|
In order to stop threadjacking my own thread, I present this one. A one stop shop for maturely discussing the affect of the gunslinger class on organized play.
What does this class actually change about the organized play experience?
How does the introduction of firearms and their impact on organized play differ from Alchemists and their alchemical bombs?
|
In order to stop threadjacking my own thread, I present this one. A one stop shop for maturely discussing the affect of the gunslinger class on organized play.
What does this class actually change about the organized play experience?
How does the introduction of firearms and their impact on organized play differ from Alchemists and their alchemical bombs?
I am very excited to see how this mechanic plays out in Organized Play. Touch AC is generally a lot lower to hit and a full BAB character hitting it could hurt a lot.
There is the cost per shot and I think that is going to be especially harsh in Organized Play.
But to me I suspect it will be less annoying than Alchemical bombs as the damage doesn't scale up :)
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
In order to stop threadjacking my own thread, I present this one. A one stop shop for maturely discussing the affect of the gunslinger class on organized play.
What does this class actually change about the organized play experience?
How does the introduction of firearms and their impact on organized play differ from Alchemists and their alchemical bombs?
I'll put up with it so long as they ban Daring Act.
<<ducks for cover>>
|
|
I'll put up with it so long as they ban Daring Act.
No flames here.
What part of Daring Act do you find inappropriate for organized play?
Personally I like that it promotes "heroic" play for what looks like a small benefit.
The negative is that it's somewhat* dependent on the GM. But why is that such a bad thing? There are many of other situations that are GM dependent, but not explicitly spelled out.
|
Adding the gunslinger takes a fantasy setting and makes it muddy. There have been no gun slinging bad guys so far, until a mad surge of bad western character mosey into town. I think it is corny and only a matter of time before thousands of Clint Eastwood wannabe's flood the society. "This realm ain't big enough for the both of us" says big bad Bart, who level dipped into rogue so he gets sneak attack damage with his revolver and a level in summoner so his pet "Zeke" can reload for him.
Overall Kyle, I think it just washes out some of the unique feel of Golarion. The Alchemist is a bit of a stretch anyway, but gunpowder leads to bigger bombs, leads to lasers, and spaceships.
I love playing gunslingers in Cyberpunk, Serenity, STAR WARS, and Boot Hill, but I am not a fan of it in my fantasy setting. It turns a unique dish like Pathfinder into a Casserole.
|
|
If so many people don't enjoy seeing Gunslingers, won't that mean they'll be pretty rare?
This class is coming from the 4th player-centric PFRPG product released. Will that limit the number of players who have access to the book? (as opposed to the CRB or APG)
(The counter to that last question, is since it's being released at Gen Con, it may be more popular than anything out of Ultimate Magic)
|
|
Winter War is this weekend, so I'm curious to see how many gunslingers actually show up. I'm going to be playing in mostly 5-9 scenarios, so I'll have to ask around. I'm genuinely curious. Last year I think I only ran into a couple of APG playtest characters the whole con, and I was GMing last year.
|
|
Gotta say that, from what I have seen so far, the gunslinger is not going to stand up to an archer for rate of fire, or rate of damage.
Yes, the critical multipler is a bit higher, but, overall, I suspect that the base damage will be lower, so that may be a wash.
Does Deadly Aim work with guns?
Improved Critical is almost a necessity.
How do weapon enhancements work with guns? A simple +1 makes sense, sort of, but how about Seeking?
How about enhancements that need to be placed on ammunition. For arrows, that is a batch of 50. How about for bullets? Do you spend 8,000 GP and get a single Ghost Touch bullet?
Overall, as a FIghter sub-type, the Gunslinger is going to be a bit more Feat-starved than other Fighter builds.
Ona more-PFSOP theme, if you take Amatuer Gunslinger, can you use Grit deeds on other ranged weapons? Leap for Cover is fairly straightforward, but how about the Deadeye deed? Only usable with firearms? Looks like this feat is virtually worthless, unless you want the Leap for Cover deed, as all the rest of the first level deeds appear to require a firearm, which is not available in PFS if you aren't a gunslinger, in which case you couldn't take this feat anyhow...
|
|
Actually, while I probably won't play one, I think the objections I have been hearing about the Gunslinger and Grit have more to do with the names than the actual mechanics.
If the class had been named Musketeer, and the mojo had been named Honor or Resourcefulness, would you still object? Musketeers are definitely genre-appropriate, and, I am sure, provided some of the background for the original game...
