|
I actually like this. do not get me wrong, I love the Gunslinger. but this keeps her in check power wise. She has to pick and choose when to use the pistols/musket instead of charging in guns blazing on the poor little kobold in the corner. at higher levels, income should be sufficient to cover the need for her to use them more often.LOL bad math bad math. 12 it is!My 1st level Gunslinger went w/ pistols. spent 132gd from his starting 150 to buy 4 charges and 4 bullets.A bullet+one charge=11gp. If you spent 132gp, that would be twelve shots, not four.
Until they fix the gun issues as experienced by a Gunslinger, they are fairly weak, power wise. Running in guns blazing is one of the few ways to get them even close to the power level of anyone else.
First level: Pistol 1d8, musket 1d12, at best one shot per round.
For an archer, they can, at first level, more than make up the difference in the to-hit between touch and regular AC, and potentially get to higher damage per arrow before they gain second level. (Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Weapon Focus (Longbow) if human)
For a Barbarian, at first level, they can outpace the musket damage easily, with a fairly good to-hit number. (Power Attack, two-handed weapon, Rage, Extra Rage or Weapon Focus if human)
Fifth level: Pistol 1d8+7, Musket 1d12+7, sometimes able to get 2 shots in a single round (and run out of Grit quick, too)
Archer: 3 shots at 1d8+3/4 minimum, potential 1d8+9/10 (or more), mighty composite longbow, potentially not provoking in melee.
11th level: Pistol 1b8+9, musket 1d12+9, 3 attacks per round as long as the Gunslinger has unspent Grit (Signature Deed - Lightning Reload Deed)
Archer: 4 shots, 5 arrows per round, 1d8+4/5 minimum, 1d8+15/16 (or more), probably not provoking in melee.
Currently, I have a 9th level PC in PFS, archer build, Fighter 7, Cleric 1, Ranger 1. He does 1d8+7 minimum (3 Str, 1 enhancement, 2 Weapon Specialization, 1 Fighter Training (bow)), with a potential maximum damage of 2d6+14 per arrow (above plus Point Blank Shot and Deadly Aim, along with Gravity Bow); with a potential, without Haste or equivalent, of 4 arrows in a single round (Rapid Shot & Many Shot, along with his iterative). My archer build is only +18 to hit at best (within 30', no extra shots), with his first shots only being at +10 for an all-out attack outside the 30' point blank area.
Admittedly, because of the level of Cleric, he is at -1 to hit, and will be at one less iterative at 11th level; but he gets a few bonuses from the Cleric level, like 10' more movement rate, the ability to get out of things like Black Tentacles, being able to take a 5' step even in difficult terrain, and use various Cleric spells off of wands, etc. The level of Ranger will, when he has the time to prepare, let him change his arrow base damage to 2d6 instead of 1d8, using his wand of Gravity Bow.
For a pure 11th level archer/fighter, he can get 4 attacks with 5 arrows as a full attack action, without Speed or Haste.
Now, cost differences, assuming basic arrows and bullets:
Archer: 10 rounds, 50 arrows, less than 2 gold.
Gunslinger: 10 rounds, 30 bullets, 330 gold.
That is discounting the basic weapon cost, 700 gold for a Mighty, masterwork, Str +3 composite longbow (2PA range!) versus 1,300 (pistol) or 1,800 (musket) for a masterwork (if possible) gun.
|
If someone seriously complained about the presence of a gunslinger, ninja, or samurai at a PFS session I'd likely just laugh. If they walked away from the table I'd just feel sad for the poor person caring far too much about how other people have fun.
Nobody cares how you have fun. We care how WE have fun. If you enjoy playing pretend cowboys and indians then we're ecstatic for you, we just ask that you do it in a game meant for cowboys an indians, not our sword and sorcery game, because sword and sorcery is how WE'RE trying to have fun.
Now you may say, "but the fact that they put cowboys and indians in YOU'RE PFS game means that PFS IS intended to be a cowboys and indians game," and you'd be right. I guess that's really the problem here though, isn't it? That we've been wasting our time thinking we were in a sword and sorcery game when all along we were stuck with hidden cowboys and hidden indians all around us.
|
|
That we've been wasting our time thinking we were in a sword and sorcery game when all along we were stuck with hidden cowboys and hidden indians all around us.
