New PDF once the Golarion Campaign Setting is revised?


Lost Omens Products

251 to 300 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee Creative Director

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Is a revised Campaign Setting (in print form) likely to be a future GenCon release? I appreciate that you can't put a precise date on release, because you need to wind up other projects first, and sell out of the current edition of the Campaign Setting, but it seems to me to be the sort of big hardcover release it would make sense to aim to release at GenCon one year.

We've already announced all of our releases up through Gen Con, and since those anouncements do not include the revised campaign setting hardcover... chances of it being for sale at Gen Con 2010 are VERY remote. And chances of it being for sale before Gen Con 2011 are VERY strong. Again... we're very close to being able to say something definite... have patience! :)

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Any chance of revising Appendix A? If you're looking at things to cut/include/expand - I'd put in a vote for keeping this as I find it remarkably useful in terms of looking for ideas.

My absolute preference would actually be to cut it from the campaign book and add a webpage which could be updated as adventures are released. I've seen it asked about before and have heard that you don't have the resources to devote to this. I dont really understand why it's not an easy thing to keep a pdf on the webpage somewhere and update it as adventure paths/modules come out. (Hopefully as simple as adding a number to the map and editting the key).

Appendix A, the list of adventure sites, is 99.94% likely to go away. Mostly because it'll become obsolete a month after the book is printed. An online version that could be regularly updated might be a better solution.

A Online version that got updated would be great. I really hope you go this route.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:


We've already announced all of our releases up through Gen Con, and since those anouncements do not include the revised campaign setting hardcover... chances of it being for sale at Gen Con 2010 are VERY remote. And chances of it being for sale before Gen Con 2011 are VERY strong. Again... we're very close to being able to say something definite... have patience! :)

Gamers? Patient? ROFLHO! ^_^

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Misery wrote:
My wife has made a dual revolver wielding gunslinger and would also be saddened to see rules cut out.
Right now I'm leaning towards including SOME sort of info about guns in the revised book... although likely not as much info as in the current edition (the optional rules will likely go away). But even if we cut EVERYTHING... the rules still exist in the form of the current hardcover. So it's not like you won't be able to keep playing that type of character in the worst-case scenario...

Just do an Alkenstar companion and put them there! There's a pretty big demand for Alkenstar stuff (I'm sure some of it is just to spite you JJ =p)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Jason Ellis 350 wrote:
Of course the firearms rules are going to get cut. The sacred cow of "no guns in fantasy" is harder to kill than any of the gods.

It's not that we don't want guns in Golarion NEARLY as much as we can't do justice to guns in 1 or 2 or 3 pages. At least, not to the extent that those who really want guns in a game will be satisfied.

Is anyone out there who likes guns in their fantasy RPGs satisfied with what we did with them in the current hardcover?

Me and my group are. Not long after finishing Legacy of fire with a with a rifle wielding Female pathfinder catfolk Ranger. (which reminds me Hope you include a catlike race in Bestairy II)

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


I've mentioned before...

Guns exist in the real world.

So do swords, axes, full plate, crossbows etc.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kevin Mack wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I've mentioned before...

Guns exist in the real world.

So do swords, axes, full plate, crossbows etc.

True... but for whatever reason (probably because swords and crossbows and the like have been in the game since the start and folks are used to them being represented by rules that aren't necessarily realistic), people don't get as worked up about them. There's a relatively significant section of gamer who demands guns to be treated with a hyperrealistic detail when it comes to guns. Ships and nautical travel has a similar element. I'm not sure why there's a weird resistance to super simplified gun rules.

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I've mentioned before...

Guns exist in the real world.

So do swords, axes, full plate, crossbows etc.
True... but for whatever reason (probably because swords and crossbows and the like have been in the game since the start and folks are used to them being represented by rules that aren't necessarily realistic), people don't get as worked up about them. There's a relatively significant section of gamer who demands guns to be treated with a hyperrealistic detail when it comes to guns. Ships and nautical travel has a similar element. I'm not sure why there's a weird resistance to super simplified gun rules.

