Gunslinger Review - Gunslinger, Guns, Core Classes (Multi-Part)


Gunslinger Discussion: Round 1

101 to 150 of 330 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

Pendagast wrote:


Not that all the ideas arent cool and fun and interesting, its just not anything like the rules right now.

You say that like it is a bad thing.

The only reason for instance your playtest of the Gunslinger has gone surprisingly decent is you cheesed your way to making tons upon tons of pistols. The average adventurer can't do that. Also the recent realization that you have been using Targetting wrong further skews it.

In short, the rules right now fail, playtesting wasn't needed to realize this. Throw them out. Bring on the new already.


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:


Sorry if this comes off as hostile, just my 2 cp.
If you're not really sorry, don't say so. I'm tired of people being d**ks in this forum. We're just trying to improve the class and offering some suggestions.

Nothing I said was rude or disrespectful.

If by trying to caution against getting all gung ho about something that most likely will prove ultimately futile makes me a d**k well then so be it.
I did not say "quit coming up with ideas" I didn't even say "quit playtesting a homebrew class".
I was saying that in doing so you're putting the cart before the horse.

So, if there's any rudeness in this thread now, you've inserted it here, not I.

D**ks indeed.


Kryzbyn wrote:

They probably are, and thinking, "wow I'm glad we set up a special set of forums for a homebrew class playtest".

This is kind of unfairly painting them in a corner.
What if everyone playtests this and loves it, thinks this is the way to go, but piazo decides it isn't and publishes something different?
There will be resentment that all that work and time to refine the class was wasted, and through no fault of Paizo's.
You've come up with great suggestions they can use, but spending time playtesting an entire class the "devs" did not come up with is futile.
They're asking for feedback, not for people to write classes for them.

Sorry if this comes off as hostile, just my 2 cp.

Simply put, if Paizo went and did that... well that's was houserules and homebrew is for. People have many house rules they use since PF is far from perfect and never will be. It's made by humans, it simply can't be perfect, ever. There will always be people going "I dislike this, let's make it this." Same goes with this fantastic class Ashiel has crafted from the festering corpse of the Paizo Gunslinger.

I see no reason to playtest the Paizo class, so I won't, I've said my share, and as far as I am concerned, the Gunslinger fails miserably in round 1. Maybe they will hit a better stride in Round 2, or even Round 3, but unless the new Gunslinger really can compete with Ashiel's in playability and fun, then it will be promptly ignored.

EDIT: Also, as mentioned, I fully believe, given how poorly made the Gunslinger is, that the devs DO expect us to make the class for them.

Sovereign Court

Kryzbyn wrote:
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:


Sorry if this comes off as hostile, just my 2 cp.
If you're not really sorry, don't say so. I'm tired of people being d**ks in this forum. We're just trying to improve the class and offering some suggestions.

Nothing I said was rude or disrespectful.

If by trying to caution against getting all gung ho about something that most likely will prove ultimately futile makes me a d**k well then so be it.
I did not say "quit coming up with ideas" I didn't even say "quit playtesting a homebrew class".
I was saying that in doing so you're putting the cart before the horse.

So, if there's any rudeness in this thread now, you've inserted it here, not I.

D**ks indeed.

I've decided to censor my own post, rather than pull this down further. You've made it clear you don't like what's going on here, so move along.


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:


Sorry if this comes off as hostile, just my 2 cp.
If you're not really sorry, don't say so. I'm tired of people being d**ks in this forum. We're just trying to improve the class and offering some suggestions.

Nothing I said was rude or disrespectful.

If by trying to caution against getting all gung ho about something that most likely will prove ultimately futile makes me a d**k well then so be it.
I did not say "quit coming up with ideas" I didn't even say "quit playtesting a homebrew class".
I was saying that in doing so you're putting the cart before the horse.

So, if there's any rudeness in this thread now, you've inserted it here, not I.

D**ks indeed.

I've decided to censor my own post, rather than pull this down further. You've made it clear you don't like what's going on here, so move along.

<SIGH> I'll take "Missing the Point" for 800, Alex.

Meh, I'd edit mine too but the time has passed, apparently.


Someone mentioned Stephen King's gunslingers upthread, and I'd like to return to that -- because King's gunslingers are a far better analog to the paladin class than to the fighter. Hell, Roland's guns, we learn in the last volume

Spoiler:
are holy avenger guns made from the remnants of Excalibur.

In addition to the hypnosis mentioned up-thread, Roland and the others exhibit any number of mystical abilities -- psionic resistance to thirst, incorporeally possessing one another, communing with demons, whittling magic keys that open gates between worlds, etc., etc.

If the gunslinger class is to represent any of this, it should start with the paladin chassis and work from there. If not... well, that's fine, but a new name might be in order to avoid a sense of false expectations.


Kryzbyn wrote:

They probably are, and thinking, "wow I'm glad we set up a special set of forums for a homebrew class playtest".

This is kind of unfairly painting them in a corner.
What if everyone playtests this and loves it, thinks this is the way to go, but piazo decides it isn't and publishes something different?
There will be resentment that all that work and time to refine the class was wasted, and through no fault of Paizo's.
You've come up with great suggestions they can use, but spending time playtesting an entire class the "devs" did not come up with is futile.
They're asking for feedback, not for people to write classes for them.

Sorry if this comes off as hostile, just my 2 cp.

Cartigan wrote:
Reporting on the playtest of a changed class is not reporting on a playtest of the base class. If you want to change the class, that's the houserules forum. If you want to explain why the class, as it exists, has problems and explain, that is this forum.
Pentagast wrote:

I'll have to agree, changing the class right now, and playing it with the change and reporting how cool it is doesn't help any.

If you play with the RAW 'slinger, find issues and then make a suggestion 'it'd be nice if it worked this way' then that is different, but dont play a different version and then report it as a play test.