Have you not had fun up untill now? Then you have not wasted your time :)
Honestly; please try not to make too big a deal out of this. For the most part your PFS games will not change with the introduction of UC. Actually Mark and Hyrum have some really great stuff planed for this season. Both they and we VCs will make our best effort to keep PFS a fantasy RPG.
Try to enjoy the ride.
|
If someone seriously complained about the presence of a gunslinger, ninja, or samurai at a PFS session I'd likely just laugh. If they walked away from the table I'd just feel sad for the poor person caring far too much about how other people have fun.Nobody cares how you have fun. We care how WE have fun. If you enjoy playing pretend cowboys and indians then we're ecstatic for you, we just ask that you do it in a game meant for cowboys an indians, not our sword and sorcery game, because sword and sorcery is how WE'RE trying to have fun.
Now you may say, "but the fact that they put cowboys and indians in YOU'RE PFS game means that PFS IS intended to be a cowboys and indians game," and you'd be right. I guess that's really the problem here though, isn't it? That we've been wasting our time thinking we were in a sword and sorcery game when all along we were stuck with hidden cowboys and hidden indians all around us.
I guess my first question is: Did you ever actually read the campaign setting? At all?
Golarion is a very diverse world, containing everything from swords and sorcery to guns to robots with (for all we know) frickin laser beams.
None of this was "hidden" from you. It's been part of the same campaign world for over two years now.
It seems churlish to complain about the campaign including elements that have been part of the campaign setting since the very beginning.
|
None of this was "hidden" from you. It's been part of the same campaign world for over two years now.
I agree in a sense. Well, there really is no disputing what is in the Campaign Setting. It's there. It's the level of interest in question to me. There seem to be a reasonable slice of the player community who haven't read this book, but are still very active in PFS. So in a way it is a new revelation to them.
My feedback to them, though, is if you were that passive (to disinterested) in the campaign cannon up to three weeks ago how can this possibly 'ruin' your expectations?
|
|
I guess my first question is: Did you ever actually read the campaign setting? At all?Golarion is a very diverse world, containing everything from swords and sorcery to guns to robots with (for all we know) frickin laser beams.
None of this was "hidden" from you. It's been part of the same campaign world for over two years now.
It seems churlish to complain about the campaign including elements that have been part of the campaign setting since the very beginning.
I read it. I've read it from cover to cover multiple times. I know all about Alkenstar and Tian Xia and everything else in the world.
Of course, I ALSO read Forgotten Realms. I read about Maztica, the horselords area, and all of the other non-classical fantasy regions. Just like Forgotten Realms, I was under the impression that Golarion had these countries specifically to allow fringe games a place to play without forcing them to create an entirely new campaign setting. It should also be pointed out that, until now, Paizo has never done anything to insinuate otherwise.
Having all needs in one setting is just good business sense. The more people you can accommodate, the more people you can get to buy your product. That doesn't mean that you throw everyone into the same area, though. History is full of examples about what happens when you force two opposing viewpoints into the same room against their will.
|
|
StuffGunslingers /= Cowboys
If you want to think of them as such, great.
I'll have to assume by this statement that you have't looked at Paizo's character art rendition or tried to make a character with the class. You can put all sorts of roleplay spins on any character, so saying that they'll all be cowboys is a bit of an exaggeration, but the base class is specifically intended to allow cowboys. There's absolutely no way to make a relevant character that isn't, at least in its base form, patterned after cowboys.
|
How do we (GMs) add in the noise these guns make?
I can see a party being in a room having a fight then "BOOM" bad guy dead.
np till the rogue gives a perception check at the door to hear what's going on the other side. But all he hears is the ringing in his ears. He doesn't hear every mook in the building running towards the "BOOM". No more surprise rounds for players!
And maybe that is why Gunslingers don't get perception as a skill!
|
|
2. Avoid any tables that have gunslingers, both as player and GM.
3. As GM, not ignore the fact that a gunslinger keeps making very loud explosions and a lot of smoke (granted, some spells do too). This will effect surprise, perception, caster concentration, bard performance, etc.