My guess is because most people know a lot more about guns. Have used them in target practice or even own a few. While stuff like swords and stuff I seriously doubt most own real ones, likely they own replica's. So peoples knowledge is a lot less with swords and the like.

Now the sailing ship rules? got me no clue why. Beyond knowing they work off wind and sail so obviously can't just turn and go where they want.


I'd be a little bummed if the simple rules disappeared, but I understand. I don't mind simple rules that seem "close enough." Lord knows that the guns in WoW, for example, don't seem to follow the exacting physics of the real world.

But, yes, we still have the rules from the original, from 3.5, from d20 Past, and a whole bunch of other sources depending on how we want to model them.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
Kevin Mack wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


I've mentioned before...

Guns exist in the real world.

So do swords, axes, full plate, crossbows etc.
True... but for whatever reason (probably because swords and crossbows and the like have been in the game since the start and folks are used to them being represented by rules that aren't necessarily realistic), people don't get as worked up about them. There's a relatively significant section of gamer who demands guns to be treated with a hyperrealistic detail when it comes to guns. Ships and nautical travel has a similar element. I'm not sure why there's a weird resistance to super simplified gun rules.

I actually love the idea of super simplified. Heck, most the weapons are anyway. Longsword = slashing. So it can NEVER stab anyone? Or the fact that there are some rapiers that were made for some slashing as well as piercing.

... etc etc.

Sometimes you gotta keep it simple. Just happens. Different world can = different mechanics.

I was simply just worried the gun thing would be phased out all together as in "act like it never happened"

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

And I'm not saying guns ARE cut from the book. But unless I can figure out a way to handle them in 2 pages or so that feels good, doesn't feel like an afterthought, and explains why guns aren't all over the place in every part of the world... they're outa there.

And of course... if there's a huge upswell of support for guns in Golarion, that'll help too!

Well, there was the Gunslinger prestige class released in Wayfinder 2 this week ...

But my preference would be to see rules for firearms appear in a Pathfinder post-apcalyptic or Pathfinder Modern ruleset, fully compatible with Pathfinder Core. Though Paizo haven't announced any plans for such a product, I have heard of a couple of third-party companies with projects such as these in the pipeline. Let campaigns better suited to firearms handle those rules, and when they're published, in the spirit of OGL, an appropriate Golarion product could present a sidebar referring to those rules.

A Pathfinder Companion guide on Firearms might also be a way of addressing this, providing more page-count than you might want to devote to firearms within the Campaign Setting hardcover. That way, players and GMs who want to use firearms in Golarion can purchase the Firearms Companion, while those that don't can easily avoid it (except, of course, those of us with subscriptions ;-)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Misery wrote:
I was simply just worried the gun thing would be phased out all together as in "act like it never happened"

Too late for that. Guns are in Golarion, and while I might decide to downplay their presence in the revised book... and while I do kind of feel that it'd be better for the world themes if they just went away entirely... it'd be bad for the world at the same time. One of the toughest rules we try to live by with Golarion is that it's not just our world anymore... One of the design goals was to try to include elements and areas that would appeal to as many gamers as possible, even if some of those elements, say, don't appeal to the Creative Director. Like dwarves.

It's true. I like guns in my fantasy more than I like dwarves. HA!


James Jacobs wrote:

It's true. I like guns in my fantasy more than I like dwarves. HA!

Does that mean that a dwarf with a gun is better than just a dwarf?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

KnightErrantJR wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

It's true. I like guns in my fantasy more than I like dwarves. HA!

Does that mean that a dwarf with a gun is better than just a dwarf?

It does.

Paizo Employee Chief Creative Officer, Publisher

Agreed.

