I have not been able to play test the Inquisitor yet but I gotta say that I love the look of the class and it possibilities. My only big disappointment after one look is the weapon proficiences. Why do they not have Martial Weapon Prof.? Why do they not have hand crossbow? Most importantly though, why do they not have Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Firearms. I would think that would almost be standard for a Inquisitor. Look at Solomon Kane. It may be kinda cool to have a class that starts with that proficiency as well. I do not know how that would effect the play of the class but it would be interesting to see. I will definatly have to try it out when I get a chance. Any comments?
I have not been able to play test the Inquisitor yet but I gotta say that I love the look of the class and it possibilities. My only big disappointment after one look is the weapon proficiences. Why do they not have Martial Weapon Prof.? Why do they not have hand crossbow? Most importantly though, why do they not have Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Firearms. I would think that would almost be standard for a Inquisitor. Look at Solomon Kane. It may be kinda cool to have a class that starts with that proficiency as well. I do not know how that would effect the play of the class but it would be interesting to see. I will definatly have to try it out when I get a chance. Any comments?
Are there any Firearms in core? I don't have my book.
I think firearms would be an easy house rule for the class but Paizo keeps them as a sideline thing.
EWP: Hand Crossbow and Repeating Crossbow would be very appropriate for the class though. Maybe that horrible Van Helsig movie is putting that in my mind... or maybe just my like of the repeating crossbow :)
I have never and do not intend to ever have firearms in my PRPG game, so not explicitly adding references to them in books not dedicated to them would be appreciated.
On the other hand, psionics are wonderful and I look forward to their inclusion at your earliest opportunity. No, I do not see a contradiction in these viewpoints. ;)
But, seriously, no guns please. Dennis's repeating crossbow idea does have merit and would fit the class nicely.
I have never and do not intend to ever have firearms in my PRPG game, so not explicitly adding references to them in books not dedicated to them would be appreciated.
On the other hand, psionics are wonderful and I look forward to their inclusion at your earliest opportunity. No, I do not see a contradiction in these viewpoints. ;)
But, seriously, no guns please. Dennis's repeating crossbow idea does have merit and would fit the class nicely.
I am exactly the opposite. I dont understand this sentiment either. Firearms predate the age of the sail, but no one complains about sailing ships in their fantasy. Wands of Magic Missile are more reliable and do more damage, but no one complains much about a wandslinger over a gunslinger.
I dont understand why people will let rapiers, and swashbuckling, and airships, and clockwork, (and even trains sometimes!) into their fantasy, but they flip out if someone mentions firearms.
Its ok that you dont like them, its ok that you dont want them in your game, but asking for them to not be in any book not strictly committed to them is a little much. Seriously. Especially since theres an entire region in Golarion in which they are very common, and the use by sailors isnt unheard of.
Your complaint isnt really about firearms, its about Genre-mixing, and that isnt something that will be going away. (thank gods)
I dont understand why people will let rapiers, and swashbuckling, and airships, and clockwork, (and even trains sometimes!) into their fantasy, but they flip out if someone mentions firearms.I think part of it is the fact that firearms are done poorly in pretty much every system that tries to add them into a swords and sorcery setting. I think Iron Kingdoms did a pretty good job of them, made them do good damage but they take so long to reload that you just walk into battle with your pistol, you shoot it, drop it, pull out your sword and charge.
Firearms are in the Pathfinder Campaign Guide but I can totally understand not using them, they do add a diffrent angle. I guess it would be up to a DM to trade bow's for firearms. It would be very nice to see Repeating Crossbows and Handcrossbows added to their proficiences though. I can understand not adding martial weapon proficiency but what about rapiers and shortswords? Both seem to be classic Inquisitor weapons. Didnt Solomon Kane use a pistol and rapier?
|
As Piper says,
They already are a part of Golarion history. They came, people blew off their own arms becasue they didn't know how to use them, so scrapped them in favour of crosbows and magic. From a 'technology and science' standpoint this makes sense. Why mess with something dangerous that you can kill yourself with, when there's already more powerful, safer, established forces available.
As a side note, firearms are more common in the Mana Wastes where magic doesn't work.
