|
I'm not a fan of guns in my fantasy games and I'm pretty sure this class will never see any use in any of my games. I'm actually kind of surprised to see it as a class to be honest - we don't have a Swordsman class, an Spearman class or a Blowgun user class after all ...
That being said, I know there are some fans of guns in fantasy games, so I don't mind that this will be in the book.
One comment though. I'm not sure what to make of the called shots mechanic / targeting rules. Pathfinder (and D&D in general) has never really been about specific hit locations. The rules for armor class etc are very much NOT about hit locations. It seems odd to put specific hit locations and called shots into the game now, and only for a specific class.
Such a mechanic also opens a lot of messy issues. If a fighter gets shot in the head, and takes additional damage because of it, shouldn't the presence or absense of a helm become part of the equation? Again, I'm just not sure about this ...
If hit locations are going to become part of the game (and I'm honestly torn as to if it's worth it) then why just for this class?
If anything, they should be also available to an archer or any other more traditional ranged weapon user, shouldn't they?
Just my thoughts - take them for what they are worth :)
Frankly I agree with you. The called shot aspect of this threw up a red flag for me as "whoa.. do i want to see this can of worms opened?" If he can do it, why then can't anyone else essential aim their projectile weapon? especially with more accurate weapons??
To be honest, after a read through, the gunslinger is stretching verisimilitude to the breaking point for me. It's going to take a lot of hand waving away of realistic science to make this class playable. Which normally in a fantasy based game is fine but this is a science flavored class. and I think most people still keep the basic laws of physics intact in their games. Water makes you wet.. fire burns..
For example. what happens to all that black powder when the gunslinger fails his save against the red dragon's breath weapon.
What happens if I create water on the gunslinger while he is reloading?
If he falls in the water or decides to go swimming how long does it take for his gun to dry out and be usable?
etc...
While I do see your point and I agree about called shot in particular, several of your examples make no more sense than for any other class.
"what happens to all that black powder when the gunslinger fails his save against the red dragon's breath weapon."
...The same thing that happens to an Alchemist carrying lots of explosive alchemical components: Nothing unless he rolls a natural 1, and then something that he is carrying have to make a save.
"If he falls in the water or decides to go swimming how long does it take for his gun to dry out and be usable?"
Exactly as long as it takes a Wizard's spellbook to dry out and be usable.
I guess my point is it doesn't make sense for a GM to punish a gunslinger for carrying a gun anymore than it does to punish an Alchemist for carrying lots of fragile glass or a Wizard for carrying a paper spellbook.
again i'm not comfortable with that much liberal hand waving.
If your character is carrying a pile of material that explodes when ignited and you get exposed to a large flame there are going to be repercussions.
Your alchemist example is flawed because the chemicals are not necessarily flammable by themselves. They have to be mixed precisely.
If a wizard falls in the water with a spellbook that's unprotected then yes guess what.. it's going to be a soggy mess if it's underwater for more then a round or two. I hope you kept a backup copy. Then again you probably aren't trying to use the spellbook right away and can take the time to let it dry out. Unlike your gun. Or can we fire these muskets underwater now too? which basically makes them magic items not crafted technology.
It's not punishment either... typical player mentality, I don't see why basic reality has to make my awesome coolness complicated...
It's called verisimilitude. water makes things wet.. black powder does not work when wet.. i'm sorry but that's as basic as you can't see in the dark if you're a human...
I'm not a fan of guns in my fantasy games and I'm pretty sure this class will never see any use in any of my games. I'm actually kind of surprised to see it as a class to be honest - we don't have a Swordsman class, an Spearman class or a Blowgun user class after all ...
off topic but if i was playing in your game and i wanted to use the class
(but as you would not allow guns) would you allow a player to instead use cross bows?............|
|
While I do see your point and I agree about called shot in particular, several of your examples make no more sense than for any other class.
Good points on both sides here.
Honestly, the same might be applied to other classes like the alchemist or wizard.
Really though, my main point still stands. The whole called shots thing seems very out of place to me within the game. It is a new little pocket rule that only seems to apply to one class, which to me is a slippery slope to travel. At the VERY least, if we are going to go down this path (and I'm still not convinced it's worth it) then it should be a new, optional combat rule that applies to ANY ranged weapon user, not just this one class. After all, any highly skilled archer in the game should certainly be able to hit at least as well as a gunslinger.