The Exchange

James Jacobs wrote:
Misery wrote:
I was simply just worried the gun thing would be phased out all together as in "act like it never happened"
Too late for that. Guns are in Golarion, and while I might decide to downplay their presence in the revised book... and while I do kind of feel that it'd be better for the world themes if they just went away entirely... it'd be bad for the world at the same time. One of the toughest rules we try to live by with Golarion is that it's not just our world anymore... One of the design goals was to try to include elements and areas that would appeal to as many gamers as possible, even if some of those elements, say, don't appeal to the Creative Director.

That was actually one of the things that made me a little dubious about hitching my gaming to the Golarion wagon - it seemed as if every possible fantasy 'theme' had been crammed into one world, with little effort to smooth off the adjoining edges. Too inclusive with not enough consistency.

I'm liking it better the more that I read. I guess that time had worn away any similar impressions I might have had from the Realms Grey Box.


James Jacobs wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

It's true. I like guns in my fantasy more than I like dwarves. HA!

Does that mean that a dwarf with a gun is better than just a dwarf?
It does.

If the Creative Director was a Creative Tyrant, what race would you have switched the dwarf with to become a playable race in your campaign setting? Curiosity kills a cat.

Sovereign Court

KnightErrantJR wrote:
Does that mean that a dwarf with a gun is better than just a dwarf?

It's like Al Capone said: "You can get further with a dwarf and a gun than you can with just a dwarf."

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


It's true. I like guns in my fantasy more than I like dwarves. HA!
Does that mean that a dwarf with a gun is better than just a dwarf?
It does.
Erik Mona wrote:
Agreed.

I'm suddenly left wondering how many of you guys played dwarf hunters in WoW. :)

Liberty's Edge

SirUrza wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
KnightErrantJR wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


It's true. I like guns in my fantasy more than I like dwarves. HA!
Does that mean that a dwarf with a gun is better than just a dwarf?
It does.
Erik Mona wrote:
Agreed.
I'm suddenly left wondering how many of you guys played dwarf hunters in WoW. :)

not me... when i play i do blood elven paladins or rogues...

but certainly a gunslinger dwarf is the only kind of dwarf i would ever play :P

The Exchange

Love gunslingers

Really like Dwarves.

Not so happy with their treatment in Golarion.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

brock wrote:

That was actually one of the things that made me a little dubious about hitching my gaming to the Golarion wagon - it seemed as if every possible fantasy 'theme' had been crammed into one world, with little effort to smooth off the adjoining edges. Too inclusive with not enough consistency.

I'm liking it better the more that I read. I guess that time had worn away any similar impressions I might have had from the Realms Grey Box.

We crammed a LOT into the world in hopes that there'll be something for everyone, but that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING belongs in Golarion. And we do try to make sure that things fit together smoothly even so. The revised Campaign Setting is all about making things fit even MORE smoothly.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Urizen wrote:
If the Creative Director was a Creative Tyrant, what race would you have switched the dwarf with to become a playable race in your campaign setting? Curiosity kills a cat.

Probably nothing. The game works just as well with 6 PC races as it does with 7. But creating a fantasy game without dwarves as a player race that still has elves and halflings and half-orcs and gnomes and half-elves as choices is foolish. Even in a homebrew; my homebrew game (which very heavily influences Golarion) has dwarves.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

SirUrza wrote:
I'm suddenly left wondering how many of you guys played dwarf hunters in WoW. :)

None of us, as far as I know

I play a night elf hunter in WoW, and using guns is gross in that game for a night elf. I much prefer bows. In fact, I believe I'm the only person in the editorial team who's currently active in Warcraft.

But this DOES bring up a good point. Warcraft is an INSANELY popular world, and it has guns all over it. Downplaying guns in Golarion helps us keep our world feeling different than Azeroth. This is also why we abandoned the tinker gnome mentality. Our elves DO have a bit more in common with Azeroth's elves (they have weird eyes, long ears, and are taller than humans), though, and our orcs look pretty similar (but our orcs are a lot more violent and less civilized).