As a Pathfinder Society GM I don't believe it's really within your purview to turn away a player because you don't like his class. Nor is it to invent new game mechanics for things. Home games are better suited for this kind of stuff. If you have some helpful suggestions on some game mechanics that could go along with the class and the flavor the developers are going for, there is a message board expressly for that kind of feedback to them.
|
|
BTW, I actually was a "Cowboy", I worked as a paid ranch hand. Consider how you would feel if your day job were introduced into a game that is supposed to be an escape?
Perhaps similar to a cop who sees that the game contains paladins and inquisitors. (I know a couple of these.)
Perhaps similar to a priest or pastor who sees that the game contains clerics. (Met one or two of these.)
Perhaps similar to a locksmith, or private investigator who sees that the game contains rogues. (Know one of these - thrown in ex-burglar on that one.)
Perhaps similar to park service workers who see that the game contains rangers. (Not met any of these yet.)
Perhaps similar to a chemist or other scientist (look - that's me) who sees that the game contains alchemists.
Perhaps similar to any number of current or past servicemen (look - me here too) who sees that the game contains fighters, cavaliers and paladins.
|
|
Wow. People are really serious about their PFS play. I ran through a PFS game Monday night with a new Gunslinger. Had typed up a nice playtest post before the site went down and killed it. Ah well.
First off, while I don't like the name of the class, as it invokes a mid-west theme, I enjoyed playing the gunslinger. My character had nothing to do with cowboys or indians. I fired my pistols four times throughout the evening, using a rapier for the most part. No one seemed to take umbrage with me pulling pistols, and my class never came up. Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I don't ever mention my class during gaming sessions. Class, level, HPs-- these are all out-of-game terms. We had a gnome "something" in the party who said he was a landscape artist. I told people I was a lay-about. I think people are viewing the class as western because of the nouns chosen (which isn't necessarily wrong; I'd advise changing them solely for this reason).
As for playtesting in PFS, I understand their reasoning. More than that, I applaud that they're playtesting in the first place. They want as many people as possible to try the classes out and see what works and what doesn't so they can make changes. PFS can always remove them as playable content down the road. (I've no care if they do that to my new character. My choice for trying out a playtest.)
But invoking the Ghost of Tolkien? I dearly hope that the developers are excavating far more than his work for inspiration. Actually, I wouldn't mind if they became honorary or de-facto members of the Pre-Joycean Fellowship. I like my fantasy to have some grit. :)
|
|
I'll see your Tolkien, and raise you a Steven King and an Edgar Rice Burroughs :)
Hmmm...I'll meet you at the river by laying down a Rice, Ann. :)
Though, to be fair, I've never read Burroughs and only one King. And while I'm a Lovecraft follower, when I feel like scaring myself wide-eyed, I'll grab Thomas Ligotti's "Nightmare Factory". Don't read that one by candlelight!! ;)
|
|
This is WAY down the boards, and I am NOT going to bother to read the whole thread, but I did read the first page or so and wanded to respond.
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.
This is something to deffinately keep in mind. The table I play with (weekly with friends, no cons yet) consists of a GM who has played in Society before, a few of us who read a bit into Golarion and have a basic idea, and a slew of people who have utterly no idea what Golarion is and started playing Society because the idea of a character we can play anywhere with anyone sounded fun.
My 2 copper on the topic of the thread, rants about rules and mechanics aside:
Once the bugs are worked out of Gunslinger, it will be a class like any other. People will over time get past the name and start getting creative (full plate rogue using Sneak Attack as percision damage rather than sneaky damage, utilizing rogue skills to investigate and interigate, personality of a paladin comes to mind). Yes, there will be a period of time where everyone plays a gunslinger, just because "OMG GUNS!" However, once the new-ness and novelty wears off, they'll be yet another class option at the table.
As a MMORPGer, I've always viewed parties as consisting of four important roles: Tank, Healer, Blaster, Support. Pathfinder parties, at least those who do well, try to cover all these bases. Gunslinger seems to fall into the Support catagory, and will probably show up as much as the other classes that cover this niche (primarily Rogue, Bard, Monk, Inquisitor, and certain builds of other classes).