Which reminds me (as a further tangent); I hope there are plans to either re-release, or at least release a conversion update for the Campaign Setting. Lots of it is easy enough to bring over, but there are small things, like the expanded domains, which are written in 3.5 style rather than Pathfinder Domain style.
Ah but firearms do not exist in the current rules. Seems kinda odd to add something they have no plan to put in the book, or have in the rules as of yet
|
|
Ah but firearms do not exist in the current rules. Seems kinda odd to add something they have no plan to put in the book, or have in the rules as of yet
I'd say this is point of view.. Rules for Firearms do exist in a pathfinder book already.. it just happens to be a book they released before releasing the system as it's own entity.
Since firearms are already cannon it stands to reason that there are plans to put them in a future book. Also, weapon-wise, damage and rules haven't really changed between 3.5 and pathfinder so there's no reason you can't just use them as is from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book.
Firearms predate the great sword of Conan fantasy and plate mail of DnD fame. Blame "Papa" Tolkien on the lack of firearms. He knew languages and myths but not history.
In fact, the era lacking in firearms would also not have heavey warhorses or rapiers. A whole tone of things would be taken away from d20 to match the pre-gun powder era.
But going back to the original post, I think the favored soul definately influinced this inquisitor's weapon choice. Take a level of fighter or ranger to get the martial feats.
Ah but firearms do not exist in the current rules. Seems kinda odd to add something they have no plan to put in the book, or have in the rules as of yetI'd say this is point of view.. Rules for Firearms do exist in a pathfinder book already.. it just happens to be a book they released before releasing the system as it's own entity.
Since firearms are already cannon it stands to reason that there are plans to put them in a future book. Also, weapon-wise, damage and rules haven't really changed between 3.5 and pathfinder so there's no reason you can't just use them as is from the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book.
again this but is not a campaign book. It is not a setting but, not a book about Golarion at all. So you do not place things in a rules book that forces you to have an older setting book just to use it. The APG is a rules book not one of the setting line and not tired to the setting
Besides most folks it seems didn't like the DMG, gun rules. I know some folks at paizo regret including guns in the setting book.
I am sure you will not be seeing firearms until they come up with a set of firearm rules they think is both balanced and fitting to the current rules
|
|
The long and the short is:
Guns are setting specific. Paizo does not include setting specific material in their core rulebooks, of which the APG is part of. If you wish, you can have the Inquisitor get firearm proficiency automatically when in a setting that uses firearms, but to include something so heavily tied to campaign setting, is not the purpose of the exorcise.
|
|
Well my turn for snark, and it's the last I'll say on it because it's really not actually worth arguing over.
The APG is a rules book not one of the setting line and not tired to the setting
Right, because WotC, NEVER put out anything that was campaign specific in any of the splat books. Like feats dependant on Greyhawk deities (Races of Destiny), or base classes that gained abilities tied to specific deities (Complete Psionics), or anything else like that (countless prestige classes that are deity dependant).
All said and told, way I see it is they're making things FOR Pathfinder. If all of WotC's books tend to default to what exists in Greyhawk, why shouldn't Paizo default to what exists in Golarion.
|
|
Well my turn for snark, and it's the last I'll say on it because it's really not actually worth arguing over.
The APG is a rules book not one of the setting line and not tired to the settingRight, because WotC, NEVER put out anything that was campaign specific in any of the splat books. Like feats dependant on Greyhawk deities (Races of Destiny), or base classes that gained abilities tied to specific deities (Complete Psionics), or anything else like that (countless prestige classes that are deity dependant).
All said and told, way I see it is they're making things FOR Pathfinder. If all of WotC's books tend to default to what exists in Greyhawk, why shouldn't Paizo default to what exists in Golarion.
Paizo =/= WOTC
Just because there is a precedent for it, does not mean it will be followed.
All said and told, way I see it is they're making things FOR Pathfinder. If all of WotC's books tend to default to what exists in Greyhawk, why shouldn't Paizo default to what exists in Golarion.