The gunslinger is just a musketeer, with an option for pistols as well as long-bore; and the grit is just something to make up for some of the disadvantages of such a slow weapon.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I'll put up with it so long as they ban Daring Act.No flames here.
What part of Daring Act do you find inappropriate for organized play?
Hmm. So serious. I shall make a note to not try to make fun of you in the future. (I was merely poking at the fact that I derailed your last thread with the comment going the other way).
Regardless, to answer your question: I think the Daring Act is too much left open to interpretation. A player will do something (doesn't matter what, for purposes of argument), and then point out to the GM, "I just did a daring act, so I get a grit point." The GM will frown and respond with, "No, I see that every day. Pretty typical, so no grit point." And the argument will ensue. That's not suited to organized play. That belongs in home games.
@ Dave: the more I look at it, the less irritated by it I am. The ammo piece makes it very expensive to play (11 gp per shot), and I've talked to a couple Living Arcanis players (where guns were part of canon), and they say that it was ridiculously rare to see one at the table. The casserole comment I 100% am behind, and is really the foundation for my own complaints. But I think very few people will be serving it up. To point at the Alchemist, for instance: I know of only one who is active in our area, and she's actually pretty fun.
If so many people don't enjoy seeing Gunslingers, won't that mean they'll be pretty rare?
This class is coming from the 4th player-centric PFRPG product released. Will that limit the number of players who have access to the book? (as opposed to the CRB or APG)
The first is an excellent point, and one I'll concede (already have, actually, after talking to some Arcanis players).
The second is a legitimate danger. I know a lot of players who still haven't purchased the APG. Adding two more books in rapid succession could be devastating to some peoples' budgets. I see it in Magic all the time: "I can't afford to play this game anymore. Guess I'll stop."
Still, I think most will be fine with not having it, as all the aforementioned players are fine doing without the APG. If they really get the itch to play something out of the book, they'll buy it.
|
My only annoyance are the people that keep saying..
"I don't want Guns in my Fantasy world *Golarion*!"
All I have to say to that, is There already Guns in Golarion, Alkenstar or Pathfinder Tales, Just before this class came out there was no way to use them in PFS. Now we can..
Also as the class as it is currently, it is unlikely will see a lot of use, but I will be making one!!!
|
|
I have several comments to make. The first is that if you are able to get a rules set which accurately/realistically models what firearms can actually do, then it is arguably not suitable for a role playing game. You'll end up going through characters too fast.
To the extent that is apparently NOT a problem here as I haven't seen anybody complaining about it yet, then you've nerfed firearms to the point where the only reason for using them is the "flavor" aspect. And as many people have pointed out, that's not a "flavor" they want in their "fantasy". Now, if you're dealing with a home group then it's not that big a problem because the GM can house rule the offending character classes and equipment out of existence in his campaign.
The problem then becomes what happens with organized play where you're trying to keep things consistent between groups playing the game literally all over the world. Personally, I don't mind the rules for firearms using character classes and the rules for their equipment existing as it permits the people who want that to add that. But with the organized play aspect if you add it for one, then you add it for *everybody*, including the people who don't like it/think it's silly. If nothing else, what happens to somebody carrying a whole bunch of ammo for his firearms (or alchemist's bombs) when he gets hit with a heat/flame attack?
If the results are as bad as they arguably should be then you've just taken away the reason for playing with those classes/that equipment as the advantages they get from nerfed weapons don't match the disadvantages they have to deal with. If the answer is that nothing much out of the "ordinary" happens, then why were the classes introduced in the first place other than for a "flavor" reason that a significant chunk of people don't think needs to be in a "fantasy" at all? And are now forced to play with as those classes/equipment once admitted to organized play are going to have to be accommodated when they appear or you've just torn organized play apart.
So at this point it looks like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I don't mind Paizo introducing "optional" rules that GMs (and their groups) can adopt or ignore at their pleasure. But to make them all part of the cannon (pun intended) and tell everybody to take them or else could have repercussions in terms of the people who don't like it leaving.
My two cent suggestion is simple. As a gaming company, Paizo must be constantly publishing new material for people to buy or Paizo will perish. Any book is going to eventually hit market saturation and then the company is going to have to have something new to offer. Other companies have tried to get around this by constantly publishing new/different *rules* updates so that you arguably need the entire set to be current. From the point of view of the customer this gets real old real fast as budgets for what is an entertainment expense are very tight and getting more so. Carried to an extreme this results in customers simply walking away from the entire product line in disgust.
