Contributor
|
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.
Interesting. See, I already find a lot of 18th century flavor in the game, specifically in Galt (Revolutionary France) and Andoran (Revolutionary America--or the part of America that became the US, to be specific--they even wear something very like Continental Army uniforms!). Heck there's even 19th and early 20th century flavor in the way the colonial incursion into Mwangi is presented.
Like most gaming fantasy worlds, Golarion is creatively anachronistic, which is why you can have barbarians and lost worlds and Russian folklore and crusader states and Vancian techno-magocracies all in the same part of the map.
In sum, flavorwise, I don't have any problems with the inclusion of the new classes. I'll reserve comment on how they affect play mechanically until I've had a chance to be at a table where they're being used.
|
I would just like to point out to all you latecomers that I've hated the Monk way before it was cool to hate on genre-mixing classes in Pathfinder. How many times have you played PFS next to a Monk and never known you were supposed to loathe the class for not belonging in the game? ;)
I'm not picking on anyone (unless you like Monks), just trying to inject some levity into the conversation.
|
|
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.
I think I've only done about 50 since then. I'm not gaining ground, I'm losing it! Damn you Miles!
I will welcome your Gunslinger in my game at OwlCon...Right before I kill it!!! ;)
I think you'll find that Doug's characters are actually hard NOT to kill. Good luck keeping him from blowing himself up. :-)
|
|
I'm not picking on anyone (unless you like Monks), just trying to inject some levity into the conversation.
Doug Doug Doug, I'm not sure you understand the severity of the situation.
There are people here expressing views that are clearly wrong (monks rule!).
It is our duty, nay, our *obligation*, to fix them!
-Pain
|
|
Note: This is a 'flavor' opinion as I haven't had time to read the playtest yet.
... 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. ...
I'm part of the 2% that understand how it differs but don't see the whole Golarion picture. I do believe that most of the 90% see Pathfinder and Golarion as a fantasy setting. If the Gunslinger is a true musketeer, I welcome the class. A musketeer get's off one shot and then is a true swordsman. I sincerely doubt that Paizo can produce literally a one-shot class.
My biggest fear is not Gunslinger players. In fact, that's not a real concern of mine at all. It's the authors that are able to build a gunslinger at 8th, 10th, Xth, level from the ground up as a one battle foe. They wont 'feel' like a fantasy foe, and I don't look forward to fighting them.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
|
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 not up to speed on nature warden and spymaster. However, many players have an idea in their mind about what a fantasy roleplaying game is, and that idea is heavily based on Medieval Europe and/or a heavy Tolkeinesque mindset. As such, these elements are anachronistic to their internal view of the game world, regardless of whether that internal view was in step with the developer's view of the game world.
I think that, for me, had I known more about the setting to start with, I would have accomodated them in establishing my view of the gameworld, as opposed to having one understanding that now has to be rebuilt. In the absence of an available campaign settings document, we all make assumptions and they tend to what's familiar.
In addition, for many older players, these elements in the early days of D&D were optional. Gunpower in particular opens up chemistry/physics issues and was typically only used in variant or crossover games, maybe for a session or a few. Early Asian themed materials, such as Oriental Adventures, were generally campaign specific; either you played in an oriental setting or used them, or you didn't.
Effectively, what is being required for many players is a retcon of their understanding of the game world. And that doesn't sit well for many players. Personally, I'll make the transition, but what has happened for me is that the gameworld is less interesting and feels more patchwork.
|
First maybe this isn’t the place, but I have to get it out of my system…… Steve, Congratulations- they made you a venture captain…. If anyone has worked very hard and deserves the venture captain I feel that you have. I am very happy for you. ,
Myles
Ok onto the Gunslinger. I think I have made my visceral reactions clear with the Gunslinger-yuck thread.
One of the things I liked about Golaron was its Sandbox like design- well that there were many different sandboxes for people to play in.
For example if you liked Dinosaurs there was the Mwangi Expanse. If you felt the dinosaurs had no place in your game, well they could stay in the Mwangi expance.
If you liked magical robots, or the “warforged” of Eberon, or you liked the “expedition to the barrier peaks” there is Numeria.