While I'm fine with firearms rules (would love to see them), until they are put out in a rule book, the answer is a big resounding no. I'm upset they put golarian gods in the core book with no descriptions. It means if I want to use those gods in a game, I have to go buy 1-12 other books. I loath when companies do that. I'm very pleased that is the only thing they've done like that and don't want any more entries in rule books that require me to buy another book to use.
|
|
While I'm fine with firearms rules (would love to see them), until they are put out in a rule book, the answer is a big resounding no. I'm upset they put golarian gods in the core book with no descriptions. It means if I want to use those gods in a game, I have to go buy 1-12 other books. I loath when companies do that. I'm very pleased that is the only thing they've done like that and don't want any more entries in rule books that require me to buy another book to use.
All said and told, way I see it is they're making things FOR Pathfinder. If all of WotC's books tend to default to what exists in Greyhawk, why shouldn't Paizo default to what exists in Golarion.
I actually believe that they did that as an example. The intent was to show you a good spread of gods and the kinds of interactions between Domains that would be feasible.
Well my turn for snark, and it's the last I'll say on it because it's really not actually worth arguing over.
The APG is a rules book not one of the setting line and not tired to the settingRight, because WotC, NEVER put out anything that was campaign specific in any of the splat books. Like feats dependant on Greyhawk deities (Races of Destiny), or base classes that gained abilities tied to specific deities (Complete Psionics), or anything else like that (countless prestige classes that are deity dependant).
All said and told, way I see it is they're making things FOR Pathfinder. If all of WotC's books tend to default to what exists in Greyhawk, why shouldn't Paizo default to what exists in Golarion.
what does what WOTC did have anything to do with this? As it stands there are no gun rules made for and printed in any Pathfinder RPG rule book.
Defaulting for fluff is one thing, defaulting to force you to buy a book for a weapon is another. And as I said before they have sated they regret including such rules in the book and will not be using them again for the setting if they can help it
And I used no snark. I just told you something you did not like it seems
Paizo does not include setting specific material in their core rulebooks, of which the APG is part of.P.43 Core rules: Table 3-6: Deities of the Pathfinder Chronicles
Because of the nature of certain base clases there is always some setting specific material.
Yep a god list of names(which they printed in the book) is in no way the same as rules you need from a book from an older system even. Might as well tell them to use guns form the 3.5 DMG or from iron kingdoms. It be like saying "We added 7 spells on your spell list, but you need to go hunt down 5 older books to use the spells"
Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Firearms. I would think that would almost be standard for a Inquisitor.For the inquisitor? What about for the alchemist?
that was what was thinking too! A gun wieldin', bomb throwin' alchemist! I think I'll make him a goblin and call him Dr. Boom ....
Edit - Oh to the martial proficiencies point, by convention, you will notice that the only classes that have full martial proficiencies are the ones with full BABs. All the other ones have simple profs + some select martial/exotic profs based on their theme. While I do see where you are coming from, I wonder if the class just needs a few select martial/exotic profs added instead of the full list.
I just don't think it's right to just toss aside the hard work that Paizo put into fleshing out their world just because it came out before their own system. Especially since they're both based on OGL and d20.
Your missing the point. You do not make a class with an ablity, or weapon spell of what have you that does not have that item stated up in the core book or the one the class in from
As guns will not be in the APG and are not in the core rules they will not be on the list for any classes from the APG
While they sometimes default to the setting for fluff when needed , asking folks to hunt down a book you published just to use something from this book is a bad call, and builds resentment and lost sales more then it helps anything.
While I'm fine with firearms rules (would love to see them), until they are put out in a rule book, the answer is a big resounding no. I'm upset they put golarian gods in the core book with no descriptions. It means if I want to use those gods in a game, I have to go buy 1-12 other books. I loath when companies do that. I'm very pleased that is the only thing they've done like that and don't want any more entries in rule books that require me to buy another book to use.
All said and told, way I see it is they're making things FOR Pathfinder. If all of WotC's books tend to default to what exists in Greyhawk, why shouldn't Paizo default to what exists in Golarion.
Or you could go to the Pathfinder Wiki where they have much more than Paizo could have put in the core book online for free.
|
|
I just don't think it's right to just toss aside the hard work that Paizo put into fleshing out their world just because it came out before their own system. Especially since they're both based on OGL and d20.