My alleged solution to this problem is that as opposed to focusing on coming out with ever more *rules*, Paizo instead try to focus on coming out with ever more *settings*. Granted, there may need to be some rules updates for certain settings, but then if the material is properly marked as being setting specific then customers will be better placed to decide if they want to buy it or wait for something new in one of the settings that they're interested in. Done properly, this can keep both sides of the "want firearms in fantasy/hate firearms in fantasy" debate happy as well as opening up the doors to all kinds of new gaming experiences. Which will hopefully keep customers satisfied and aid in Paizo's maintaining their ever important bottom line in the middle of an economy that is busy emulating the Titanic.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
This is a helpful thread and one I want to see continue, but I just want to reiterate that this is not the place to discuss the balance or design of the new alternate classes. Those discussions belong in the playtest forums where the design team will see them. Jason and Stephen don't really frequent these boards.
Ona more-PFSOP theme, if you take Amatuer Gunslinger, can you use Grit deeds on other ranged weapons? Leap for Cover is fairly straightforward, but how about the Deadeye deed? Only usable with firearms? Looks like this feat is virtually worthless, unless you want the Leap for Cover deed, as all the rest of the first level deeds appear to require a firearm, which is not available in PFS if you aren't a gunslinger, in which case you couldn't take this feat anyhow...
Note that Amateur Gunslinger is not a legal feat for Pathfinder Society play, nor can any class other than a gunslinger purchase a firearm.
Introducing gunslingers risks turning Golarion inti the wild west. Someone mentioned the name musketeers and strange though it sounds that is actually better. I built a gunslinger for PFS using the old rules, with quick draw, rapid reload and a hand crossbow, but I haven't played it because it's a little too close to genre swapping.
I can handle minotaurs, revenants, angels and orcs as characters, but guns will break my sense of immersion. Those and spaceships.
|
|
Introducing gunslingers risks turning Golarion inti the wild west. Someone mentioned the name musketeers and strange though it sounds that is actually better. I built a gunslinger for PFS using the old rules, with quick draw, rapid reload and a hand crossbow, but I haven't played it because it's a little too close to genre swapping.
I can handle minotaurs, revenants, angels and orcs as characters, but guns will break my sense of immersion. Those and spaceships.
Guns? And Space Ships?
Both have been in the world for quite a while...
|
Guns? And Space Ships?Both have been in the world for quite a while...
Yes, but until now they weren't force fed to us. We were able to suspend our disbelief by completely ignoring that minor fact.
As to the above: yes, I'd have loved a muskateer (or true pirate) class. Unfortunately the gunslinger isn't that class. Even if there were a way to make a hybrid that combined guns and melee weapons effectively (I haven't seen one yet), the fact is that it still leaves Cowboy Jim Bob a possibility, which I am extremely unhappy with.
|
|
Guns? And Space Ships?Both have been in the world for quite a while...
Yes, but until now they weren't force fed to us. We were able to suspend our disbelief by completely ignoring that minor fact.
As to the above: yes, I'd have loved a muskateer (or true pirate) class. Unfortunately the gunslinger isn't that class. Even if there were a way to make a hybrid that combined guns and melee weapons effectively (I haven't seen one yet), the fact is that it still leaves Cowboy Jim Bob a possibility, which I am extremely unhappy with.
And in your non related PFS Home game you can still choose to ignore Guns and Spaceships* in your game, but in Org Play you play in the world designed by Paizo, which has Guns and Spaceships* for the last 2-3 years even if you choose to ignore that fact while playing in it.
*Spaceships will probably never come into play, but you never know!
|
|
Yes, but until now they weren't force fed to us.
Again, I point back to the Alchemist. He's not "classic" fantasy, yet I don't remember this type of outrage when it was introduced. For that matter, all of the classes from the APG were FORCED fed to us by this definition. As are all of the feats and traits that keep coming out.
This is one class out of what, 21? So if a full 5% of classes created are gunslingers, and your average table size is 5, there's only a 20% chance that one of the other players at your table will bring a gunslinger. That means on average over the course of your character's life, he'll adventure with a gunslinger a total of SEVEN times on average.
How does this class specifically hurt organized play? Is it less about the class and more about the people that want to play the class?
What about the fact that this class being around virtually guarantees that we'll see adventures set in Alkenstar now? Isn't opening up the world of Golarion for exploration at the very heart of being a Pathfinder? Would you have found this class more tolerable if there had already been adventures in Alkenstar and NPC's with guns (even though you couldn't purchase them as a player)?