Dwarves are kind of like sewers . . . they aren't pleasant, but James wouldn't get rid of them in Golarion either. ;)


James Jacobs wrote:
and our orcs look pretty similar (but our orcs are a lot more violent and less civilized).

Well . . . if Blizzard has any problems with your orcs, I think Games Workshop would get a laugh out of that . . . ;)


James Jacobs wrote:

I play a night elf hunter in WoW, and using guns is gross in that game for a night elf. I much prefer bows. In fact, I believe I'm the only person in the editorial team who's currently active in Warcraft.

But this DOES bring up a good point. Warcraft is an INSANELY popular world, and it has guns all over it. Downplaying guns in Golarion helps us keep our world feeling different than Azeroth. This is also why we abandoned the tinker gnome mentality. Our elves DO have a bit more in common with Azeroth's elves (they have weird eyes, long ears, and are taller than humans), though, and our orcs look pretty similar (but our orcs are a lot more violent and less civilized).

Hm. Tinker gnomes would like to hang out in Alkenstar.

:P

Paizo Employee Creative Director

KnightErrantJR wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
and our orcs look pretty similar (but our orcs are a lot more violent and less civilized).
Well . . . if Blizzard has any problems with your orcs, I think Games Workshop would get a laugh out of that . . . ;)

I'm not really worried about Blizzard... I'm more worried about making Golarion feel like its own thing and not something that's trying to ape something that's come before. There's a LOT in Golarion that falls into that category, and not just as far as Warcraft is concerned. By picking and choosing what is and isn't in the world, we make it unique.

And as for Blizzard... now THERE'S a world you can check out to see what happens when you adopt an "everything plus the kitchen sink" approach to building a world. They can get away with it because they can control every choice available to those who play in the world. A pen and paper RPG cannot. Which is one of the format's remaining strengths over video games... but it's also a troublemaker!


Crosses "Ostrich, Mechanical" off the list of monsters in the Bestiary II.


James Jacobs wrote:


I'm not really worried about Blizzard... I'm more worried about making Golarion feel like its own thing and not something that's trying to ape something that's come before. There's a LOT in Golarion that falls into that category, and not just as far as Warcraft is concerned. By picking and choosing what is and isn't in the world, we make it unique.

Oh, and I appreciate it. I was a die hard Realms fan, but I got really worn out in 2nd edition when it seemed like the setting not only had to have areas that "felt" like various fantasy settings, but that it had to have almost exact carbon copy areas from various historical periods that weren't even "fantisized" that much.

And for anyone that thinks I'm just talking about Maztica or the Hordelands, you obviously never read The Great Glacier, where the entire book was about how to make igloos and explained that pretty much the humans, dwarves, and frost giants in the area were all based on native arctic tribes with virtually no magic involved at all, and what different types of snow were . . . and . . .

Did I mention how much I liked Frostburn and how it managed to "suggest" various arctic cultures without getting bogged down by trying to recreate history?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Sounds like I'm glad I never read and/or bought that one KEJ. :)


SirUrza wrote:
Sounds like I'm glad I never read and/or bought that one KEJ. :)

Yeah, I was hoping for really cool details, like all of the secrets under Anauroch, with the Phaerimm and the creatures they control, and the lost Netherese treasures and stuff like that.

Instead we got:

There are humans. They have almost no spellcasters. [Insert details about Inuit culture here with real world proper names removed]

There are dwarves. They aren't like other dwarves. [Insert details about Inuit culture here with real world proper names removed] And, oh yeah, they have almost no spellcasters.

There are Frost Giants (Hooray, here we go . . . ). They aren't like other Frost Giants. They get along with pretty much everyone, including the dwarves. They don't have advanced engineering, so they use the same primitive weapons as the dwarves and humans. [Insert details about Inuit culture here with real world proper names removed]. ( . . . wait . . . what?)

Then there was one or two paragraphs about some magical sites that might be interesting, followed by ten or fifteen or something pages on making igloos and different types of snow.