Fair enough, but I wrote the class in an effort to help. By offering up a different possibility, or something to compare the gunslinger to that is also centered around the same theme. Paizo can look at both the reviews and playtest results for two classes that effectively are meant for the same thing, and then decide a direction they want to head (if they actually went with mine, then that would be a nerd-dream come true, but I doubt that would happen).

Essentially, I've been reading several of the playtest results on the forum and all are falling right in line with my original summary of the class. It doesn't work. I've been watching the playtest results and even in the threads where the gunslinger doesn't seem like the most horrible thing in the world, you could still do the same or better with an equal-level NPC Warrior (Don't believe me? If you have PC point buy, and a 7th level human warrior, you can have Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Precise Shot, Deadly Aim, and Manyshot; as well as lesser bracers of archery, giving you the following attack routine: +9/+9/+4 at 1d8+10 or 2d8+20 w/manyshot and an oil of magic weapon, or against heavier armored foes, +11/+11/+6 at 2d8+12/1d8+6/1d8+6; all assuming you're not within Point Blank Shot range).

I feel Pentagast's playtest of the gunslinger, found here is borderline dishonest. He should have 23,500 gp worth of equipment, and he's carting around 19,800 gp worth of +1 pistols under the assumption he crafted them with Master Craftsman and Craft Arms and Armor; and says he crafted all of them (which would have taken 2,000 gp worth of materials for the pistols, another 600 gp for masterwork, and then 6,000 gp for the +1 enhancement; and roughly 252 days of work to craft the guns at 7th level (assuming he took 10 to avoid wasting/losing materials) and enchant them.

So he does this so he can attempt to keep up with core, and fails. Yes, Pentagast's gunslinger fails to even compare to what a core fighter can do (which is awesome 'cause Fighters aren't terrible now, but they weren't this bad in 3.5 either). Meanwhile, our Fighter could be sporting bracers of archery (5,000 gp), a +2 Composite Longbow (+4)(8,800 gp), 20 adamantine arrows (1,200 gp), 40 cold-iron arrows (4 gp), and 40 silver arrows (6 gp), as well as 100 normal arrows (5 gp), a pair of efficient quivers (3,600 gp for 2) to hold them all in, and still have 4,290 gp worth of equipment without exceeding his wealth by level, which is enough to grab a suit of +1 full-plate and a +2 cloak of resistance, and still has about 2,740 gp for a pair f +1 stat items and some potions (this is all market value and not reduced via crafting), and can carry a club that deals 1d6+6 points of damage for free.

Meanwhile, while Pentagast's gunslinger relies on dropping 3,300 gp worth of magic items on the ground every time he attacks, and does pitiful damage, risks blowing up his 3,300 gp worth of guns, and has to stop to reload regularly, our Fighter is pimping the following routine, while still being able to beat-feet and run when things go south without leaving behind a year's worth of dedicated crafting on the ground for his enemies to sell (since yeah, they're probably not stupid enough to use guns): +11/+11/+5 at 2d8+26/1d8+13/1d8+13 from 105ft away, firing into melee without penalty, ignoring up to 4 types of damage reduction, and scoring x3 on critical hits (3d8+39 is a pretty sexy critical, it is).

So we can see in the playtest that this class doesn't work on a fundamental level. The class' abilities revolve around not being good with a gun but hoping it won't blow up, having a mild protection vs ranged attacks, blowing 11 gp per shot, and being useless.

Pentagast has offered alternative rules in this post, which is pretty much what my class has done. I'm offering ideas for a different route, because I've given up on the playtest gunslinger for all the reasons I listed in my first post (it needs a full re-write, and I couldn't find anyone in my group who wanted to touch it with a 10-ft. ladder). Whereas instead of providing a few ideas like "make it like this other class", I wrote up a whole class with the idea of it being its own animal, rather than a copy of another "monk with guns" or "magus with guns" or "ranger with guns", etc.

So I wrote up a re-write and I've presented it for critique, to see if it might be an alternative for the gunslinger. I have been very happy with the feedback, so I'm glad I did because people seem happy with it (and making people happy is one of the greatest joys of life) and even if Paizo doesn't decide to use mine, or use mine for ideas, I will continue to have mine posted on my Heroes of Alvena site on the Expanded Classes page, under Gunslinger with the most current version; simply because people seem to enjoy it.

Notice
Thank you everyone for sticking up for my version of the gunslinger, but let's all be civil here. We're all trying to help Paizo and each other here, and Kryzbyn and Pentagast are doing what they feel helps. We're all in this together, so let's be nice to each other. I certainly don't mind them sharing their feelings on the matter, but thank you all for your concern. ^_^


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Someone mentioned Stephen King's gunslingers upthread, and I'd like to return to that -- because King's gunslingers are a far better analog to the paladin class than to the fighter. Hell, Roland's guns, we learn in the last volume ** spoiler omitted **

In addition to the hypnosis mentioned up-thread, Roland and the others exhibit any number of mystical abilities -- psionic resistance to thirst, incorporeally possessing one another, communing with demons, whittling magic keys that open gates between worlds, etc., etc.

If the gunslinger class is to represent any of this, it should start with the paladin chassis and work from there. If not... well, that's fine, but a new name might be in order to avoid a sense of false expectations.

Actually another poster built a Gunslinger based entirely off the ones from Gilead. Should be in the homebrew forums somewhere, it was quite nice I thought.

EDIT: Also Jacobs just stated this in the blackpowder thread.

"Nope; the prices for guns and black powder are pretty locked in. We could, of course, change them for Ultimate Combat, I guess, but they're already coming back over the ocean from the printer in the Inner Sea World Guide. Having it take a really long time to make a gun is actually part of Golarion's flavor, to be honest—again, part of the goal to have guns be relatively rare in Golarion. What we COULD do in Ultimate Combat, of course, is include a sidebar or something that talks about adjusting gun and black powder prices in specific game worlds to model availability. That could actually be pretty cool, and would help empower GMs who wish to adjust the commonality of guns in their game—even if their game's set in Golarion—without making what we've already established in the Inner Sea World Guide wrong.

The baseline cost, though, is locked in."