What about if there's a scenario in Numeria? Are the "robots" there going to damage PFS?
Keep in mind that at this point, if there's ONE scenario written in Alkenstar, it'll be one out of 88. If I were Paizo, I would of course release a scenario at Gen Con that highlighted their newest book by including a romp in Alkenstar.
p.s. Drogon, not sure where you think I got mad, but I never take anything on these boards to heart. I'm just trying to keep these dicussions logical (an admittedly impossible feat).
|
|
As I previously posted in another thread; I personally have less of a problem with adding gunslingers to the campaign than I have with ninjas and samurais.
Alkenstar is after all a part of Golarion and firearms being excluded from PFS seems a result of PFS campaing planing being too consercative.
With that said I think we should all recognize the fact, that Golarion encompasses all fantasy and PFS should too.
- Samurai and ninjas are (as far as I know) native to Casmaron and can even be found in Kaer Maga - as Iridian Fold.
- Gunslingers are natural Alkenstar characters.
- Numeria and the Technique League as well as the Azlanti appear heavily influenced by sci-fi.
Golarion and PFS are big enough for all genres of fantasy. Still I guess 90%+ players are more into classic fantasy and thus we can expect classic fantasy characters to dominate PFS. A few odd balls will not take anything away from our gaming experience, unless that is something one self allows.
[My newest character for a Kingmaker campaign is a Numerian Techno-Magus. Playing that character was a blast, and I am certain that even the GM who was a bit scheptic at first, really liked the idea after we had given it a go]
EDIT: ... and who says a gunslinger has to be a cowboy? I can perfectly imagine Captain Black Beard with a pistol in each hand as a gunslinger.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
Does anyone remember an old post by one of the Paizo employees (who didn't often post in PFS boards) where he wrote something to the effect that Pathfinder Society is a great resource for playtesting the new class(es), and they'd be silly not to include PFS in playtests? I don't remember if it was for the APG or the Magus.
I'd like to find the post I'm thinking of. Let me know if you have any additional keywords to search by beyond:
playtest
society
resource
|
|
Does anyone remember an old post by one of the Paizo employees (who didn't often post in PFS boards) where he wrote something to the effect that Pathfinder Society is a great resource for playtesting the new class(es), and they'd be silly not to include PFS in playtests? I don't remember if it was for the APG or the Magus.
I'd like to find the post I'm thinking of. Let me know if you have any additional keywords to search by beyond:
playtest
society
resource
If it helps, It was Josh replying to something I said, I was talking about not being a Fan of using PFS for Playtesting.
*I am still not a fan.
|
|
(Soap-box moved from other thread)
Do we, as the players of this hobby, really look down our noses at our fellow players (and potential players) with such harsh judgment? "You're idea of a fantasy good time is ruining my idea of a fantasy good time. I demand you die in a fire, and if you make your FORT save I guess I'll just quit the game."
The vocal minority on this seem to be more hung up on the names than anything, so far. Now there are players walking around with magical boom sticks. Oh wait, what about that wizard with a wand of lighting bolts? Where did he come from!!!!! Now there are players sneaking around using stealth and poison to kill things. Oh wait, what about all those rogues who have been doing it since minute 1? Now there are players walking around who are pledged to the Society's concepts of "Explore. Report. Cooperate." Clearly we can't have that.
You are part of an Organized Play program. You have been crowdsourced since you got your ID number. Opening this content to open play testing and Organized Play is crowdsourcing what everyone hopes will be a fantastic new hardcover book. When the final product is released I'm sure there will be additional gnashing of teeth over how the changes to the grapple rules ruin the immersive nature of my fantasy combat simulations.
Golarion has always been a buffet table, Organized Play has always been a casserole. Monday it just got a few new ingredients.
The sky is not falling, the world is not ending. Even if you do end up at a table with an improbable number of (new class you find offensive) guess what? Under the current rules and scenario distribution/play ratios those characters aren't going to get to high levels largely. So you'll see a guy show up and play a (new class you find offensive) for a mod or two and then switch back to their primary character. They can't afford the XP hit for long. Which will ultimately lead to what has been reported as normal in Living Arcanus. Rarity.
I'm a firm believer in not giving other people power over me. Don't give some random guy you've never seen before such absolute authority over your idea of fun. Go out and have fun. "Explore. Report. Cooperate."
(End soap-box)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 4
|
If it helps, It was Josh replying to something I said, I was talking about not being a Fan of using PFS for Playtesting.