I will say that I find the idea of guns not being available to any non-gunslinger in any manner very silly, though I understand the reasoning for it.
|
Demyon, try broadinging your horzions, Download Solomn Kane from
your favriote down load site watch it, then see if you see that it is not ok to have guns in a fantasy setting.
IS tech any diffrent than magic to a midevil peasant IMO No they wold reconize both to be the same as both are out side of their normal world view.
As far as the Gunslnger Class goes I don't like it very much because IMO the Game designers nerfed guns. Guns need to be scary rare and feared. Just like a high level wizard with a Staff of the Magi.
It seems that the Gunslinger Name evokes very many bad feelings from the uber fantsay types. Change the class name to Musketeer and some of the hate will go away.
Mark, I have a recomandation for you on guns skip muzzel loaders
they are ok with me but don't really work in a 6 second round.
IRL a highly trained British 1800's Rifleman from the 95th rifle regiment could get off 6 rounds in 2 minutes. There is a great
youtube video on this.
Just say the gunsmiths of Alkenstar invented breach loaders. this would make firearms fit much better mechanicly into the game and eliminate the suspension of disbelief that fantastical reloading speeds needed for the current gunslingers reloading muzzel loaders in a six second round.
I personaly don't like the Grit idea it introduces a complex mechanic into the game that does not provide equal benifits for the hassel for the player. every thing you can do with Grit you can do with feats better even without creating new feats.
cudos to you and the other developers for the hard work on the three new classes and putting up with the often hash input from your fans.
into the game
|
Hi
No sure about the name. Gunslinger sounds luike Wild West. Musketeer/Pistoleer is more accurate.
So many ways to break this:
Gunslinger/Ranger
Gunslinger/Magus
Add Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Rapid Reload, and Haste & Improved Invis spells.......
Magii can use spells to enhance their weapon, Arcane Pool to add further enhancements. Magus 5/Gunslinger 5 even adds their Dex mod to damage.
Thanks
Paul H
|
|
Good example, I concede the "Day Job" argument is spurious. However it is still important to consider all the jobs you mentioned existed in medieval times, that's the important bit.
Why?
The only reason that i can come up with is that it fits your conception of what a fantasy setting should be. If you were the game designer or creative director, that might be relevant. But neither of us is. The setting has existed for over two years now.
Really, given that the setting has always had guns, it should be a non issue. From my perspective, the only real class that might justifiably be arguedas not part of the setting is thesummoner class. But even then,it could be argued that summoner is just some exotic mage.
From my point of view, youre arguing that the game should be held to your notion of fantasy, regardless of the already published material.
|
|
It seems that the Gunslinger Name evokes very many bad feelings from the uber fantsay types. Change the class name to Musketeer and some of the hate will go away.
I've said this all along. The only problem is that the class would have to be completely reworked because there's absolutely no way to make a viable melee/pistol dual-wielder with the current mechanics of the gunslinger class.
|
|
...
From my point of view, youre arguing that the game should be held to your notion of fantasy, regardless of the already published material.It's not just _my_ notion of fantasy. Fantasy was a well defined genre a long time before I ever discovered it. Like any genre it expanded and has fuzzy edges, but most of us know the difference between fantasy, old west, sci fi, etc., notwithstanding crossovers like dark tower etc. I think the crossovers have their place, but some of us want to play fantasy, not crossover.
However, I also understand that there has to be some give and take. As others have mentioned it would be much more palatable if the guns were presented as early European or Asian matchlock, musket, or blunderbuss primitive technology rather than industrial revolution / American west.
Ah, but it is your notion of fantasy. Fantasy has been defined, not all that well, for many years. Some fantasy includes guns, up to and including revolvers, machine guns and various other ways of causing loss of life and limb.
And you do know that one of the major problems with the guns presented to us for the playtest is that they are, indeed, very early technology, rather than the type of gun used in the American west. These are single shot weapons, with significant (game-time) reload times, not the archetypical wild west 6 shooter.
Indeed, one of the issues that will hit the class, whatever name it finally ends up with, is making them balanced both with the single shot, full round reload weapon and the 6 shot revolver, and/or any of the various varieties of machine guns that could be created with the same technology as each of those weapons.