If you liked Psionics there is Vudra. I think the “Indian “ theme of fantasy rpgs hasn’t been given nearly enough attention.
If you liked guns in your fantasy there was Alkenstar in the dead magic Mana Wastes. And I have to admit it made a certain amount of sense…no magical fireballs to blow things up, well then people turned to gun powder.
Now something I don’t particularly like has been dug up out of a neighboring sand box, namely Alkenstar, and thrown in my lap. In my opinion Guns change the “fantasy knights and dragon feel” of the game.
At the moment I find my arguments against the gunslingers and their guns, to be very similar to those people who detest psionics. (not in my game its too sci fi, I don’t want to learn a third kind of magic, the systems don’t mesh, people abuse it horribly)
At first I didn’t like the Alchemist. While playing and DMing in PFS, I had some less then thrilling experiences playing with, and DMing for a player running an Alchemist. (luckily when I was DMing, the other players “sat “ on him so he didn’t get to rambunctious. )
I didn’t like the theme- bombs? ……
But then I played one. My character Fizzabang the Fabulous, a gnome who so often dropped his own explosive bombs on himself, that he had to take two levels of rogue to get evasion, to survive his own explosions. I have had allot of fun with that character. And now I don’t mind the Alchemsit, I even like the character class now.
So we shall see with the Gunslinger…. If I have time ill do a play test. Maybe I will end up liking the gunslinger, maybe I wont.
Oh well I know that PFS isn’t my campaign, it is a shared one. I also think it is a brilliant move for the Paizo folks to toss out stuff they are going to publish for us to “playtest”
And also I understand how the PFS is an excellent sandbox for the game designers to toss in new toys for us to play with, to see what we do with them.
So most of my protestations are thematic in nature. I think the gunslingers will change the tone and theme of PFS organized play. Hopefully I can do some sort of playtest, and I will have more to talk about rather then “I don’t like it”.
Sorry for the long rant.
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.
Am I missing an official post or something? This playtest is not mentioned in the latest Guide to PFS Organized Play (unlike the Magus), so I have been assuming nothing is legal yet.
Edit: nevermind. I found it.
|
|
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.Am I missing an official post or something? This playtest is not mentioned in the latest Guide to PFS Organized Play (unlike the Magus), so I have been assuming nothing is legal yet.
Edit: nevermind. I found it.
For the benefit of anyone who might have missed it here it is.
|
My experience with Alchemists was almost identical to Elyas'. I was pretty un-fond of the idea, my first read of them, and the initial ones I saw from players.
Then I was looking for a 2nd PFS character, and tried one. It was a LOT of fun.
I have some trepidations about the new characters, but the only way to determine what works and what doesn't is with a rigorous playtest. And PFS is a great way to do that.
|
My experience with Alchemists was almost identical to Elyas'. I was pretty un-fond of the idea, my first read of them, and the initial ones I saw from players.
Then I was looking for a 2nd PFS character, and tried one. It was a LOT of fun.
I have some trepidations about the new characters, but the only way to determine what works and what doesn't is with a rigorous playtest. And PFS is a great way to do that.
I was like that with the Magus, I hated the Magus, and through playtesting of the Magus...I still hate the Magus! ;)
|
|
I am not overly worried about the introduction of the Gunslinger class. I played with gun stuff in Living Arcanis and it didn't detract from the fantasy flavour. I am a bit concerned with the Grit concept. I prefer the mechanic of 3+ability score mod. per day. Still the class isn't finalised. My initial feedback (if it had value) would be "Grit needs looking at".
Alchemist is not my favourite class (in fact the opposite). IMHO it messes with my idea of the fantasy genre a bit (note: my idea and mine only). That being said, when I read APG I was also concerned with Summoners, but now I play one and enjoy it. Just an arcane companion class right? I think an occasional Gunslinger is something we might all get used to.
Generally I think there is plenty of scope for base class ideas within fantasy and I don't think that's encroaching on anyone's creativity.
|
|
I'm not picking on anyone (unless you like Monks) ...I like Monks :-)
My current roster of characters are:
Rogue, monk, fighter, fighter/ranger, witch and magus.
I think they are all really fun characters, except the witch which I have not gotten around to play that much yet (but I have lots of experience playing clerics, sorcerers and wizards).