Of course, then the next logical question is, why just ranged? Couldn't I also call a shot to the head with my spear thrust or my sword?
As I said, there just does not seem to be a need for this as a class. A couple new, optional combat rules maybe. A class, I just don't know that I see it.
Paizo, you know I love ya and I've loved pretty much everything you've done so far ... but so far the Gunslinger is a pretty big misfire (pun intended) for me.
If hit locations are going to become part of the game (and I'm honestly torn as to if it's worth it) then why just for this class?
I for one am really glad someone brought this up. It is my opinion that if there's going to be a called shot system then it needs to be applied across the board. In fact that's kinda why I never use hydras as a monster. You're telling me that I can attempt to sever a hydra's head but not a dragons or a snakes. And now I'm being told that a gunslinger can choose to target a specific body part but a well trained archer can't.
I'd love to see a good hit location/called shot system that worked for pathfinder without breaking anything but it would need to be universal before I'd have any interest.
My 2cp
Torger
If you look at the page for the Ultimate Combat book, at the bottom it mentions called shots as an optional rule set so I don't think it's a big deal for this.
If you look at the page for the Ultimate Combat book, at the bottom it mentions called shots as an optional rule set so I don't think it's a big deal for this.
Which would be great but it would also make called shot rules for a specific class redundant.
Torger
If you look at the page for the Ultimate Combat book, at the bottom it mentions called shots as an optional rule set so I don't think it's a big deal for this.Which would be great but it would also make called shot rules for a specific class redundant.
Torger
Call it a playtest within a playtest. Or perhaps a subset of the rules for a specific class or weapon type.
|
|
off topic but if i was playing in your game and i wanted to use the class (but as you would not allow guns) would you allow a player to instead use cross bows?............I'm not a fan of guns in my fantasy games and I'm pretty sure this class will never see any use in any of my games. I'm actually kind of surprised to see it as a class to be honest - we don't have a Swordsman class, an Spearman class or a Blowgun user class after all ...
Good question.
I have multiple answers ...
In theory sure - we could look at switching out all the gun stuff for crossbow stuff I guess.
The problem is (and I think this question actually points it out) that I'm not convinced we need a class for this. At it's core, this is a fighter type class that is pretty much built around the fact that he does new things with his guns. So, should we also create an entire new class for a a fighter type class that is pretty much built around the fact that he does new things with his crossbows (a Crossbowslignger)? Next, maybe a fighter type class that is pretty much built around the fact that he does new things with his blowgun (a Blowgunner)?
Of course not. Just create a fighter (or rogue or whatever) that uses (in your example) crossbows. Ultimate Combat could give us new rules and feats for much of what the gunslinger brings to the table - just use those rules.
The other issue is of course the called shots. Assuming they stay (and again, I don't know that they should) then anyone should be able to use them. They should not be a little sub set of the rules just for one class.
Make sense?
off topic but if i was playing in your game and i wanted to use the class (but as you would not allow guns) would you allow a player to instead use cross bows?............I'm not a fan of guns in my fantasy games and I'm pretty sure this class will never see any use in any of my games. I'm actually kind of surprised to see it as a class to be honest - we don't have a Swordsman class, an Spearman class or a Blowgun user class after all ...
Good question.
I have multiple answers ...
In theory sure - we could look at switching out all the gun stuff for crossbow stuff I guess.
The problem is (and I think this question actually points it out) that I'm not convinced we need a class for this. At it's core, this is a fighter type class that is pretty much built around the fact that he does new things with his guns. So, should we also create an entire new class for a a fighter type class that is pretty much built around the fact that he does new things with his crossbows (a Crossbowslignger)? Next, maybe a fighter type class that is pretty much built around the fact that he does new things with his blowgun (a Blowgunner)?
Of course not. Just create a fighter (or rogue or whatever) that uses (in your example) crossbows. Ultimate Combat could give us new rules and feats for much of what the gunslinger brings to the table - just use those rules.
The other issue is of course the called shots. Assuming they stay (and again, I don't know that they should) then anyone should be able to use them. They should not be a little sub set of the rules just for one class.