What's dangerous besides the snow and cold? Well, there are really rare dragon/rhemorhaz things that pretty much kill anyone they run into, because everyone is a 0 level NPC with crappy weapons.

Oh, and there are sled dogs with walrus tusks and two tails.

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
And as for Blizzard... now THERE'S a world you can check out to see what happens when you adopt an "everything plus the kitchen sink" approach to building a world. They can get away with it because they can control every choice available to those who play in the world. A pen and paper RPG cannot. Which is one of the format's remaining strengths over video games... but it's also a troublemaker!

Well Warcraft RPG published by...Arthaus? (one group from White Wolf) did an interesting work with their background without making it too strange, of course I am talking about the 3.x version (still their 'invention' rules were pretty much weird)... but I mostly hated their WoW RPG :S he only interestign thing was the races they did them in the spirit of Arcana Evolved, with levels to grew your own rae... but magic and classes were to gamist :(

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Montalve wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
And as for Blizzard... now THERE'S a world you can check out to see what happens when you adopt an "everything plus the kitchen sink" approach to building a world. They can get away with it because they can control every choice available to those who play in the world. A pen and paper RPG cannot. Which is one of the format's remaining strengths over video games... but it's also a troublemaker!
Well Warcraft RPG published by...Arthaus? (one group from White Wolf) did an interesting work with their background without making it too strange, of course I am talking about the 3.x version (still their 'invention' rules were pretty much weird)... but I mostly hated their WoW RPG :S he only interestign thing was the races they did them in the spirit of Arcana Evolved, with levels to grew your own rae... but magic and classes were to gamist :(

The Warcraft RPG was originally supposed to be published by WotC; working on it was actually my first design gig for Wizards of the Coast. This was back when things were gearing up for the release of Warcraft III. Unfortunately, some time after the three original designers turned over the text and it was in editing, WotC decided to bow out of doing licensed games for D&D and the Warcraft RPG was transferred over to White Wolf, who then rebuilt the entire document from the ground up. I still got a thank you in the credits of the 1st edition, though!

Liberty's Edge

James Jacobs wrote:
The Warcraft RPG was originally supposed to be published by WotC; working on it was actually my first design gig for Wizards of the Coast. This was back when things were gearing up for the release of Warcraft III. Unfortunately, some time after the three original designers turned over the text and it was in editing, WotC decided to bow out of doing licensed games for D&D and the Warcraft RPG was transferred over to White Wolf, who then rebuilt the entire document from the ground up. I still got a thank you in the credits of the 1st edition, though!

ugh! sorry to hear that, still would have interesting to see it. I suppose Diablo didn't left them a good taste... which has its detail, still i liked the maps they gave us in the 2nd book.

Still it should have been an interesting job if you got a thanks in the credits :) (so many years since I open those books that I don't remember things like that :S, i am sure i will have to use an spatula to separate the plastic covers of each book just to check at them :P)

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
The Warcraft RPG was originally supposed to be published by WotC; working on it was actually my first design gig for Wizards of the Coast. This was back when things were gearing up for the release of Warcraft III. Unfortunately, some time after the three original designers turned over the text and it was in editing, WotC decided to bow out of doing licensed games for D&D and the Warcraft RPG was transferred over to White Wolf, who then rebuilt the entire document from the ground up. I still got a thank you in the credits of the 1st edition, though!

Wow, first I'd heard of this.

Montalve wrote:
ugh! sorry to hear that, still would have interesting to see it. I suppose Diablo didn't left them a good taste...

Agreed. Dare I say White Wolf did a lot better with Warcraft RPG than WotC/Wizards(?) did with Diablo.

I've seen a few Computer RPGs make the transition to D20, and you would think the popularity of the Computer RPG and rich campaign flavour would translate into more players and sales.