I love playing monks; granted I do not like the asian theme and ussualy make occidental versions.
Also the magus is fun. I added a Numerian techno-feel to it and so far it's been a blast playing - and I am sure my fellow players don't feel either the class or techno concept have spoiled anything for them.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that every single if these classes and themes have merit and no one will spoil your gaming experience unless you let them do so.
|
|
I'm not picking on anyone (unless you like Monks)
I like monks. Which actually has a bearing on this conversation.
I didn't used to like monks. I thought they were the clear "odd man out" in the original 3.0 PHB book, and I was a bit irritated at the Asian-themed class appearing in my fantasy RPG. I still don't like Asian-themed elements in my fantasy RPG; I skimmed the ninja and samurai and thought "nope, not for me." I plan to cancel my adventure path subscription after Carrion Crown, and then maybe pick it up again if the post-Tian Xia AP appeals to me.
But sometime in the last 10 years, I really got to like the monk. They don't seem too out of place to me any more, even though ninjas and samurai still do. My favorite PFS character is my monk.
I personally don't mind the gunslinger. For those of you that do, see what you think in a few years. If your "gunslinger dislike" is like my initial "monk dislike", you may find yourself turning around.
Heck, I'll play my samurai alongside your gunslinger, then.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I'm not picking on anyone (unless you like Monks)
I like monks. Which actually has a bearing on this conversation.
I didn't used to like monks. I thought they were the clear "odd man out" in the original 3.0 PHB book, and I was a bit irritated at the Asian-themed class appearing in my fantasy RPG. I still don't like Asian-themed elements in my fantasy RPG; I skimmed the ninja and samurai and thought "nope, not for me." I plan to cancel my adventure path subscription after Carrion Crown, and then maybe pick it up again if the post-Tian Xia AP appeals to me.
But sometime in the last 10 years, I really got to like the monk. They don't seem too out of place to me any more, even though ninjas and samurai still do. My favorite PFS character is my monk.
I personally don't mind the gunslinger. For those of you that do, see what you think in a few years. If your "gunslinger dislike" is like my initial "monk dislike", you may find yourself turning around.
Heck, I'll play my samurai alongside your gunslinger, then.
In five years I'll probably be ecstatic that someone plays a gunslinger at the table, because I'll be so upset that they introduced the wand-cannon weilding magi-borg to the game.
I, too, was in that generation with Doug. Monks sucked. I hated the barbarian, too, even though they fit into my little fantasy mindset. As few as three years ago I did not allow my players to play them. As always, much can be overcome with good writing, and now I enjoy these two classes. I blame Paizo, of course. If anyone can reconcile the concept of guns in a fantasy setting, my faith rests with them.
Like I said, I will wait and see.
|
|
In five years I'll probably be ecstatic that someone plays a gunslinger at the table, because I'll be so upset that they introduced the wand-cannon weilding magi-borg to the game.
I, too, was in that generation with Doug. Monks sucked. I hated the barbarian, too, even though they fit into my little fantasy mindset. As few as three years ago I did not allow my players to play them. As always, much can be overcome with good writing, and now I enjoy these two classes. I blame Paizo, of course. If anyone can reconcile the concept of guns in a fantasy setting, my faith rests with them.
Like I said, I will wait and see.
You should check out Freeport, it is a good example of putting Guns in the game.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
You should check out Freeport, it is a good example of putting Guns in the game.
In five years I'll probably be ecstatic that someone plays a gunslinger at the table, because I'll be so upset that they introduced the wand-cannon weilding magi-borg to the game.
I, too, was in that generation with Doug. Monks sucked. I hated the barbarian, too, even though they fit into my little fantasy mindset. As few as three years ago I did not allow my players to play them. As always, much can be overcome with good writing, and now I enjoy these two classes. I blame Paizo, of course. If anyone can reconcile the concept of guns in a fantasy setting, my faith rests with them.
Like I said, I will wait and see.
Heh. You have no idea how ironic that is. I'm staring at it right now, as I type this, no more than five feet from me on my stock shelves. The cover art is awesome, as can be expected from Wayne Reynolds.