Seeker pretty much summed it up in one go. Its considered bad form to write a core book (that is to say, a book that is supposed to be devoid of setting like the core rules and monster manual) that needs supplementary books to function. They consciously chose to eliminate guns from the core rules of the game, and put them in their campaign setting.
Even though they wrote the core rules as a means of supporting their campaign setting, they also realized that they are catering to a market now, much larger than a campaign setting. They are now marketing to players of a myriad of campaign settings. It would be a horrible and unfair use of their materials to FORCE players to buy books they may or may not own. Even if the argument of using the 3.5 DMG comes up, that still means you either support WOTC or you have to buy another book from Paizo to get the full use of a character.
That, as Seeker said, is a horrible business decision.
I dont understand why people will let rapiers, and swashbuckling, and airships, and clockwork, (and even trains sometimes!) into their fantasy, but they flip out if someone mentions firearms.I think part of it is the fact that firearms are done poorly in pretty much every system that tries to add them into a swords and sorcery setting. I think Iron Kingdoms did a pretty good job of them, made them do good damage but they take so long to reload that you just walk into battle with your pistol, you shoot it, drop it, pull out your sword and charge.
Possibly...just possibly, that is because it has some resembilance to the way in which that style of fire arm was actually used.*Shrugs*
|
|
I'd like to point out that really, i don't care either way weather the Inquisiter gets firearms or not. My initial point was agreeing with someone else that they are in the world. That's all.
As for weather they're going to be in the APG or not. Yes, it's not looking good, but if I recall, James didn't say 'no way' just, 'not likely, but we should do it eventually' (paraphrased)
The long and the short is:
Guns are setting specific. Paizo does not include setting specific material in their core rulebooks, of which the APG is part of. If you wish, you can have the Inquisitor get firearm proficiency automatically when in a setting that uses firearms, but to include something so heavily tied to campaign setting, is not the purpose of the exorcise.
Yes paizo does include setting specific material.
divine and arcane magic are both setting specific.
Each of the races is setting specific.
The classes, with the possible exception of the fighter and rogue are setting specific.
Not to golarion per say, but to settings which include elements such as elves, or wizards. Not all fantasy settings contain all of thse element.
Personally, i would rather have the tools availible and decide which i wish to use. That applies to wizards every bit as much as flintlocks.
|
|
The long and the short is:
Guns are setting specific. Paizo does not include setting specific material in their core rulebooks, of which the APG is part of. If you wish, you can have the Inquisitor get firearm proficiency automatically when in a setting that uses firearms, but to include something so heavily tied to campaign setting, is not the purpose of the exorcise.
Yes paizo does include setting specific material.
divine and arcane magic are both setting specific.
Each of the races is setting specific.
The classes, with the possible exception of the fighter and rogue are setting specific.Not to golarion per say, but to settings which include elements such as elves, or wizards. Not all fantasy settings contain all of thse element.
Personally, i would rather have the tools availible and decide which i wish to use. That applies to wizards every bit as much as flintlocks.
Actually I think you have that rather backwards. The norm is high fantasy, which includes magic and elves and dwarves and halflings and gnomes. The very basic premise of the game includes these things, and many have been hallmarked since the first printing of DnD.
To simply say that stuff is setting specific because its including many fantasy tropes, is highly discourteous to the past that Paizo takes from.
I think that fantasy settings are actually considered not the norm when there IS no magic, or there ARE no elves or dwarves. These are things that make the settings different. Unfortunately Tolkien set the standard for what is and is not considered the norm for fantasy. More so since DnD takes alot of its concepts from that setting. (Ranger ability of Black Arrow goes directly back to Bard shooting Smaug in the Hobbit with a black arrow.)
The long and the short is:
Guns are setting specific. Paizo does not include setting specific material in their core rulebooks, of which the APG is part of. If you wish, you can have the Inquisitor get firearm proficiency automatically when in a setting that uses firearms, but to include something so heavily tied to campaign setting, is not the purpose of the exorcise.
Yes paizo does include setting specific material.
divine and arcane magic are both setting specific.