Make sense?
well the point i have been tiring to make on many treads is this
all of this focus on the items(guns) is completely unnecessary and is taking a way from the point of the play test. this play-test for the sub-class could go one of two way for me and i would think more people would be happier if it was toned down to fit more in to a ranged arch-type for fighter or it was more of a swashbuckler and its grit counted for more then gust guns.
your point about called shots is right it should be more like a feat as 3.5 did with sneak attack in the past (one i would hope will be done much better)
sn:i am sorry for my spelling but spell-check only gets me so far
Fitting the class into a more swashbuckler archetype would be great. The easiest way is to allow grit to be used with other weapons. the class could still keep the firearms proficiencies, but seeing all the drawbacks with firearms (cost, reloading speed, misfire etc.) the class should have some other tricks to fall back on.
Fitting the class into a more swashbuckler archetype would be great. The easiest way is to allow grit to be used with other weapons. the class could still keep the firearms proficiencies, but seeing all the drawbacks with firearms (cost, reloading speed, misfire etc.) the class should have some other tricks to fall back on.
you have no idea how much it has been killing me tiring to get that point across to some one. i do fell if they went more swashbuckler it should just be its own class manly because it would be so unlike other class
off topic but if i was playing in your game and i wanted to use the class (but as you would not allow guns) would you allow a player to instead use cross bows?............
Good question.
I have multiple answers ...
In theory sure - we could look at switching out all the gun stuff for crossbow stuff I guess.
The problem is (and I think this question actually points it out) that I'm not convinced we need a class for this. At it's core, this is a fighter type class that is pretty much built around the fact that he does new things with his guns. So, should we also create an entire new class for a a fighter type class that is pretty much built around the fact that he does new things with his crossbows (a Crossbowslignger)? Next, maybe a fighter type class that is pretty much built around the fact that he does new things with his blowgun (a Blowgunner)?
Of course not. Just create a fighter (or rogue or whatever) that uses (in your example) crossbows. Ultimate Combat could give us new rules and feats for much of what the gunslinger brings to the table - just use those rules.
The other issue is of course the called shots. Assuming they stay (and again, I don't know that they should) then anyone should be able to use them. They should not be a little sub set of the rules just for one class.
Make sense?
Yes, and i agree with.
Fitting the class into a more swashbuckler archetype would be great. The easiest way is to allow grit to be used with other weapons. the class could still keep the firearms proficiencies, but seeing all the drawbacks with firearms (cost, reloading speed, misfire etc.) the class should have some other tricks to fall back on.
That would be better, so the class is not focused around guns, but around grit.
Then latter on, they can buy and use the guns at higher level when they can afford them.I think that is too far from the idea of the playtest, and do not think they would go for it.
I am left wondering why things happen if you're shot in certain areas (hey, wait, I thought HP was an astract system?) but not hit with an arrow or a bolt there.
If its kept, my suggestion, turn it into a feat they get for free, so rangers et al could still have the option to do the same thing.
I agree. I also think aiming should be a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity.
Fitting the class into a more swashbuckler archetype would be great. The easiest way is to allow grit to be used with other weapons. the class could still keep the firearms proficiencies, but seeing all the drawbacks with firearms (cost, reloading speed, misfire etc.) the class should have some other tricks to fall back on.
Actually, a class with swashbuckler based features AND interesting once-in-a-while gun/pistol/musket cinematic shots could be very interesting.
Second Edition has some rules for called shots to different area. The drawback was a large penalties to hit depending on what you tried to attack. (presumable because you arn't just taking any opening you can get). I find it interesting to see something like this set up for pathfinder, but I don't know if it should be just for one class. I haven't read the details for that portion of the gunslinger class yet, but they caught my interest.
|
Second Edition has some rules for called shots to different area. The drawback was a large penalties to hit depending on what you tried to attack. (presumable because you arn't just taking any opening you can get). I find it interesting to see something like this set up for pathfinder, but I don't know if it should be just for one class. I haven't read the details for that portion of the gunslinger class yet, but they caught my interest.
I could be hallucinating, but I could have SWORE called shots were a part of 3.5. Take a penalty to your attack roll, make a called shot with a ranged weapon to do some extra effect or damage. One guy even had feats to reduce the penalty. Was this just a house rule in my campaign? I was playing my very first DnD EVER when I was in this campaign...
|
|
Fitting the class into a more swashbuckler archetype would be great. The easiest way is to allow grit to be used with other weapons. the class could still keep the firearms proficiencies, but seeing all the drawbacks with firearms (cost, reloading speed, misfire etc.) the class should have some other tricks to fall back on.Actually, a class with swashbuckler based features AND interesting once-in-a-while gun/pistol/musket cinematic shots could be very interesting.
Or better yet, an archtype ... ;)