It is ironic because it is part of what drove me from 3rd Edition. I played for years using 1st and 2nd Edition core books, supplementing only with Dragon and Dungeon Magazines. When 3rd Edition was announced, the marketing campaign was first class. WotC went to tons of conventions to demo the game, advertised in multiple magazines (including Dragon and Dungeon, of course), and the creation of the OGL was front and center in a lot of that campaign. Freeport was one of the first settings created for it.
My play group bit. We bought the 3 core books, the Freeport Companion, and an adventure set in Freeport and gave it a spin. Two sessions later we found the guns and excised those from our game. Another session later we all threw up our hands in disgust at the combat rules (couldn't wrap our heads around minis and 1 inch squares, plus 3.0 had wonky base sizes) and just went back to OD&D. We canceled our subscriptions, boxed our 3.0 stuff up, and never thought twice about our decision. Any game that became a board game in combat and used guns was one we didn't want to play.
We played 1E/2E faithfully up until three years ago, when Pathfinder Beta was published in paperback and I was perusing my shelves trying to figure out what the hell Pathfinder was all about, and why I was spending so much money buying new books every month. It drew me in with a combination of incredible background, awesome writing, and settings that spoke to my Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms days, with a bunch of stuff from old Dragon Magazine articles thrown in (and I mean old, like 80's and early 90's). The gun stuff I had no idea about until much later when I read the entire campaign book. And I immediately thought, "Won't be using that part of the world."
At any rate, as well treated a game world as Freeport is, it is not one I would ever play in. And the reason is the guns. They are an intrinsic part of that setting, and very difficult to edit out, so I don't purchase any of their products. Except for my store. And, honestly, we have not sold very much of it, either.
When I want to play with guns, I play Deadlands or Aces & Eights or break out some Malifaux minis. Guns belong there.
It is the gun I have a problem with, not the gunslinger and its mechanics. Just the gun.
Sorry about the long story.
And, Dragnmoon, I recognize that this is a Coke vs. Pepsi, nuts in my cookies vs. no nuts in my cookies, or Republican vs. Democrat type of argument. It's purely a flavor/philosophy thing, and neither of us will convince the other that ours is the only one that is correct. But we're both going to be vocal about what we like. That's okay, though. It makes me respect you.
Have you played the class in a PFS game, yet?
Creative Director
|
Just because we're allowing gunslingers from the playtest into the PFS for play doesn't mean that when the book is published they'll remain legal in PFS play.
And what happens int he PFS org play campaign is canon in the context of the org play campaign... but not necessarily cannon for the world. We don't assume the events that play out in ANY of our adventures, be they modules, Adventure Paths, or the Pathfinder Society scenarios are canon, in fact, beyond the context of the campaign that adventure takes place in.
As for the locations and events IN those adventures—they're canon, yes. And I'm going to be keeping a pretty tight control, as creative director, over Pathfinder Society scenarios that actually incorporate guns and gunslingers into the world as NPCs or the like.
Because I'm actually with those of you who think that guns are a powerful flavor indeed, and it only takes a tiny sprinkle of them to drastically change the flavor and feel of a world. I happen to like Golarion as it is, with guns being a fringe element of the world.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Just because we're allowing gunslingers from the playtest into the PFS for play doesn't mean that when the book is published they'll remain legal in PFS play.
And what happens int he PFS org play campaign is canon in the context of the org play campaign... but not necessarily cannon for the world. We don't assume the events that play out in ANY of our adventures, be they modules, Adventure Paths, or the Pathfinder Society scenarios are canon, in fact, beyond the context of the campaign that adventure takes place in.
As for the locations and events IN those adventures—they're canon, yes. And I'm going to be keeping a pretty tight control, as creative director, over Pathfinder Society scenarios that actually incorporate guns and gunslingers into the world as NPCs or the like.
Because I'm actually with those of you who think that guns are a powerful flavor indeed, and it only takes a tiny sprinkle of them to drastically change the flavor and feel of a world. I happen to like Golarion as it is, with guns being a fringe element of the world.
And this proves, once again, why I love this company. And why I switched from OD&D to Pathfinder. Thank you for the quality assurance.