Right now, the gunslinger is on a par with a weak crossbowman. And by weak, I mean badly built, rather than even moderately optimized. And the crossbowman will still be a LOT cheaper to run, and do more damage earlier, than the gunslinger will. Cheaper to enchant, easier to switch ammo types on the fly, cheaper ammo, etc.
|
|
...
From my point of view, youre arguing that the game should be held to your notion of fantasy, regardless of the already published material.It's not just _my_ notion of fantasy. Fantasy was a well defined genre a long time before I ever discovered it. Like any genre it expanded and has fuzzy edges, but most of us know the difference between fantasy, old west, sci fi, etc., notwithstanding crossovers like dark tower etc. I think the crossovers have their place, but some of us want to play fantasy, not crossover.
However, I also understand that there has to be some give and take. As others have mentioned it would be much more palatable if the guns were presented as early European or Asian matchlock, musket, or blunderbuss primitive technology rather than industrial revolution / American west.
Ah, but it is your notion of fantasy. Fantasy has been defined, not all that well, for many years. Some fantasy includes guns, up to and including revolvers, machine guns and various other ways of causing loss of life and limb.
And you do know that one of the major problems with the guns presented to us for the playtest is that they are, indeed, very early technology, rather than the type of gun used in the American west. These are single shot weapons, with significant (game-time) reload times, not the archetypical wild west 6 shooter.
Indeed, one of the issues that will hit the class, whatever name it finally ends up with, is making them balanced both with the single shot, full round reload weapon and the 6 shot revolver, and/or any of the various varieties of machine guns that could be created with the same technology as each of those weapons.
Right now, the gunslinger is on a par with a weak crossbowman. And by weak, I mean badly built, rather than even moderately optimized. And the crossbowman will still be a LOT cheaper to run, and do more damage earlier, than the gunslinger will. Cheaper to enchant, easier to...
I agree with your post almost entirely. As presented, guns are somewhat of a hodgepodge between old and new. They are single shot, yet reload much much faster than a musket or other barrel loaded weapon. Given the british army used to use 3 shots per minute as a standard, a "realistic" reload time should be on the order of 3-4 rounds. Rifles took much longer (you needed to wrap the bullet in a leather patch to grab the rifling, which also made it harder to drive down the barrel) somewhere around 2 shots per minute, or 5 rounds of game time.
Compare to a six shooter, or M1 or other semi-automatic weapon, which should conceivably be able to be fired somewhat accurately 2-3 times per round. Compare to a fully automatic weapon which might be fired somewhat less accurately 30 times in that six second round.
Somewhere in this whole mix the designers need to figure out where Golarian guns fit. For game terms, anything more than a full-round reload will be very hard to make playable as a class. At the same time, I'm guessing that anything more than 2-3 shots per round will seem to be much more powerful than other game mechanics.
|
|
6. Does a powerful (relatively, low levels), ranged touch attack mess up encounter design? (as a GM what do I do if my tier one boss [EDIT: encounter built on assumption that low level characters don't have access to powerful ranged (touch) attacks] gets wiped out in the first round in a couple of shots? Kind of ruins the fun in my opinion)
This is highly non-specific to the class in question. The raging 24 STR level 1 barbarian is going to one shot a lot more BBEGs than a gunslinger because he can attack touch AC. While 4d8 or 4d12 sounds impressive if you manage to crit, you are really looking at 18 or 26 average damage. Pessimistically the barbarian is going to do 4d6 (greatsword) + 20 = 34 average damage. At tier 1-2 your BBEGs is probably only 3rd level so even if it was a fighter let say you are looking at 18 hp anyway and if he's got a con bonus (add +3 or +6) or toughness (add +3) the pistol gunslinger misses out on killing him on average, the musket gunslinger probably kills him on average (without any other bonus hp) and the barbarian? No problem, kills any cases in his average damage. Let's not even talk about reloading for round 2. The barbarian just swings again.