Each of the races is setting specific.
The classes, with the possible exception of the fighter and rogue are setting specific.Not to golarion per say, but to settings which include elements such as elves, or wizards. Not all fantasy settings contain all of thse element.
Personally, i would rather have the tools availible and decide which i wish to use. That applies to wizards every bit as much as flintlocks.
Actually I think you have that rather backwards. The norm is high fantasy, which includes magic and elves and dwarves and halflings and gnomes. The very basic premise of the game includes these things, and many have been hallmarked since the first printing of DnD.
To simply say that stuff is setting specific because its including many fantasy tropes, is highly discourteous to the past that Paizo takes from.
I think that fantasy settings are actually considered not the norm when there IS no magic, or there ARE no elves or dwarves. These are things that make the settings different. Unfortunately Tolkien set the standard for what is and is not considered the norm for fantasy. More so since DnD takes alot of its concepts from that setting. (Ranger ability of Black Arrow goes directly back to Bard shooting Smaug in the Hobbit with a black arrow.)
Starter for ten, what is the Best selling fantasy wargame that conforms with the tropes of high fantasy, while including Firearms?
Your first bonus for five, which trilogy of books by philip pullman, which also can be considered high fantasy, includes firearms.
Fire arms are not antithetical high fantasy, and elves and wizards are not intrinsically part of it.
Even within DnD we have examples of worlds where individual elements do not exist. Look to darksun, or the absense of Orcs from ravenloft. Is ravenloft not part of that shining past you refer to.
It is also worth pointing out it was not Tolkin alone who set down what is the 'norm' for DnD. I mean, magic in DnD has almost nothing in common with Tolkin's world, yet it has a supprising amount in common with Jack Vance's dying earth.
...guns will not be in the APG...Where was this announced?
Jason commented on it in a post in a thread entitled 'Firearms rules please' or something to that effect. I'm sorry, I can't find it right now (didn't look too hard, honestly).
Yep, they have no plans to include them yet, or anytime in the near future. They seem to fill like firearms should note be just a footnote and a page of detail, but thought out and addressed head on.
Can't say I blame em. Well thought out rules, with feats and skills and pages of how to handle them in game, would fit better then a page of stuff and a here ya go
Edit: found the quote Was James BTW not Jason
If we added firearms to the Advanced Player's Guide... it would be cool to add a gunslinger base class. I'm afraid it's too late to introduce a new base class, though.
That said, adding firearms to the APG is an interesting idea. It's probably too late to do so, though... and that might be for the best. Firearms are a HUGE topic, and my main complaint about firearms in Golarion isn't that they're there... but that they got kind of glossed over. The use of gunpowder weaponry creates implications far and above just pistols; how do cannons work? What about gunpowder itself; how much damage does a barrel of it do when it explodes? What about dynamite? Can you make gunpowder easily? If so, what skill do you use? What kind of damage do bullets do... piercing? If they do piercing, how do you model something like a scattergun? What about the fact that bullets can also cause explosive damage when they burst on impact? Do guns for Small creatures like halflings do less damage? If they don't, why do they break the rules for non-firearm weapons doing damage based by size? Further, the introduction of guns into a game can DRAMATICALLY change the flavor of the game, even moreso than psionics or, frankly, fantastic sci-fi elements like lasers.
And so on.
Further complicating the issue is that guns are one of those topics that have passionate experts. Sailing ships are also in this category. Topics that, when they're put into an RPG, tend to polarize fans and rile folks up if they're not handled with enough detail OR if they're taking up TOO much space for details.
Anyway... rules for firearms would be a cool addition to the APG. I'm just pretty sure we won't have room to talk about them. Eventually we should probably do something with firearms and the like, though.
And the full thread is here
Starter for ten, what is the Best selling fantasy wargame that conforms with the tropes of high fantasy, while including Firearms?
Your first bonus for five, which trilogy of books by philip pullman, which also can be considered high fantasy, includes firearms.
Fire arms are not antithetical high fantasy, and elves and wizards are not intrinsically part of it.
Even within DnD we have examples of worlds where individual elements do not exist. Look to darksun, or the absense of Orcs from ravenloft. Is ravenloft not part of that shining past you refer to.