To reiterate a position I think has been drowned out by the rest of the debate:
I relish the idea of going to Alkenstar and fighting against (or alongside) gun wielding NPCs. I think it would be a fascinating change for a PFS scenario, especially the "no magic" part. Just like I loved going to Expedition to the Barrier Peaks back in the day. I just don't want to take that home with me to Absalom, just like taking Barrier Peaks stuff back to Greyhawk wasn't an option, in our minds.
However, I have to again voice a very valid concern that James' post brings up:
If someone starts a gunslinger playtest character and plays it for the next 7 months, that someone is going to be very upset if, when Ultimate Combat comes out, the gunslinger is banned from PFS play. He will have spent a lot of time playing a character that you invalidate with the wave of the rules wand. I think you will be erring the other direction, should you do something like that. Also, if you are allowing this in the playtest, it seems that the possibility of that class disappearing from PFS play is a pretty strong disincentive to people actually taking advantage and giving you feedback in-game.
Edit: Correcting crappy use of language...
|
|
If someone starts a gunslinger playtest character and play it for the next 7 months, that someone is going to be very upset when Ultimate Combat comes out and the gunslinger is banned from PFS play. He will have spent a lot of time playing a character that you invalidate with the wave of the rules wand. I think you will be erring the other direction, should you do something like that. If you allow the playtest, it seems that the possibility of that class disappearing from PFS play is a pretty strong disincentive to people actually taking advantage and giving you feedback in-game.
I would expect that if your entire playtest character became invalidated you'd be allowed to transfer the Chronicles to a valid replacement character.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I would expect that if your entire playtest character became invalidated you'd be allowed to transfer the Chronicles to a valid replacement character.
No doubt. But it won't be even close to what the gunslinger is, you must admit. I know that would upset me, if I were to spend that time with that character.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I dunno. The risk vs. reward seems a little long.
When I started my Oracle of Flame using the playtest rules, I knew that changes would be made. And when the tiny little change of taking away Produce Flame while granting Burning Hands was made, I was irritated. But I could still play the character for her personality and her base mechanics.
If they had taken that completely away, I'd have been pretty grumpy.
|
|
Just because we're allowing gunslingers from the playtest into the PFS for play doesn't mean that when the book is published they'll remain legal in PFS play.
And what happens int he PFS org play campaign is canon in the context of the org play campaign... but not necessarily cannon for the world. We don't assume the events that play out in ANY of our adventures, be they modules, Adventure Paths, or the Pathfinder Society scenarios are canon, in fact, beyond the context of the campaign that adventure takes place in.
As for the locations and events IN those adventures—they're canon, yes. And I'm going to be keeping a pretty tight control, as creative director, over Pathfinder Society scenarios that actually incorporate guns and gunslingers into the world as NPCs or the like.
Because I'm actually with those of you who think that guns are a powerful flavor indeed, and it only takes a tiny sprinkle of them to drastically change the flavor and feel of a world. I happen to like Golarion as it is, with guns being a fringe element of the world.
I agree with your policy of watching very, very carefully where gunslingers (geeze I really hate that name) are introduced. There are a lot of players who do not want a Wild west style character being introduced.
I am actually okay with firearms but I would prefer a more fantasy swashbuckler / pirate (pistol / rapier)build type class which can not be effective given current play test rules.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Canada—Manitoba
|
Because I'm actually with those of you who think that guns are a powerful flavor indeed, and it only takes a tiny sprinkle of them to drastically change the flavor and feel of a world. I happen to like Golarion as it is, with guns being a fringe element of the world.
Thanks, James... your post and Mark's earlier one have given me reassurance.
|
|
I would expect that if your entire playtest character became invalidated you'd be allowed to transfer the Chronicles to a valid replacement character.No doubt. But it won't be even close to what the gunslinger is, you must admit. I know that would upset me, if I were to spend that time with that character.
Would your replacement character be the same as the original character? Not at all. I wouldn't even expect to try that, personally. I mean you could use your EWP on light repeating crossbow and try something that way, but I was thinking more along the lines of since your gunslinger is gone you would just reassign those Chronicles to a new character. So if the gunslinger was level 3 with 10 Chronicles you'd just make a new legal character (whatever that character is up to you) and those 10 Chronicles would go there. Poof. Level 3. That at least honors the time you put into playing in the playtest.