However, the biggest mistake you can make is to hang onto the Computer RPG rules, such as re-distributing 9 levels of d20 spells among the 6 levels available in a Computer RPG, for example, because it prevents you from expanding your game with spells (or other elements) from standard d20 sources. Even hanging onto ability names such as Stamina instead of Constitution creates a disconnect when mixing and matching rules from standard d20 sources, most players just aren't going to bother.

I'm guessing the justification was to ease Computer RPG players transition with familiar systems, but my guess is that this tactic doesn't work nearly as well as remaining true to d20 where there's more support in product and existing player networks. Another example of unnecessarily fragmenting the player-base.

None-the-less, with all the comparisons (deserved or not) between 4E and WoW, it might have been fortuitous for Wizards to have hung onto that licence a little longer.


DarkWhite wrote:
Dare I say White Wolf did a lot better with Warcraft RPG than WotC/Wizards(?) did with Diablo.

Agreed. I bought a lot of the d20 WoW titles despite having never ever played the video game. But Diablo? I'm sorry, but it blew goats. It just seemed so incomplete and half-assed. I've picked up in my hands a number of times -- even when discounted at HPB, but I put it right back on the shelf and move to the next title.


I say keep them boomsticks! The main detail I like about Golarion's shooters is that they are a sort of almost magical wonder, that only a select few people from a very far away place really know how to craft and handle. Sure, they may be "sciency stuff" to the metagamer, but taken from an in-character perspective, they are pretty much artifacts of awe and mystery.

When Europeans first heard of the strange explosive powder engines from the Orient, they were struck by beffudlement. I see Alkenstar's Fiery Wonders very much in the same way in regards to the rest of Golarion. It is a great aspect to play along with.

Urizen wrote:


Agreed. I bought a lot of the d20 WoW titles despite having never ever played the video game. But Diablo? I'm sorry, but it blew goats. It just seemed so incomplete and half-assed. I've picked up in my hands a number of times -- even when discounted at HPB, but I put it right back on the shelf and move to the next title.

Really? I always thought there was so much untapped potential within the Diablo background, enough to make a good game. Never picked up the books, but I had hopes for it to be good.


Klaus van der Kroft wrote:
Really? I always thought there was so much untapped potential within the Diablo background, enough to make a good game. Never picked up the books, but I had hopes for it to be good.

Yes, there is untapped potential. It's just that it remained untapped. DarkWhite's comment is a good observation. If ever possible, hold WW's WoW side by side with WotC's Diablo. There are 3PPs out there with less of a budget to work with has put out better dead tree products than what we got with Diablo.

Anywhoo...back on topic.

Liberty's Edge

Klaus I agree... firearms are even less common than magic and they should be shown and seen in awe, a dangerous and complix artifacts that beffudles and surprise...

of course in a world were magic is common you might surprise a few... but not many...

and James now I see you are actually the first one on the list of WotC to get the special thanks, interesting indeed.


Given that according to the Campaign Setting timeline Alkenstar built the gunworks in 1903 AR (page 201) and that the current years is 4708 AR (page 203) it strikes me as somewhat odd that with 2805+ years of development behind firearms that the machine gun is not apparently available yet.