*I am still not a fan.
Yes that's the one. Thank you for helping me find it despite still not being a fan.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Alkenstar is after all a part of Golarion and firearms being excluded from PFS seems a result of PFS campaing planing being too consercative.
In response to this comment, that keeps on coming up over and over, from all kinds of different people:
Guns (or spaceships or Numeria's robots, for that matter), have not appeared, to my knowledge, in any adventure or module that Paizo has written, to date. They have been relegated to minor articles in larger publications, pieces that can be ignored with ease.
Not once have I had to do anything to alter any material that I am playing through to get rid of unwanted guns, spaceships or robots.
With the exception of the aforementioned articles, Golarion, by extension, does not include these elements, as far as the vast majority of players are concerned. They don't care if it was in the campaign guide.
And PFS is exactly the same way. Suddenly deciding that this little, isolated corner of the world gets to hold sway over all of Golarion and all of PFS and all of those players' interpretations of its flavor just because of this class is conceited.
To repeat: Paizo never wrote about it in any played material, before. That means it has not been a part of Golarion, to date. Unless you own an out of print Campaign Guide, you're entirely unaware that these things are even the remotest possibility. And now they are not even a remote possibility: they're being force fed to us.
|
|
And now they are not even a remote possibility: they're being force fed to us.
I think we all get it, Drogon. You hate the idea. But before we run off and crucify the developers for such a heinous act, can we get some play-testing in first to see the "real" affect of the new material?
yes, I'd have loved a muskateer (or true pirate) class. Unfortunately the gunslinger isn't that class
I heard this type of statement before. Why does every character concept seem to require it's own class? Would it be such a problem to multi-class gunslinger with fighter (rogue?) to create an effective pirate character? Just because 'gunslinger' brings the imagery of the old west, doesn't mean that is the sole concept for that class. After all, not all fighters are tanks, not all barbarians are Conan, nor are all wizards Gandalf. Perhaps in the future, there will be a book called "Yo Ho and a bottle of Rum" with water-born classes and expanded rules for aquatic combat. Until then, we can simulate character concepts with the classes currently approved for play.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
And now they are not even a remote possibility: they're being force fed to us.I think we all get it, Drogon. You hate the idea. But before we run off and crucify the developers for such a heinous act, can we get some play-testing in first to see the "real" affect of the new material?
I find the fluff distasteful (with any gun, not just the old west spin that was put on this class), but I have no issues with the developers trying to sell more product to more people. What I do take issue with is the fact that the tiniest fraction of material that has been written about it is the justification that people keep pointing at for validity for guns. A tiny fraction that has had no impact on any other material that Paizo has written. A tiny fraction that has been pointed out specifically by Paizo as easily deleted from any game.
I'm fine with the idea of a playtest. I'll happily report on any gunslinger use in my games.
But, what happens at the end? It's not like, six months from now, the player who has a 6th level gunslinger is going to be happy with the possibility of gunslingers not being playable. That won't happen. The fact that the playtest exists means that the class will exist in PFS from now on.
So, it's too bad that that tiny fraction of material is now canon for Pathfinder Society.
|
|
To repeat: Paizo never wrote about it in any played material, before. That means it has not been a part of Golarion, to date. Unless you own an out of print Campaign Guide, you're entirely unaware that these things are even the remotest possibility. And now they are not even a remote possibility: they're being force fed to us.
Paizo has not included over half the world of Golarion as of now in modules or APs that does not mean it does not exist. Are you going to take away the right of Paizo to expand their setting into those areas that until now has not been fully detailed? Golarion is still a young setting it has not had the time to include everything yet, so it is too early at this time to say that because it was not detailed before it can't be detailed now.
Once again, just because you choose to ignore it does not mean it was not there.
Org plays includes the whole world as written, you will need to except that it will include things you may not like.
For your home game you are free not to include the things you do not like, you do not have that choice for Org play, Org play needs to be open to a wider variety of play styles because of the vast amount of players, and to stick to the world as written. The base line for the setting has already been set and that baseline is what the Org Play sticks to.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Ona more-PFSOP theme, if you take Amatuer Gunslinger, can you use Grit deeds on other ranged weapons? Leap for Cover is fairly straightforward, but how about the Deadeye deed? Only usable with firearms? Looks like this feat is virtually worthless, unless you want the Leap for Cover deed, as all the rest of the first level deeds appear to require a firearm, which is not available in PFS if you aren't a gunslinger, in which case you couldn't take this feat anyhow...Note that Amateur Gunslinger is not a legal feat for Pathfinder Society play, nor can any class other than a gunslinger purchase a firearm.