It is also worth pointing out it was not Tolkin alone who set down what is the 'norm' for DnD. I mean, magic in DnD has almost nothing in common with Tolkin's world, yet it has a supprising amount in common with Jack Vance's dying earth.
Well first of all there is a reason we call it the Vancian System. There is no doubt that Gygax held up Vance's view of magic and spells. That said, it is pretty rediculous to call the staple dnd elements setting specific. Just because a setting has removed an element does not make it setting specific. There was a D20 Cathulu game, does that mean sanity is setting specific?
Elves, wizards, clerics, these are core dnd ideas, and I dont just mean core rules, I mean the game itself. They have been a part of it before there was such a things as a campaign setting. You know what that makes them? Not setting specific material.
Director of Games
|
So, guns are not going to be in the APG.
They are a system I have been toying around with for a while, but we are not going to have the room to do them justice in the APG.
As for the rest of this thread.. our core books contain only a minimal amount of our world content. Just enough to fill in the blanks, but not so much that those using the PFRPG have to buy our setting books to use the core rules. That is our mix and I do not see it changing any time soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
So, guns are not going to be in the APG.
They are a system I have been toying around with for a while, but we are not going to have the room to do them justice in the APG.
As for the rest of this thread.. our core books contain only a minimal amount of our world content. Just enough to fill in the blanks, but not so much that those using the PFRPG have to buy our setting books to use the core rules. That is our mix and I do not see it changing any time soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Just a note Jason, some of us really really appreciate that you don't put setting specific stuff in (at least, not much at all, an absolute minimum).
And I wouldn't mind a paperback something like the equipment guide you're putting out with adventuring equipment done up for firearms. Something that would be campaign neutral, but not a full core book.
Beyond the guns, what about rapier and or shortsword? It would seem appropriate to me that Inquistors would receive weapon proficiency closer to a Rogue then a cleric. I love the idea of adding hand crossbow and repeating crossbow but their melee capabilities are lacking with only simple. Adding just one or two better melee weapons would help a lot.
My personal icon of a Inquisitor is the Witch Hunter from Warhammer and it is definatly Rapier or Shortsword in one hand and Hand Crossbow or Pistol in the other.
|
|
Starter for ten, what is the Best selling fantasy wargame that conforms with the tropes of high fantasy, while including Firearms?
Warhammer Fantasy. Empire use handguns as do Dwarves. Dwarves taught man how to use gunpowder. I should know, I sold the damn stuff for two years.
Your first bonus for five, which trilogy of books by philip pullman, which also can be considered high fantasy, includes firearms.
His dark materials. It also includes alot of steam punk things like flying ships. Things I don't think golarion has. Not every fantasy setting has steam punk traits.
Fire arms are not antithetical high fantasy, and elves and wizards are not intrinsically part of it.
Did I say that? I specifically remember stating that the baseline was based off Tolkien.
Even within DnD we have examples of worlds where individual elements do not exist. Look to darksun, or the absense of Orcs from ravenloft. Is ravenloft not part of that shining past you refer to.
Its also setting specific. Which you're claiming the baseline is.
It is also worth pointing out it was not Tolkin alone who set down what is the 'norm' for DnD. I mean, magic in DnD has almost nothing in common with Tolkin's world, yet it has a supprising amount in common with Jack Vance's dying earth.
Hence the term Vancian, but Gygax took heavily from all of his favorite fantasy stories, of which Tolkien was one. Steampunk on the other hand, was not one such thing as I don't think the first steampunk story came till the eighties. (Anyone can correct this, its just supposition at this point)
Nowhere did I say firearms were not fantasy. Nowhere did I say they have no place in fantasy.
I'm just saying firearms are rather setting specific, and for the most part, there are far more that don't include them than do. The main problem for this is that they are really used only in settings that achieve certain technological advances, and hence a steampunk feel. Not everyone likes it.
But don't put an argument where it was not. The argument I made was that the guns are rather setting specific, and that the APG shouldn't include mechanical setting specific information. If the rules for guns were in the core rules, that would be a different beast entirely, but it isn't.