Turning to other matters, assuming that the stated rate of production of Alkenstar's gunworks of one small arms weapon a day (page 59) is a representative average rate of production, there have been over a million firearms produced by the gunworks, although to be fair, I assume that there comes a point when use and corrosion with time (especially since magical preservation techniques of metal likely do not function in Alkenstar where they are manufactured) will render older firearms ineffective.
Given that the gunworks is also stated to have a much higher production capacity than the 1/day figure cited, I assume production of small firearms to equip Alkenstar's armed forces is not covered by the above 1/day figure, however, and that those numbers represent firearms available to foreign merchants, wandering adventurers, and recently settled citizens. With careful maintenance and assuming a firearm remains viable for 50 years as a rough estimate there are somewhere between eighteen and nineteen thousand working small arms in circulation I figure. Whilst some additional firearms may have found their way into circulation by way of retiring military members taking weapons with them and/or illegally selling guns on the black market there will be a natural wastage of guns eaten along with their owners by bulettes, disintegrated by wizards, dissolved by oozes, lost down wells during late night drunken binges, etc, etc.
The population of Alkenstar City given in the Campaign Setting on page 58 is currently 53,600, and although not all of these citizens will be able to afford a gun, some of them may have hand-me-downs from previous generations.
At this point the cost of guns becomes an issue though; what proportion of Alkenstar's citizens will be able to afford guns at the prices listed on Page 212? The high prices seem to suggest to me that not many will, and that most of those eighteen to nineteen thousand guns in circulation will be in foreign hands. Even if Alkenstar citizens get a sizeable discount on the purchase of firearms, that will simply encourage a number of citizens to act as middlemen, buying guns cheap and selling a per centage of them on to foreigners for profit. It seems to me that at least a third of those eighteen to nineteen thousand viable weapons will have 'gone abroad'. The question is what proportion of those are currently in the hands of 'musketeer' style regiments of national armies or the personal guards of the wealthy? The rest will be in general circulation.
It seems to me not unlikely that every now and then, given the figures I have been working with, that a gun ought to inevitably pop up in game. The owner may not have access to the powder or bullets to be able to use it, but PCs still ought to see them around occasionally, unless my reckoning is very off. (The Alkenstar military having to purchase guns 'over the counter' from the 1/day production of the gunworks like everyone else would make a sizeable impact on availability, although it would seem to me to be somewhat odd that the Alkenstar government would allow that situation to occur.)

Edit:
Hmm. Distribution may fall off with distance from Alkenstar, since it is ostensibly a unique source for these items, and merchants may wish to travel shorter distances to sell them on the market in Katapesh and ports specifically around the Inner Sea, than travel further afield to sell them. Although given the prices that they are listed as fetching on the market, unless there is something unique to Alkenstar that makes their production only possible there, I am unclear why enterprising metallurgists and smiths in places such as Korvosa have not started copying and manufacturing these items by now? - unless their usefulness/function is impaired away from the mana wastes. All it takes is one grandee having a 'pheasant shooting party' with his gun collection and everyone who is anyone in wealthy circles will want one.

Frankly though, I wish Alkenstar would just go away and save these long discussions/arguements.
What about some crazy scheme involving Rovagug that (further) lays waste to the mana wastes?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The population of Alkenstar and the timeline of gun invention is VERY likely to be adjusted to be something more recent and more compact. And all around revised, to be honest. It's not gonna go away, but it WILL be rebuilt to be more well-thought-out in how it interacts with the rest of Golarion.


James Jacobs wrote:
The population of Alkenstar and the timeline of gun invention is VERY likely to be adjusted to be something more recent and more compact. And all around revised, to be honest. It's not gonna go away, but it WILL be rebuilt to be more well-thought-out in how it interacts with the rest of Golarion.

:)


Charles Evans 25 wrote:
.......With careful maintenance and assuming a firearm remains viable for 50 years as a rough estimate......

I just wanted to point out that firearms, both black powder and the more modern gunpowder, that are properly maintained and repaired will stay functional and safe to fire for hundreds of years, depending on the original quality of manufacture. There is a show on the History Channel called Pawn Stars and they love to show antique firearms that people bring in to sell. Every one of them that they buy and show on air is test fired successfully, and some of the guns have dated back to the 1600's and 1700's.

Liberty's Edge

Charles Evans 25 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The population of Alkenstar and the timeline of gun invention is VERY likely to be adjusted to be something more recent and more compact. And all around revised, to be honest. It's not gonna go away, but it WILL be rebuilt to be more well-thought-out in how it interacts with the rest of Golarion.

:)

different than Chjarles this doesn't make me happy...

besides the point that no civilization would have been posible there assuming there are mosnter and there is no divine magic... nro even for the dwarves below the earth...