Best one-level dip in PFS ever, though.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
To repeat: Paizo never wrote about it in any played material, before. That means it has not been a part of Golarion, to date. Unless you own an out of print Campaign Guide, you're entirely unaware that these things are even the remotest possibility. And now they are not even a remote possibility: they're being force fed to us.Paizo has not included over half the world of Golarion as of now in modules or APs that does not mean it does not exist. Are you going to take away the right of Paizo to expand their setting into those areas that until now has not been fully detailed? Golarion is still a young setting it has not had the time to include everything yet, so it is too early at this time to say that because it was not detailed before it can't be detailed now.
Once again, just because you choose to ignore it does not mean it was not there.
Org plays includes the whole world as written, you will need to except that it will include things you may not like.
For your home game you are free not to include the things you do not like, you do not have that choice for Org play, Org play needs to be open to a wider variety of play styles because of the vast amount of players, and to stick to the world as written. The base line for the setting has already been set and that baseline is what the Org Play sticks to.
The difference between this piece and the rest of Golarion that has not been introduced is that this piece is specifically called out by the world creators as a piece that they wrote in a way to be ignored. They encouraged that response in the preview art thread with that ridiculous robot.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
So, it's too bad that that tiny fraction of material is now canon for Pathfinder Society.Argh, this is getting frustrating...
It already was Canon!! stop ignoring that fact!!!
Dragnmoon, I'm not ignoring it. I'm just pointing out what Paizo themselves have said about it. But to keep you from getting frustrated, I promise to stop beating this dead horse, so long as you stop pounding on yours. Let us limit this to what Kyle wanted: a discussion of mechanics and their effect on PFS.
|
|
Dragnmoon, I'm not ignoring it. I'm just pointing out what Paizo themselves have said about it. But to keep you from getting frustrated, I promise to stop beating this dead horse, so long as you stop pounding on yours. Let us limit this to what Kyle wanted: a discussion of mechanics and their effect on PFS.
that is fair.
Alkenstar is after all a part of Golarion and firearms being excluded from PFS seems a result of PFS campaing planing being too consercative.In response to this comment, that keeps on coming up over and over, from all kinds of different people:
Guns (or spaceships or Numeria's robots, for that matter), have not appeared, to my knowledge, in any adventure or module that Paizo has written, to date. They have been relegated to minor articles in larger publications, pieces that can be ignored with ease.
Not once have I had to do anything to alter any material that I am playing through to get rid of unwanted guns, spaceships or robots.
With the exception of the aforementioned articles, Golarion, by extension, does not include these elements, as far as the vast majority of players are concerned. They don't care if it was in the campaign guide.
And PFS is exactly the same way. Suddenly deciding that this little, isolated corner of the world gets to hold sway over all of Golarion and all of PFS and all of those players' interpretations of its flavor just because of this class is conceited.
To repeat: Paizo never wrote about it in any played material, before. That means it has not been a part of Golarion, to date. Unless you own an out of print Campaign Guide, you're entirely unaware that these things are even the remotest possibility. And now they are not even a remote possibility: they're being force fed to us.
Golarion is a BIG place. It would hardly be surprising that these materials had not been mentioned, if that where the case. However, it isn't the case. Numerian super science has made it into APs in the form of technological Items in the Kingmaker campaign, and guns have been a major focus the longest piece of web fiction released so far.
|
|
How does the introduction of firearms and their impact on organized play differ from Alchemists and their alchemical bombs?
Not that I subscribe to this idea, but it seems the two are not the same. Alchemical bombs essentially simulate the affects of spells. They are essentially tangible energy bombs. And alchemists, while a new class, have always existed as a profession. When the wizard, cleric, etc. needs to replenish material components, the rogue needs to get some poison/anti-venom, or just just want some alchemist's fire for those pesky swarms, the local apothecary has always been a good place to turn. OTOH, guns and gunslingers, are not typically present in most fantasy games. Yes, there have been things like Boot Hill, but in general, nothing that would be considered "technology." The addition of these items, seems to change the feel of the game, moving it from a dark ages/medieval setting to more of an 18th century one. If guns do as much damage as other forms of weaponry (more on crits) and use touch attack, then the game would evolve, as real history, and replace armor/sword 'n board with red-coated musket infantry.
|
|
Let us limit this to what Kyle wanted: a discussion of mechanics and their effect on PFS.