There is really no possible way Pendaghasts gunslinger could of crafted those Pistols short of a kindly Wizard bringing him to the Astral Plane and sitting there crafting for years upon years upon years.

Sovereign Court

Kryzbyn wrote:

<SIGH> I'll take "Missing the Point" for 800, Alex.

So, what was the point? Your original response was in my comment that I hoped the developers (<-novice I spelled it out becasue shorthand offended some people) were reading the thread to see the ideas Ashiel was putting forward, so that they may adopt some of them for the final version. I don't think anyone was under any illusions that this exact variant was going to be considered for publishing.


Heretek wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

Someone mentioned Stephen King's gunslingers upthread, and I'd like to return to that -- because King's gunslingers are a far better analog to the paladin class than to the fighter. Hell, Roland's guns, we learn in the last volume ** spoiler omitted **

In addition to the hypnosis mentioned up-thread, Roland and the others exhibit any number of mystical abilities -- psionic resistance to thirst, incorporeally possessing one another, communing with demons, whittling magic keys that open gates between worlds, etc., etc.

If the gunslinger class is to represent any of this, it should start with the paladin chassis and work from there. If not... well, that's fine, but a new name might be in order to avoid a sense of false expectations.

Actually another poster built a Gunslinger based entirely off the ones from Gilead. Should be in the homebrew forums somewhere, it was quite nice I thought.

EDIT: Also Jacobs just stated this in the blackpowder thread.

"Nope; the prices for guns and black powder are pretty locked in. We could, of course, change them for Ultimate Combat, I guess, but they're already coming back over the ocean from the printer in the Inner Sea World Guide. Having it take a really long time to make a gun is actually part of Golarion's flavor, to be honest—again, part of the goal to have guns be relatively rare in Golarion. What we COULD do in Ultimate Combat, of course, is include a sidebar or something that talks about adjusting gun and black powder prices in specific game worlds to model availability. That could actually be pretty cool, and would help empower GMs who wish to adjust the commonality of guns in their game—even if their game's set in Golarion—without making what we've already established in the Inner Sea World Guide wrong.

The baseline cost, though, is locked in."

There is really no possible way Pendaghasts gunslinger could of crafted those Pistols short of a kindly Wizard bringing him to the Astral Plane and sitting there crafting for...

And this is why the Gunslinger fails. Guns, by design, are awful. Just awful. The Gunslinger is a class entirely built around using said awful guns. That might be tenable if not for the fact that they are currently designed to use resources to make guns not be overpriced junk. The only way this class will work is if all penalties of the black-powder guns are removed INHERENTLY for the Gunslinger and then resources shall be spent to make guns in general more awesome in line with other classes that do stuff.


Nebelwerfer41 wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:

<SIGH> I'll take "Missing the Point" for 800, Alex.

So, what was the point? Your original response was in my comment that I hoped the developers (<-novice I spelled it out becasue shorthand offended some people) were reading the thread to see the ideas Ashiel was putting forward, so that they may adopt some of them for the final version. I don't think anyone was under any illusions that this exact variant was going to be considered for publishing.

It's ok, don't worry about it.

Ashiel addressed my point, and well.


I don't know if this got addressed inside the thread, but in the OP this bothers me a lot. There are many well-voiced concerns. But the notion of using the Demoralize action to regain grit is unacceptable. Successfully demoralizing a creature in combat is essentially trivial (the hard part is demoralizing them for more than 1 round).

So you propose a feat/skill tax that allows the gunslinger to spend a round in combat to regain 1 or more grit points. From an action-economy perspective this is not particularly great. And from the perspective of beating the encounter that is also sub-par. Finally from customizing the character to the player's heart's contend is also given a big shake down and we end up with 90% of all gunslingers being fearsomely intimidating.

I don't like it :(


Reading Ashiel's version just now. Really like the new Deeds, lots of fun and cinematic options there. Worried about Sixth Sense - half of level? Maybe make it more like the Inquisitor's Cunning Initiative and allow them to add Wis or Cha (or either or, fit to individual taste, but not both) in addition to Dex. I like Cold Stare, and I like that lots of the abilities only work if you have x grit remaining. Creates a good system of choice - spend grit for big boom, or keep some in reserve for other effects? Not entirely sure about the Wind Stance and Lightning Stance thematically, but I guess I see it.

In response to Kirth and other mentions of Roland, I'd say that while I'm a big fan of the Dark Tower books, I'm not sure about using that as the basis for this class. The abilities were pretty disparate and I feel like the class might end up either trying to do everything and good at none of it, or too good at too many things. I'd say at this point Ashiel's version doesn't feel like a Fighter at all: full BAB, yes, but good Ref save, no bonus feats, no equivalent to Bravery anymore, more skill points/level. It really is its own separate base class. Whether or not that's a good thing is a matter of taste.


Tim4488 wrote:

Reading Ashiel's version just now. Really like the new Deeds, lots of fun and cinematic options there. Worried about Sixth Sense - half of level? Maybe make it more like the Inquisitor's Cunning Initiative and allow them to add Wis or Cha (or either or, fit to individual taste, but not both) in addition to Dex. I like Cold Stare, and I like that lots of the abilities only work if you have x grit remaining. Creates a good system of choice - spend grit for big boom, or keep some in reserve for other effects? Not entirely sure about the Wind Stance and Lightning Stance thematically, but I guess I see it.

You know, I do agree with the Initiative. in my earlier example of the lvl 8 Gunslinger I had +15 to initative as I recall... 5 dex + 4 imp initiative + half level(4) + reactionary trait (2) = 15

That is pretty damn high, not even my Inquisitor could pull that off haha. So altering it to work like an Inquisitor is probobly a good idea.

