAUGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!" *pew*pew*pew*
Edit: "This is my weapon, this is my gun. This is for killing, this is for fun"
Man, I just flashed back to the Army there for a second. Scary.
Evidently you're confusing issues. I'm the guy in every thread clamoring for fighters to be viable above 11th level, patiently explaining to everyone ad nauseum why they're currently not. How I personally visualize the action in my head has nothing in the world to do with the fact that, mechanically, melee classes were completely hamstrung in the shift from 1-2e to 3e. I've consistently been the #1 guy lobbying to give them back the ability to intercept, to move and full attack, to make immediate action responses to enemy actions, to reliably disrupt spellcasting, to deal enough damage to matter.
No, i'm not confusing issues. Fighters were hopelessly inferior to wizards in 2E too, unless the DM was explicitly building adventures with the sole purpose of countering wizard's powers of brokenation. It is just that their expiration date used to come later, because they actually were tough enough to kill serious opponents in melee, and magic had more restrictions, and wizards grew in levels slower (for the most parts of the level range). In 3E, none of your proposed changes can possibly make them viable above 11th level. Above 5th, yes, but not above 11th, when you must somehow deal with flying, invisible, solidly protected foes, that have numerous ways available to shut you down, of which bombarding your weak saves with save-or-lose effects isn't even the worst. "Enough damage" probably can make them matter, but, so far, developers actually work to strip them of that damage. Attempting to buff straight-class fighters (as opposed to general melee, which can benefit from these changes, although in 3E with supplements meleers already can have much of this or better stuff) while refusing to give them more superpowers (whatever you name them) in addition to those two they have is not going to be productive. Not when their main competition for the role of party's melee dude consists of full spellcasters and gishes. You cannot put mundanes in the company of superheroes and expect them to not suck. Even if mundanes are superpowered in all but name (see Batman again, or your own speech about the fighter fluff), but cannot have greater diversity of superpowers, thanks to your attachment to that name. And whatever you think, fluff matters here. It, for starters, can greatly help at making clear, which genres roughly match particular level ranges and what levels of competence are expected of the characters, that want to not be instantly crushed by level-appropriate opposition.
So, in case you missed it, I'm not actually conceding anything.
Refusing to adress any of the actual points is conceding the argument, however you try to mask it with condescending words.
Refusing to see others' points of view is counterproductive.
I had seen your point of view. It is neither particularly logical nor really accomodated by the game, for the reasons described in detail above. Now, how about applying this idea to yourself?
Above all, telling anyone that they're playing "wrong" is a surefire way to ensure that your input is rejected across the board.
As if my, or anyone else's, input actually matters. Besides, I don't remember ever demonstrating any interest in how you play. Just stop denying the obvious - such as the fact, that characters, clearly capable of so many wholly superhuman feats, that you cannot write them all off as freakish rules interactions, and regularly beating utterly superhuman enemies, often without much risk or effort, are, in fact, superhumans - on the boards. Wha
I still disagree with you, of course. I feel that, if Batman is "far too mundane" for you, then maybe a Superfriends game would be better for you than D&D. From what I understand of your ranting, fighters must fly at will, be immune to everything but kryptonite, and should be full casters, with time stop and gate, and not just personal buffs/debuffs/combat-appropriate powers. Is that more or less what you're getting at? I'm not sure; I have yet to see constructive rules suggestions from you anywhere on these boards.