I'm not mearly focusing on mechanics. How does this one class affect the organized play environment?
Making arguments about how remote Alkenstar is moot. 90% (how's that for made up) of all players I judge don't know crap about Golarion.
And Drogon, stating that gunslinger is the best one-level dip class is completely false and shows a lack for true powergaming. ;-) Oracle and Barbarian IMNSHO are generally the best one-level dip classes depending on build (and that's a different discussion).
What fraction of published Pathfinder material covers many of the location specific prestige classes? Why no outrage over those? I don't recall anyone worried that they'd be stuck at a table with three Living Monoliths or Hellknights..
|
|
What fraction of published Pathfinder material covers many of the location specific prestige classes? Why no outrage over those? I don't recall anyone worried that they'd be stuck at a table with three Living Monoliths or Hellknights..
I think that most people feel that hardcover books are somehow more 'core' than other stuff, like Chronicles/Companions or Adventure Paths. Hellknights (although uber-cool) seem to be looked upon as more "optional" than, say, a Cavalier. Perhaps, once the new/updated Campaign setting is released, some of these issues will minimize, but I'm not holding my breath.
To repeat: Paizo never wrote about it in any played material, before. That means it has not been a part of Golarion, to date. Unless you own an out of print Campaign Guide, you're entirely unaware that these things are even the remotest possibility. And now they are not even a remote possibility: they're being force fed to us.
Or the Inner Sea Primer. I think the problem is that you (and everyone else who hates gunslingers) don't "own" PFS like you would own a home game. There are going to be all manner of elements in PFS play (both in module design and other PCs) that you have absolutely no control over. It's always been this way in organised play, all the way back to 2e. If this is something you can't deal with, play less PFS and more home games.
If you feel really strongly about gunslingers ruining your play experience, the only thing you can do is get up and leave the table if people are playing one. And I haven't met an organised play gamer yet who has said "no, I'll sit out, I don't like (this player/this player's character)".
|
|
I haven't met an organised play gamer yet who has said "no, I'll sit out, I don't like (this player/this player's character)".
You have a very fortunate experience. I have a group of local PFS'ers I organize for, who have said they will never again play with a particular GM. I, myself, have encountered one player (in two years) that I will not play with again. Remember, as you said, there are all kinds of people in society and you don't have to be friends with all of them. Sometimes, avoiding conflict is more fun than playing for the sake of playing. It is more difficult, however, to get up and walk away if you are the GM/coordinator and an undesirable player appears at your table.
|
|
I heard this type of statement before. Why does every character concept seem to require it's own class? Would it be such a problem to multi-class gunslinger with fighter (rogue?) to create an effective pirate character? Just because 'gunslinger' brings the imagery of the old west, doesn't mean that is the sole concept for that class. After all, not all fighters are tanks, not all barbarians are Conan, nor are all wizards Gandalf. Perhaps in the future, there will be a book called "Yo Ho and a bottle of Rum" with water-born classes and expanded rules for aquatic combat. Until then, we can simulate character concepts with the classes currently approved for play.
It doesn't, and I have no problem making classes fit my concept. Just this week I turned an alchemist into a classic rapier/bomb pirate (with which I'd have loved to match my own character as a rapier/pistol pirate).
Also, I wouldn't have any problem with a person playing a rogue (or monk) and calling it a ninja, or playing a paladin (or cavalier) and calling it a samurai. My problem is with the flavor/imagery that the gunslinger intentionally brings to the game. Using a pistol as an off-hand weapon is historically accurate. This class doesn't realistically allow for that, though.
Ironically enough, the one feat that could make these types of characters work without being too much of a drain on character effectiveness (amateur gunslinger) is banned from society play. Go figure.
I'm not mearly focusing on mechanics. How does this one class affect the organized play environment?
We're trying to tell you, but you're not listening. It fundamentally changes the feel of the game. Captain Jack the pirate and his muskets, the musketeers, those are almost bearable, but gunslinger is wild west and that just doesn't fit Golarion IMHO.
If I see lots of gunslingers I'm going to build a teenage alchemist ninja with alter self and a liking for turtles. If I give him a wand of magic missile he can scream "KOWABUNGA" whilst leaping around and firing lasers. Which is about as in keeping with the game world as the wild west is.
|
|
When the APG Playtest came out and I read about the Summoner class for the first time I was appalled by what I read. I figured that there was going to be an infestation of this horribly broken class (melodrama) at the next convention. It never materialized. I have seen more Inquisitors and Oracles popping up, but my concerns about the Summoner were unfounded. I've run over 80 sessions of PFS since the APG was released and I haven't seen more than three players bring a Summoner.