As for the Wind Stance, well it makes sense, a moving target is harder to hit, and the Gunslinger is supposed to be a constantly moving and mobile attacker.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tim4488 wrote:

Reading Ashiel's version just now. Really like the new Deeds, lots of fun and cinematic options there. Worried about Sixth Sense - half of level? Maybe make it more like the Inquisitor's Cunning Initiative and allow them to add Wis or Cha (or either or, fit to individual taste, but not both) in addition to Dex. I like Cold Stare, and I like that lots of the abilities only work if you have x grit remaining. Creates a good system of choice - spend grit for big boom, or keep some in reserve for other effects? Not entirely sure about the Wind Stance and Lightning Stance thematically, but I guess I see it.

In response to Kirth and other mentions of Roland, I'd say that while I'm a big fan of the Dark Tower books, I'm not sure about using that as the basis for this class. The abilities were pretty disparate and I feel like the class might end up either trying to do everything and good at none of it, or too good at too many things. I'd say at this point Ashiel's version doesn't feel like a Fighter at all: full BAB, yes, but good Ref save, no bonus feats, no equivalent to Bravery anymore, more skill points/level. It really is its own separate base class. Whether or not that's a good thing is a matter of taste.

I need to read the Dark Tower series. However, I do appreciate the effort that Ashiel has put into the gunslinger. I actually like Ashiel's version more. The question is the gunslinger meant to be a fighter archetype? If so, then the saves, hd, damage per round, etc need to conform or be similar to the fighter class. If not, then Paizo needs to change that wording.


Mini Blog - Guns in Fantasy (Mini-Rant Warning)
So I've been going through some of the posts on these boards, including Pentagast's post Found Here, and I've noticed something that has been bugging the heck out of me from a design standpoint.

Nobody really wants the Paizo Gunslinger to be a gunslinger. "Wait, what's that Ash? What do you mean?" one might ask. That's a big statement, and it could imply any number of things, so let me elaborate.

In Pentagast's post, he says to make them like monks. Elsewhere someone says make them like rangers. In this post in this very thread, Kirth Girson said they should be more like Paladins. Meanwhile, some are wanting to see the Gunslinger be something more like this scene from Equilibrium and have cool unique class abilities that are wild and over the top (but not unbalanced).

The thing is, everyone is right! Ok, so I'm sure you're wondering, how can everyone be right at the same time? Well it's pretty simple.

All of these things are possible with the core classes. The only problem is, guns aren't viable. Paizo seems (by their playtest) to make guns the most useless and worthless weapon in the game; and making guns useless for anything except gunslingers (and it even shows in the gunslinger class horribly).

The Problem: Guns are not an archtype, they are a tool. There is no reason that every class should be unable to wield guns without dipping into gunslinger, any more than bows should be useless without dipping into "Archer" or swords should be useless without dipping into "Swordsman". That's just foolish.

I intentionally avoided this problem when I wrote up my gunslinger and the guns she was intended to use. They are obviously very useful for the gunslinger (for she uses them for her class features, and has ways of really reaping their benefits beyond what the weapon itself offers), but they are a viable option for existing classes. If you want a gun-wielding alchemist, bard, paladin, ranger, or whatever, you can do so. They're not instantly better than everything else, but you can spend a feat or two to unlock their benefits (EWP: Firearms + Rapid Reload gives you everything you need to make Revolvers & Rifles contenders as a good idea).

This has had a very positive effect during our playtest. In our tabletop playtest, we used some guns both for the gunslinger and with a few NPCs. One of the plots was very simple, as it involved some goblins that knocked over a caravan that was carrying a bunch of imported firearms, which gave a great excuse for 1st level goblin warriors to be packing pistols and revolvers (which fit into the 50gp NPC weapons gear allotment). The goblins weren't really any more dangerous than they normally were (the goblins still wielding shortbows fired more often than pistol wielders, of course), and the Paladin picked up one of pistols as part of the loot, figuring it might come in handy.

The positive piece is that while the gunslinger was obviously gaining benefit from the guns she was wielding, the Paladin's player saw benefit as well, and used it as a simple weapon (1d8/x2, 50ft) during the opening round of combat and then dropped the cheap weapon for his warhammer when he closed or the enemy closed on us.

This is exactly the kind of thinking I'd like to encourage in my games. He saw a use, and used it, much like firearms were used in the past. He has a longbow for when he means to do some real ranged fighting, and he probably has no intention of taking the Exotic Proficiency feat or Rapid Reload, but he was happy being able to pick up this 25 gp 1 shot weapon off his enemies and use it in a historically accurate and flavorful manner.

This also worked great when we remade my brother's bard old Golarion gunslinger with these new rules. We have the PF Campaign Setting manual, and he made a bard who was supposed to be a tactician and leader who dabbled in magic and alchemy, and he dual-wielded revolvers and had Perform (Oratory) to represent his character's rousing speeches. This character was pretty cool, but is impossible in the current ruleset; but this character thrives with the firearms I presented - without overpowering anything.

2) While some might complain about the technological level of the guns, regardless of what technological level we're talking about, the guns as presented during the playtest are completely bizarre. In my copy of the Golarion campaign setting, it has an excerpt in the beginning talking about using real life and an inspiration for world building, and watching the history channel to get ideas of how the world work.

Golarion guns pretty throw a big pie in the face of this commentary, and then point and laugh. They are so amazingly unrealistic, not in mechanics, but on a fundamental level. They are presented as insanely overpriced. The cost of a single pinch of gunpowder is enough to live on for a month (no joke, see Cost of Living).

The vast majority of the world is NPC classed. Guns are worthless. They wouldn't sell. Couldn't sell. There is literally no reason ever to purchase them. The nation that produces them is wasting their money. The nation that trains soldiers to use these things are wasting the lives of their soldiers, and should by all logic simply roll over and be conquered by anyone not using their weapons. Why do people want this stuff? Jacobs says that it's part of Golarion's "flavor", but what about it makes it flavorful to cost a kings ransom for a useless piece of metal? What makes it "flavorful" to effectively bar them from being used by sailors, pirates, swashbucklers, and ruffians? What makes it flavorful to make a weapon that no one would use?