To reiterate what both James and Mark have said, we're all keeping a very close eye on the 3 new classes, especially the gunslinger, and as of right now there are no plans on introducing gunslinger NPCs in PFS scenarios until Ultimate Combat is out and there's no guarantee we'll do one then.
Can't say the same about ninja and samurai though.... ;)
Hyrum.
|
|
I am actually okay with firearms but I would prefer a more fantasy swashbuckler / pirate (pistol / rapier)build type class which can not be effective given current play test rules.So what would you call it?
I would prefer a more non western / historically earlier name (Swashbuckler / Musketeer / Fusilier /Carabinier etc). However, these troop types carried both musket style weapons and light side weapons which is not reflected in the current class.
|
|
To reiterate what both James and Mark have said, we're all keeping a very close eye on the 3 new classes, especially the gunslinger, and as of right now there are no plans on introducing gunslinger NPCs in PFS scenarios until Ultimate Combat is out and there's no guarantee we'll do one then.
Can't say the same about ninja and samurai though.... ;)
Hyrum.
To tell you the truth Hyrum, If Gunslingers are still on the ledge on if they will be allowed in PFS, I have lost all interest Playtesting one in PFS games.
To tell you the truth Hyrum, If Gunslingers are still on the ledge on if they will be allowed in PFS, I have lost all interest Playtesting one in PFS games.
They're legal, what's on the edge is a gunslinger major NPC or gunslinger focused scenario outside Alkenstar.
I want to reserve the right to change my mind if needed to preserve PFS, but as of right now gunslingers will be allowed in Society play from here on out.
Hyrum.
|
|
Just my 2cp, but since the new classes have such a significant flavor differance, and in support of the book release, it would be cool to have special, low-tier scenarios for GenCon set in Tian Xia and Alkenstar. I, for one, would roll up a new, appropriate, PC for each just to try 'em out. In this case, it would also be a good idea to have a pregen for each class for support.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
To tell you the truth Hyrum, If Gunslingers are still on the ledge on if they will be allowed in PFS, I have lost all interest Playtesting one in PFS games.To reiterate what both James and Mark have said, we're all keeping a very close eye on the 3 new classes, especially the gunslinger, and as of right now there are no plans on introducing gunslinger NPCs in PFS scenarios until Ultimate Combat is out and there's no guarantee we'll do one then.
Can't say the same about ninja and samurai though.... ;)
Hyrum.
See? Pulling the rug out from underneath Dragnmoon 6 months from now would not be a nice thing to do. And I don't even agree with him...
|
Creative Director
|
Just my 2cp, but since the new classes have such a significant flavor differance, and in support of the book release, it would be cool to have special, low-tier scenarios for GenCon set in Tian Xia and Alkenstar. I, for one, would roll up a new, appropriate, PC for each just to try 'em out. In this case, it would also be a good idea to have a pregen for each class for support.
That's a tricky trick to pull off. The context of a Pathfinder Scenario is pretty limited in scope. Extensive information on cultural backgrounds, regional information, and other elements that don't directly relate to the adventure are deadwood in a PFS scenario—they just clutter things up and make it more complicated for a GM to run at a convention. Scenarios need to be lean and mean, in other words.
That means that they're NOT the best place to debut drastically new locations that have not yet been significantly covered in print. If we were to do a big book about the Mana Wastes or Tian Xia, then all of a sudden doing a PFS scenario in that location is a lot more doable, because not only do outgoing GMs who want to learn more about the region have a recourse to go to... but so does the author of the scenario.
|
|
I just have to say I probably wouldn't want to play a scenario in Alkenstar or the Mana Wastes. I'm not terribly interested in adventuring anywhere where my 8th level Sorcerer is just an 8th level Commoner with some better Will saves. 6 of the classes in Pathfinder are primary casters (1-9 spell progression), 3 are secondary casters (1-6 spell progression; actually 4 if you count the Alchemist), and most of the others get some form of supernatural ability. Basically, any scenario in a magic-dead zone would render those 10 classes completely useless, seeing as even the secondary casters are pretty dependent on magical abilities that aren't spellcasting. Rangers, Paladins, and Monks would take a pretty heavy effectiveness hit due to their inability to use any supernatural abilities as well. So, in summation, I really don't think a Mana Wastes adventure would be a good idea, because only the Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, and Cavalier will fight anywhere near full effectiveness, and 10 of the classes will be completely invalidated.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Actually, one of the Season 0 scenarios DOES take place in the Mana Wastes... even has an encounter where magic might not work from round to round. Just ran it a few weeks ago and it was brutal! Best game I have GMed in awhile!