Who wrecks encounter design again? :)
|
|
Can he do all that on a range attack vs. touch AC? Is the equipment needed accessible at low levels? (please excuse my ignorance) If so, I totally agree, this is not a new problem. I was thinking this was the same problem the samurai had: peasants with guns spoiling all the fun, killing expensively armored and trained warriors at a distance, which led them to effectively ban guns in Japan for many years.
Ranges are 20' for a pistol or 40' for a musket. The barbarian is probably going to be moving 30', but may get the option of a charge for 60'. The barbarian requires nothing special to do this, the cost of the greatsword (50 gp). In these fictitious builds the gunslinger is looking at a +4 or +5 to hit (BAB + DEX bonus) and the barbarian is +8 (BAB + STR bonus). The gunslinger is likely to suffer from some cover penalty or firing into melee which effectively make the BBEG's touch AC on par with his normal AC. Just looking at damage average from these mock ups, 4.5 for the pistol, 6.5 for the musket or 14 for the greatsword it's pretty clear that while on a good day he might hit more often, the damage output can lag pretty far behind. The tactical layout will probably be going against him by they time he can reload, so yeah.
Mechanically the gunslinger is pretty broken at the moment but not in the way that everyone seems to fear that it is.
|
|
So, in summary:
Most "fantasy" settings don't include gunpowder. Some do. Paizo has decided Golarion does. Some of us (myself included) don't particularly care for that, but it's a matter of opinion, and not one that is in danger of killing the campaign any time soon.
Did I miss anything?
Hmm. Absent actual evidence (say a survey of all known fantasy settings), I'd actually call it:
Some "fantasy" settings include gunpowder. Some do not. Paizo has decided that Golarion does. Some people wish that it did not. Current playtest reports indicate that as built, the use of guns don't appear to endanger the campaign at this time.
|
I feel like you missed some of the points I was making, but I see that you are trying to focus on the crux of the issue. I think the way I'd put it is:
--> important bit here
Some gaming systems strike a good balance on simplicity vs. complexity and try to stick to it, others keep changing and including more classes (or races), features, and rules.
<-- end important bit
I got sick of the WoTC hampster wheel and decided I wanted a good 3.5 system, and I liked what Paizo had done with the core. For me it was a nice, elegant system in which I could use roleplay and story for variation. Adding new monsters and equipment was ok as long as it was kept in check, but not necessary. And I want to limit the amount of material I needed to buy, for both financial and time reasons.
Many of you want to keep reading about new rules, races, traits, spells, feats. Actually many years ago I was in that camp and now that I remember I can see where you are coming from.
Guess which strategy makes more sense to someone trying to sell books? I concede the point, gunslingers are here to stay, you'll get your spaceship psionic laser cyborgs later (they're in "fantasy" too, right?), and you Stephanie Myers fans needn't wait too long for the sales figures of "Twilight" to catch Paizo marketing dept. attention.
In the meantime, I'm joining the shadow lodge.
Actually, I'm no fan of rules bloat. But you seemed to be arguing against the gunslinger for reasons of flavor, and specifically in the context of PFS, rather than generally against rules bloat. Heck, when it gets right down to it, I'd personally rather not have any 20 level classes beyond the core -- I just think that's a separate issue (and one that's been done to death, largely by yours truly).
How about this: If I ever have the pleasure of sitting down at a table with you in PFS, I promise not to bring a gunslinger. ;-)
|
|
I was thinking of flying, suspended, or otherwise "unreachable" enemies. In both Delerium's Tangle and Tide of Morning the final BBEG is not easily reachable for melee, and the encounter dynamics involve on characters having to do some climbing. That's why I was asking about *ranged* attacks. The same might be true for the touch AC, but I can't think of an example.
I see. In that case, a fictional ranger for example is probably going to have a similar to hit (+4 to +5 range) and generally be in better condition feat wise to do a little bit more damage. Most 1st level bow characters cannot yet afford strength rated bows, but Deadly Aim and Point Blank feats are likely to part of the build so you can be easily looking at 7.5 per shot average damage and not have to pick between moving, reloading and shooting.
|
|
You might find Eric Mona's response to this issue interesting.
Thank you for understanding, and helping me figure out what was...
That's ERIC MONNA, you misspelled his name! ;)