They make no sense logically. They're inferior in every way to the sling, the 0 gp already-nerfed-from-reality simple weapon sling. The part that worries me, is this seems to be part of the design goal; to make guns so bad that no one will ever want to use them, have reasons to use them, and it seems to be an intentional trap. Perhaps the idea is to keep the flavor of sword & sorcery by making guns an illusion; essentially saying "yeah, sure, you can use guns, we got those..." knowing good and well people won't, wouldn't, and so forth.

James Jacobs wrote:

"Nope; the prices for guns and black powder are pretty locked in. We could, of course, change them for Ultimate Combat, I guess, but they're already coming back over the ocean from the printer in the Inner Sea World Guide. Having it take a really long time to make a gun is actually part of Golarion's flavor, to be honest—again, part of the goal to have guns be relatively rare in Golarion. What we COULD do in Ultimate Combat, of course, is include a sidebar or something that talks about adjusting gun and black powder prices in specific game worlds to model availability. That could actually be pretty cool, and would help empower GMs who wish to adjust the commonality of guns in their game—even if their game's set in Golarion—without making what we've already established in the Inner Sea World Guide wrong.

The baseline cost, though, is locked in."

I worry heavily about this, because it means the gunslinger is doomed to failure. It won't be playable, it would make sense in the least, and it won't function correctly in other games. I am, from a design perspective, highly disturbed by this comment.

I am so very scared. Q.Q


Ashiel wrote:
The Problem: Guns are not an archtype, they are a tool. There is no reason that every class should be unable to wield guns without dipping into gunslinger, any more than bows should be useless without dipping into "Archer" or swords should be useless without dipping into "Swordsman". That's just foolish.

Amen.

Can you say "+100"? I knew you could.


LoreKeeper wrote:

I don't know if this got addressed inside the thread, but in the OP this bothers me a lot. There are many well-voiced concerns. But the notion of using the Demoralize action to regain grit is unacceptable. Successfully demoralizing a creature in combat is essentially trivial (the hard part is demoralizing them for more than 1 round).

So you propose a feat/skill tax that allows the gunslinger to spend a round in combat to regain 1 or more grit points. From an action-economy perspective this is not particularly great. And from the perspective of beating the encounter that is also sub-par. Finally from customizing the character to the player's heart's contend is also given a big shake down and we end up with 90% of all gunslingers being fearsomely intimidating.

I don't like it :(

Don't worry, if you see my version of the Gunslinger, you'll notice that was not included.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Amen.

Can you say "+100"? I knew you could.

Heheh. Thanks. ^.^"


Just sayin, I'm totally in the pro-Gun Kata group.

Lantern Lodge

Heretek wrote:
Just sayin, I'm totally in the pro-Gun Kata group.

I second the Christian Bale motion.


Ashiel wrote:
Rantings about guns

10000% agreed.

The point of guns are to be guns. They're a weapon, just like any other, that anyone can use, to great effect if they train with it. The point of the gunslinger is to be a gunslinger: someone who is, in essence, peerless in comparison to the rest of the gun-wielding public. He is an elite who specializes in using the tool. Just as an "archer (bow specialist fighter)" is an elite who specializes in using his tool: the bow. Can anyone else use a bow? Sure. Can they be good at it if they train with it? Sure. Will the average warrior ever achieve greatness with it? Never in comparison to the specialist. And that's a gunslinger: a specialist with his tools. An artist.

But even an artist can't create anything beautiful with a hunk of [expletive deleted]. And Paizo's guns are huge, steamy, ridiculously expensive piles of [whoo dogey!].

And as the establisher of the Gun Kata movement (on this thread, at least):

the actions taken in the scene.:

Gun Kata Scene
Round 1: 2WF Full Attack (main disarm, off-hand disarm, off-hand attack [hit and kill], main attack [hit and kill]).
Round 2: 2WF Full Attack (main attack [hit and kill], off-hand attack [hit and kill], drop weapons, quick draw pistol, main attack [miss], main attack [hit and kill])
Round 3: Quick draw second pistol, Rolling Shot (somehow firing both guns and killing 2 enemies. The rules do not support this move), lands in center of large group of enemies.
Round 4: Desperado, expending lots of grit. Everything dies. Close round with cool pose.

This suggests he's at least level 11 with TWF, improved TWF, rapid shot and quick draw.

It's not perfect, as each round doesn't necessarily take 6 seconds. But it works.

I mean no disrespect to Paizo. I adore them in (most) everything they attempt. But I will not be using the Pathfinder RPG official gun rules. I won't speak to the official gunslinger, as it has yet to be finished, but I will not be using the alpha.

-The Beast


xXxTheBeastxXx wrote:

Round 1: 2WF Full Attack (main disarm, off-hand disarm, off-hand attack [hit and kill], main attack [hit and kill]).

Round 2: 2WF Full Attack (main attack [hit and kill], off-hand attack [hit and kill], drop weapons, quick draw pistol, main attack [miss], main attack [hit and kill])
Round 3: Quick draw second pistol, Rolling Shot (somehow firing both guns and killing 2 enemies. The rules do not support this move), lands in center of large group of enemies.
Round 4: Desperado, expending lots of grit. Everything dies. Close round with cool pose.

This suggests he's at least level 11 with TWF, improved TWF, rapid shot and quick draw.

I vote that Rolling Shot you be allowed to spend Grit to fire with both guns effectively canceling out the grit gained from it.

xXxTheBeastxXx wrote:
I mean no disrespect to Paizo. I adore them in (most) everything they attempt. But I will not be using the Pathfinder RPG official gun rules. I won't speak to the official gunslinger, as it has yet to be finished, but I will not be using the alpha.

100% agreed.


Also. In regards to what a gunslinger "Should be." It should be whatever the hell you want it to be. Am I going to make a gunslinger that's similar to the Gun Kata clerics of Equilibrium? Absolutely. Will I also probably make one who's an old-school musketeer, wielding rapier as well as musket? Sure thing. What about a sniper from the future, lost in time with only his trusty rifle at his side, forced to make modifications to fit current technology? You betcha. How about a quick-drawin', pistol-whippin', sharp-shootin', tobacca-spittin' outlaw from the old west? Damn-skippy!