(And, yes, the players DID survive! Bonus points if you recognize the scenario!)
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Bonus points if you recognize the scenario!
I know! I know! What do I win?
Seriously, though, that's one of the main reasons I am hesitant to set a scenario in the Mana Wastes. They're a cool region that I love dearly, and can be a lot of fun to adventure in if everyone designs a character knowing that they'll be headed into a magic-dead zone at some point. That's not part of the tacit agreement players make when they create characters for Pathfinder Society. I'd love to figure out a way to do it, and I think I have a few ideas, but don't worry. We're not going to make half or more of the PCs in any adventure worthless. That's no fun.
|
|
Bonus points if you recognize the scenario!
I know! I know! What do I win?
Seriously, though, that's one of the main reasons I am hesitant to set a scenario in the Mana Wastes. They're a cool region that I love dearly, and can be a lot of fun to adventure in if everyone designs a character knowing that they'll be headed into a magic-dead zone at some point. That's not part of the tacit agreement players make when they create characters for Pathfinder Society. I'd love to figure out a way to do it, and I think I have a few ideas, but don't worry. We're not going to make half or more of the PCs in any adventure worthless. That's no fun.
This is very true, and it's exactly why I was under the impression when I began playing in Golarion that these fringe states would never creep into the core game. Unfortunately for me I thought they'd stay in the background for people that wanted a change of pace game; just like they were in Forgotten Realms.
Also, I happened to play in that mana wastes scenario about two months ago on my 9th level wizard. Worst... experience... ever.
|
|
Arim i know the one you are talking about.
It was brutal. The DM did a good job, but it was brutal. One of the players died. The other mystic theurge.....I was one, and there was another mystic theurge type character in the group ( he split between sorcerer and cleric i think)
I cringed when the DM would say "kitty" and role for the "kitties" attacks.
If i remember correctly, our party had an 11 level wizard, a 5/6 cleric/ sorcerer, an 8th level ranger, a 6/2 paladin/bard, and a 7th level wizard, and 7th level rogue and my character a 3rd wizard/3rd cleric/ 4th mystic theurge.
When the magic winked out, 4 out of the seven members of the party (myself included) became commoners as Squidmasher put it. If it wasn't for the Paladin/bard, the rogue and the ranger, we would have been cat food in 2 rounds. One of us became cat food anyways. when the magic turned on, we unleashed everything we could on the beasties.
I think my character would quite the Pathfinder society before going back there again.
All in all it was a fun evening, I got to spend a little time with some good friends i hadn't seen for a while, and the DM who is one of them, as always did an excellent job.
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 why not, Grit and daring act scream "Swashbuckling" style action It is DEX dependent and daring act entails that Acrobatics get used a lot. Most Gunslingers will have to eventually switch to Melee when things get close so Weapon Finesse is useful. Gunslinger is only a class name it is up to the player to decide how he plays it.
|
|
I would prefer a more non western / historically earlier name (Swashbuckler / Musketeer / Fusilier /Carabinier etc). However, these troop types carried both musket style weapons and light side weapons which is not reflected in the current class.
I agree even pistoleer would to me make more sense tahn gunslinger.
For players who need to visualize something other than a cowboy gunslinger in their PFS game I suggest taking a look at Privateer Press's Hordes or Warmachine miniatures - the later maybe interesting choices for Numerian characters.
|
|
And why not, Grit and daring act scream "Swashbuckling" style action It is DEX dependent and daring act entails that Acrobatics get used a lot. Most Gunslingers will have to eventually switch to Melee when things get close so Weapon Finesse is useful. Gunslinger is only a class name it is up to the player to decide how he plays it.
First of all, weapon finesse is never useful unless you're a rogue (and even then it's an inferior choice). Second, have you actually tried to put together a sword/pistol character with this class? It's just not possible to make one that's effective.