Couple that with what Kyle pointed out, that 90% of the PFS players out there have no idea how Golarion differs from other campaign settings. Most PFS players can tell you about the 5 factions, but that's it. They don't know what 'belongs' and what doesn't. They didn't buy the APG and they probably won't buy Ultimate Combat either. They are casual players, unlike the fan(atic)s who frequent these messageboards. I just don't think that there's going to be an influx Gunslingers, Ninjas and Samurai such that it messes with my immersion in the game. I feel it's best to wait and see before getting bent out of shape. We're probably just spinning our wheels here.
I'm going down to OwlCon in Texas this weekend, and I'm going to give the Gunslinger a shot (how appropriate). I gave the Summoner a spin in the Playtest and I didn't like it, but I won't knock something 'til I try it.
|
|
Using a pistol as an off-hand weapon is historically accurate. This class doesn't realistically allow for that, though.
Why not? Is there a difference between firing two, pre-loaded, pistols vs. firing two, pre-loaded hand crossbows?
EDIT--I guess the language present in the Hand Crossbow description should be added to the pistol description. I'll have to check the playtest forums for this issue.
|
|
Just a curiosity here.
Has anyone considered how this will effect scenarios when you go up against a gunslinger?
It may be very expensive for a player to be a gunslinger and constantly purchase new ammunition. But a NPC could easily have enough ammunition for a fight. They don't need enough for an entire scenario just the one fight.
Just a thought.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I just wanted to pop in and clear something up regarding "using PFS for playtesting." The intention of opening playtest material up for PFS play is not to try and repurpose our organized play program into a captive-audience focus group. Rather, it's us permitting people who will be inclined to play with these materials a chance to do so earlier than when the final book comes out. If you don't want to participate in the playtest, keep playing your core or APG characters and be done with it.
As far as I'm concerned from a game balance and flavor perspective, opening up the gunslinger, magus, ninja, and samurai for PFS play is no different than allowing the shackles pirate or bloatmage prestige classes. These are fringe themes that rules exist for that are not unbalancing to include in play. And the responsibility still falls to each player to provide non-core-assumption material for the GM at every table. There's no extra requirement that GMs read up on every rules element that is legal at their table. How many low templars, balanced scales of Abadar, or even cavaliers have you seen in play? I'd wager it's a very low number unless there's a regular at your local PFS club playing one. What is it about guns and Asian themes that induce such strong reactions, when adding the nature warden or spymaster PrC is just another mundane addition?
|
|
I'm going down to OwlCon in Texas this weekend, and I'm going to give the Gunslinger a shot (how appropriate). I gave the Summoner a spin in the Playtest and I didn't like it, but I won't knock something 'til I try it.
I will welcome your Gunslinger in my game at OwlCon...Right before I kill it!!! ;)
|
|
Pathfinder is now comming into its own identity.
First the Core Rules came. They provided a strong foundation which provided basic rules and the races and classes we all expect to see in a fantasy RPG. It was the ground work.
Then came the APG and now the UM and UC are coming as well.
These offer an expansion upon those basic elements. Classes that all give Pathfinder a special feel and are the vision of Paizo end its current developing team.
These will not take away the Core Rules or make them obsolete. The new elements are there for us to take or leave as we see fit. They are the gravy while the Core Rules are the meat and patatoes.
Golarion is now comming into its own identity as well.
First The Campaign Guide exhibits the distinct and varied cultures of Avistan and Garund.
The first APs gave us a taste of Varisia, the Darklands, Katapesh and Cheliax. All very classic fantasy elements.
The Kingmaker AP, the rescue at Azlant Ridge PFS scenario and now even the UC are expanding on that meat and patatoes campaign world. It will still be the substance that makes up 90% of Golarion and Pathfinder (I foresee). But we now are starting to see the Golarion gravy; new lands, classes, technology etc. It is there for us to take or leave, at our own discretion.
Personally I think we would all benefit by keeping an open mind to all these revelations about Pathfinder and Golarion. See how we can best use them in PFS and in our home campaigns, test them to see what we like and what we do not, and provide a constructive critique. We all make our own game, and even in PFS we as GMs have a lot of power to shape the adventures through our presentation and RP of scenarios, encounters and NPCs.