And, likely, many many more. That's the beauty of pathfinder. The rules are rules, but flavor's what you make it.

-The Beast

Grand Lodge

Ashiel,

Im enjoying this thread immensely so far, and find your insights to be just about spot on. Couple things regarding your post comparing the fighter to the gunslinger.

1. You stated that the best way to do a gunslinger might be a 22Str half-orc who sells the pistols, etc. I believe I saw somewhere though that the guns you get at first level sell for 0gp, to prevent exactly what you proposed.
So...really, there is no 'best' way to stat a gunslinger, it seems :P

2. When you mention the range at which things can fire, you always seem to mention them as 5ft shorter than ive always assumed it worked. 105ft for the longbow, which has 110 range increment? Im not saying your wrong about how that works (I assume you mean if they are 110ft away, thats into the next range increment), but you are the first person to ever mention it like that. I think Im going to have to re-read the range increment section.

Keep up the good work. Also, are you planning on, or have you already done, things like this for the Samurai or Ninja? if like to see your input on those as well.


xXxTheBeastxXx wrote:

Also. In regards to what a gunslinger "Should be." It should be whatever the hell you want it to be. Am I going to make a gunslinger that's similar to the Gun Kata clerics of Equilibrium? Absolutely. Will I also probably make one who's an old-school musketeer, wielding rapier as well as musket? Sure thing. What about a sniper from the future, lost in time with only his trusty rifle at his side, forced to make modifications to fit current technology? You betcha. How about a quick-drawin', pistol-whippin', sharp-shootin', tobacca-spittin' outlaw from the old west? Damn-skippy!

And, likely, many many more. That's the beauty of pathfinder. The rules are rules, but flavor's what you make it.

-The Beast

This is exactly what I think should be the case as well. d20 RPGs have amazing versatility because classes are often build as an archetype, and yet thanks to the fairly elegant multiclassing system in most d20 games, we can use these classes as building blocks for more advanced or unusual archetypes.

I had a friend who made a Kenshin/Iaijutsu style Samurai-duelist by multiclassing Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue. The barbarian class granted weapon proficiencies, light-medium armor proficiencies, combat training, a speed bump, skill points were placed into appropriate places (Ride, Sense Motive, Knowledges), and Rage represented his unyielding samurai spirit. Fighter was taken for further combat training, and rogue was taken to represent Iaijutsu (bonus damage vs surprised foes), and he invested in Stealth heavily and abilities to gain concealment in combat to use Stealth again; allowing him to appear to be moving so fast as to be difficult to follow with your eyes.

People that cannot release the associations with the Barbarian class and the Rogue class probably cannot fathom the idea that they can be used to create a Samurai. Heck, the Barbarian class could perfectly model a samurai if you just changed the fluff. Their HD, Rage, and Damage Reduction would be perfect for emulating the idea of a powerful warrior with a fearless spirit. Even many of the "Rage Powers" fit the them of a Samurai: Clear Mind, Fearless Rage, Guarded Stance, Intimidating Glare, etc. Uncanny Dodge fits as well, for those classic scenes in films where a samurai fights multiple foes surrounding him. Probably the only one that doesn't jump up and scream "I could make a samurai" is Trap Sense; which could be replaced as a variant feature (such as Weapon Training with Greatswords (Nagamaki/No-Dachi),Bastard Swords (Katana), Short Swords (Wakizashi), Longbows (Yumi), Glaives (Naginata), and Maul (Tesubo/Kanabo)).

Then with the addition of multiclass (Fighter/Ranger/Paladin/Cavalier), variant class features, or prestige classes, you should be able to craft almost any samurai you want; without bothering with whole new classes.

Sorry, bit of a tangent there. Anyway, the gist of the matter is you don't need a different class for everything. To think so is to rob the system of its greatest strengths. D20 Modern was brilliant with their expression of this understanding (literally making classes for "strong/fast/tough/smart/wise/charismatic" characters that you could multiclass through freely to create the perfect character, and used prestige classes to dive into exceptionally specific stuff).

The gunslinger, if it's going to have a base class writeup, needs to be its own class. There's no reason Fighters should be barred from wielding guns because they're Fighters. There's no reason a nation that relies on firearms should have to field 100 PC-classed soldiers, which would cost them 303,300 gp to field every man with a musket and 3 shots worth of ammunition. I seriously think Paizo is making a very, very short-sighted mistake by not considering the world-influencing ramifications of their proposed rules. If not contradicting their inner sea book is the problem, I would seriously propose putting out an errata that makes sense and actually making the rules worth something.

But, I am merely an unpaid designer, so my opinion probably isn't worth much. :P

Heretek wrote:
I vote that Rolling Shot you be allowed to spend Grit to fire with both guns effectively canceling out the grit gained from it.

I will consider adding in a change so that Rolling Shot can grant additional attacks by spending Grit. How does something like this sound?

Possible Rolling Shot Adjustmet wrote:


Rolling Shot (Ex): As a full-round action, the gunslinger may move up to half her speed without provoking attacks of opportunity; and she may make a single attack with a firearm she's wielding during any part of this movement. Additionally, she gains a dodge bonus to her Reflex saves and to armor class equal to ½ her gunslinger level (minimum 0) until the end of her next turn. If the attack succeeds, the gunslinger regains 1 grit. If the gunslinger is wielding two firearms (such as dual-wielding revolvers), she may choose to fire with both weapons during this movement (incurring penalties for dual-wielding as appropriate), but if more than 1 attack is made, the gunslinger regains no grit (even if the attacks succeed).


godsDMit wrote:

Ashiel,

Im enjoying this thread immensely so far, and find your insights to be just about spot on. Couple things regarding your post comparing the fighter to the gunslinger.