A question with serious implications for the spread of guns in Golarion would seem to me to be can they be enchanted or not? If they are impossible or very difficult to imbue with magic (since I think it could be safely assumed that some individuals and organizations outside the mana wastes with access to guns would attempt to apply magic, if at all possible, to firearms purchased and exported) then it limits the effectiveness and attractiveness of firearms generally given that a wizard with something as simple as protection from arrows is virtually immune to them. (It also means that to fight a werewolf with a firearm you literally do need a silver bullet.)
If guns can be easily enchanted then I presume you have +1 flaming thundering shocking-burst rifles around, with spellcasters casting greater magic weapon on them, the same as with other ranged weapons...
As a further question/thought with regard to revising/developing firearm rules, should each individual bullet be considered a separate weapon for the purposes of magic item creation or spellcasting? Does the same apply to shot for blunderbusses and scatterguns, or to musketballs for muskets?

A further question guns invite is why can't a first level PC who comes into possession of a 5 chamber revolver simply point it and pull the trigger five times, making five attacks in one combat round (assuming it does not misfire)?
NB
The 2nd edition AD&D Masque of the Red Death resource had a take which I found interesting on firing firearms multiple times in a round, although that was operating under the 'one minute combat round' rules of that edition. I'm not sure how realistic it was, but it could be worth having a look at them for inspiration though.

Enevhar Aldarion:
Thanks for that update. That seems to suggest to me that my estimates for how prolific firearms might be in the setting under the current background and data may have been somewhat on the conservative side...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Montalve wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The population of Alkenstar and the timeline of gun invention is VERY likely to be adjusted to be something more recent and more compact. And all around revised, to be honest. It's not gonna go away, but it WILL be rebuilt to be more well-thought-out in how it interacts with the rest of Golarion.

:)

different than Chjarles this doesn't make me happy...

besides the point that no civilization would have been posible there assuming there are mosnter and there is no divine magic... nro even for the dwarves below the earth...

I'll be doing my best to keep as much of Alkenstar's flavor as possible... but the simple fact is that it's a sore thumb. It doesn't really match the rest of Golarion in a lot of ways... and it needs to since it's part of the world. I understand that the region has its fans and admirers, and it's not gonna go away... but it is going to change. My job is to make sure it changes so that it fits into the world in a way that isn't awkward while at the same time minimizing the impact on those who enjoy the region. We'll see if I did a good job with the revision once the new PCCS is out... but listening to folks on these threads is helping a LOT.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Guns, like any other type of weapon, can be turned into magic weapons. Same way that bows and other ranged weapons can.


James Jacobs wrote:
Montalve wrote:
Charles Evans 25 wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
The population of Alkenstar and the timeline of gun invention is VERY likely to be adjusted to be something more recent and more compact. And all around revised, to be honest. It's not gonna go away, but it WILL be rebuilt to be more well-thought-out in how it interacts with the rest of Golarion.

:)

different than Chjarles this doesn't make me happy...

besides the point that no civilization would have been posible there assuming there are mosnter and there is no divine magic... nro even for the dwarves below the earth...

I'll be doing my best to keep as much of Alkenstar's flavor as possible... but the simple fact is that it's a sore thumb. It doesn't really match the rest of Golarion in a lot of ways... and it needs to since it's part of the world. I understand that the region has its fans and admirers, and it's not gonna go away... but it is going to change. My job is to make sure it changes so that it fits into the world in a way that isn't awkward while at the same time minimizing the impact on those who enjoy the region. We'll see if I did a good job with the revision once the new PCCS is out... but listening to folks on these threads is helping a LOT.

I noticed you seem to have many issues with Alkenstar and how it fits in with the rest of Golarion so I am forced to wonder how it made it into the CS as is to begin with? Maybe this was already discussed somewhere else but I'm curious to learn the answer. It seems like it would have been better to not have it at all.


I believe it was Mike McArtor....before he left?

251 to 300 of 335 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / Lost Omens Products / New PDF once the Golarion Campaign Setting is revised? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.