1. You stated that the best way to do a gunslinger might be a 22Str half-orc who sells the pistols, etc. I believe I saw somewhere though that the guns you get at first level sell for 0gp, to prevent exactly what you proposed.
So...really, there is no 'best' way to stat a gunslinger, it seems :P

Ahh. I don't recall reading that in the playtest document, so is it new? If they remove the option to sell the weapons like that, then yes, there is no good way to use Gunslinger. :P

Quote:
2. When you mention the range at which things can fire, you always seem to mention them as 5ft shorter than ive always assumed it worked. 105ft for the longbow, which has 110 range increment? Im not saying your wrong about how that works (I assume you mean if they are 110ft away, thats into the next range increment), but you are the first person to ever mention it like that. I think Im going to have to re-read the range increment section.

I posted it that way because I was under the impression that each full range increment applies a -2 penalty on the attack rolls with a weapon, though it seems that the wording was altered slightly; so in fact writing it as 110ft on a composite longbow would probably be fine; but it's a force of habit for me to undercut the range by 5ft when speaking of avoiding penalties.

3.5 - Range Increments wrote:


Any attack at less than this distance is not penalized for range. However, each full range increment imposes a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot out to ten range increments.
PF - Range Increments wrote:
Range: Any attack at more than this distance is penalized for range. Beyond this range, the attack takes a cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment (or fraction thereof) of distance to the target. For example, a dagger (with a range of 10 feet) thrown at a target that is 25 feet away would incur a –4 penalty. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot to 10 range increments.
Quote:


Keep up the good work. Also, are you planning on, or have you already done, things like this for the Samurai or Ninja? if like to see your input on those as well.

Honestly, I've barely taken a look at the samurai or ninja, but I'll probably get to looking the over and posting a review. I did skim the Ninja class in the playtest document, and at first glance I feel like the Ninja should have probably been a selection of rogue talents and variant class features that could be added to a normal rogue; because "Ninja" is one of those classes that has far too many iterations in popular culture; with many of them just being spies and assassins, others being mystical spellcasters throwing fire from scrolls and hand motions, others summoning and turning into animals, and some being crazy super-martial artists with short-swords and kunai (and then you have the new crowd demanding ninjas must dress in orange jumpsuits w/bandanas, have emo-hair and goofy eyes, and have people fight against your puppets/demon-o'the-week when they really should just punch you in the face). And really, I think we could appeal to every crowd (even the orange jumpsuit/bandana crowd ^-^).

So I think it would be difficult to fit even the more "normal" preconceptions into a single class, and probably shouldn't.

Random Note: In 3.5, most of the main iterations of "Ninja" could be created with Rogue 10/Assassin 10, as the Assassin class got a variety of spells that allowed them to things like turn invisible, change their outward appearance, could use poison, etc. They could hide in plain sight, and could bring scrolls of fireball and the like that could be easily Use Magic Deviced into working.

But yes, I'll try to get a full-review posted on those in the near future; especially if there's interest.

Dark Archive

I thought I should post a sort of flowchart for how this discussion is going, because this thread is getting long, and I'm betting some people are going to just jump in if it begins to focus on "Homebrew vs. Official Material" again. So here goes.

First of all, Paizo has specifically asked the community to critique their Alpha builds of the Gunslinger, Ninja, and Samurai. This means a few things, including:
A.) They WANT our feedback, and are willing to accept anything we throw at them. Over the course of this playtest, I don't doubt Paizo will receive everything from "have my babies!" to death threats, to actual constructive help from people like Ashiel. There is no such thing as 'wrong criticism', except for saying "I don't know and I don't care."
B.) This is the Alpha draft of Paizo's Gunslinger. They fully expect that things will have to change, and they aren't beholden to stick to the framework they've got- if they were, they wouldn't have us test the class as much as gawk at it. And Ultimate Combat comes out this fall, giving them plenty of time to change the Class. Saying "throw it out, start again" would be a jerk move in July, but right now it may very well be the best course of action. We can't offer up a build that is 'too radically different' to consider, unless it either isn't a Fighter, or doesn't use guns. Ashiel's Gunslinger does both.

Secondly, the Pathfinder Alpha Gunslinger presented by Paizo is BAD. That's really all there is to say: it is exciting and cool, but it is plagued by a ton of issues, from incredibly expensive equipment, to a flawed resource system, to the idea that the class is based upon taking a terrible weapon and making it 'less bad'. Much like the 3.5 PrC that made you really good at using, say, a Gnomish Hooked Hammer, the Gunslinger gives up virtually all its class features to be as good as a Ranged Fighter who used none of his. I think people have already come to understand that a Weapon Master Fighter is a better Gunslinger than the Gunslinger is, but realistically, a Core Fighter is a better Gunslinger, as well. The Alternate Class is pointless, right now.

So this is the score: Ashiel has put forth an EXCELLENT Gunslinger Alternate Class for Paizo to consider, and since this is phase 1 of testing, consider it they should. Since internal testing has already reveled the weaknesses of the Pathfinder Gunslinger, we ARE doing the developers a service by testing Ashiel's material, since any and/or all of it may be incorporated into the final product.

And I for one sincerely hope it is. Back in the 3.5 splatbook days, I frequently used online alterations to classes presented in the books which were far better than the original, because Wizards of the Coast were either unable to design material at par with their readers, or else simply failed to care. This is largely why Paizo and Pathfinder have been so successful. They ARE talented game designers. Yet, if the Gunslinger were to ship in Ultimate Combat as it is in Paizo's playtest currently, I would use Ashiel's version instead. This would be the first time I did this for a Pathfinder product.


Ninten wrote:
So this is the score: Ashiel has put forth an EXCELLENT Gunslinger Alternate Class for Paizo to consider, and since this is phase 1 of testing, consider it they should. Since internal testing has already reveled the weaknesses of the Pathfinder Gunslinger, we ARE doing the developers a service by testing Ashiel's material, since any and/or all of it may be incorporated into the final product.

Wow, thank you very much Ninten. That makes me feel very proud. I wish they would consider using my Gunslinger in the Ultimate Combat (or anything else I write anywhere else); as it's been my dream to be counted among the names of Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Sean K. Reynolds for a long time. Games have always kind of been my thing in life, and writing for RPGs what I'd like to do for a living (hard living to make, I know). Plus, being able to open a Pathfinder book and show my friends something I wrote would be such a great feeling. ^-^

But, that's neither here nor there at the moment, I suppose. I'm trying to help Paizo however I can, because I feel they have more of the spirit WotC did before the Hasbro merger, and I have a lot of respect for Paizo and its staff members; so continuing on...

Has anyone given any thought to the adjustment to rolling dodge I made by Heretek's request; allowing you to make use of dual-wielding while using it? I believe it's about 3 posts back up before this one; and I wanted to get some feedback before I added it to v1.0.9.

Also, thanks again Ninten, as your post has been very uplifting. ^___^


Ashiel wrote:


Has anyone given any thought to the adjustment to rolling dodge I made by Heretek's request; allowing you to make use of dual-wielding while using it? I believe it's about 3 posts back up before this one; and I wanted to get some feedback before I added it to v1.0.9.

I think it is fine. The ability itself, (and hell most of the abilities) are very cinematic in feel. Being able to fire both guns(or two shots of one) I feel only adds to that. It'd also make Preston's actions more or less rules legal in that scene :3

Since Rolling Shot doesn't provoke AoOs I see it largely being used as the char doing all sorts of acrobatics moves as they try to get to some cover, which also reinforces the concept of gaining a bonus to your AC. Something like the PC diving and as they slide by being able to fire off shots as seen in so many films.

In terms of actual gameplay, Rolling Shot itself, not even including this update if you do choose to use it, is a means of the Gunslinger to escape most certain death: melee with a large or greater sized opponent. Normally in this event the PC is faced with AoOs no matter their action. They move away, AoO. They shoot, AoO. Rolling Shot provides them a basis of acrobatically escaping while not completely wasting their turn only to get charged and the process repeat itself turning into a game of cat and mouse. The Gunslinger can actually attack, AND the added AC further helps the Gunslinger stay alive. In a party situation, it allows the Gunslinger to escape long enough for backup while still maintaining a degree of effectiveness.

In short, I think the update is fine, haha.


I very much agree with Heretek concerning the Rolling Shot update. The concept of a gunslinger running past an opponent, firing both his pistols, and diving behind cover is essentially a staple in old-west mythology, and the ability you provided leaves so much to the imagination that a player can define it however they want. A character could jump, roll, and fire; they could begin pulling off matrix-style cartwheels whilst firing their weapons or any one of a hundred other ideas.

In other words, I like it. The only problem I have is that it might be a bit powerful for 1st level, but we'll see. Moving 15 feet and getting (essentially) a full attack while provoking NO attacks of opportunity might be a bit much for a beginner, regardless of how cool it is.

-The Beast


This is my first post here and I want to start by saying kutos on the design. My fiend is contemplating playing a gunslinger and I think I'm gonna talk him into this one.
I agree with The Beast on the level of rolling shot, beginners tend to skid on the floor non to fantastically.


xXxTheBeastxXx wrote:

I very much agree with Heretek concerning the Rolling Shot update. The concept of a gunslinger running past an opponent, firing both his pistols, and diving behind cover is essentially a staple in old-west mythology, and the ability you provided leaves so much to the imagination that a player can define it however they want. A character could jump, roll, and fire; they could begin pulling off matrix-style cartwheels whilst firing their weapons or any one of a hundred other ideas.

In other words, I like it. The only problem I have is that it might be a bit powerful for 1st level, but we'll see. Moving 15 feet and getting (essentially) a full attack while provoking NO attacks of opportunity might be a bit much for a beginner, regardless of how cool it is.

-The Beast

Mmmm you do bring up a very good point. Unfortunately at the present moment Deeds don't have a specific level, so it'd have to be removed from the level 1 deed choice.

Sadly none of the other deeds really look like they would fit...


Ronin Pi wrote:

This is my first post here and I want to start by saying kutos on the design. My fiend is contemplating playing a gunslinger and I think I'm gonna talk him into this one.

I agree with The Beast on the level of rolling shot, beginners tend to skid on the floor non to fantastically.

Thanks much. ^-^

And yes, I had originally intended Rolling Shot to be something minor that you did when full-attacking wasn't convenient, or you did to recover Grit; which is why it only allowed 1 attack (it quickly slows down in usefulness). However, there seems to be a desire to get both your shots in while doing so, so I added the option for if you happened to be dual-wielding (which will add a feat tax to the ability).

Essentially, a human gunslinger has 2 feats at 1st level, and you could invest in Point Blank Shot & Two Weapon Fighting, but I generally prefer Precise Shot, since firing into melee is harsh; and unless you're a human then you're only feat options will likely be Two Weapon Fighting or Point Blank Shot; so without Two-Weapon Fighting it would be a very bad deal.

On a side note, I never found the Wolf-fangs Strike from the Tome of Battle to be overpowered, and all it did was let you move and then attack with your main and off hand weapon. This would be, in many ways, very similar to that.

I suppose it could be given a cost of 1 grit (as opposed to 0 grit with no grit-gain) to allow it, but I think that might be overkill; so anyone wanna try it out and get back to me on it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm Professor Cirno, and I approve of this thread.

(No seriously I want to chisel your big Guns Are Tools thing there into the front door of Paizo HQ)


ProfessorCirno wrote:

I'm Professor Cirno, and I approve of this thread.

(No seriously I want to chisel your big Guns Are Tools thing there into the front door of Paizo HQ)

<insert failed will save vs Hideous Laughter here>!

Glad you like it. I do regard your insight, Cirno, quite highly. :)


Hello there, this is also my very first post here as well. Let me say, along with the many others here, that this was a very intriguing and rather nice gameplay alpha that you made. I read over the Paizo version and came with some of the same conclusions as you did. My first one being about the guns themselves and how little options there were.

Let me note that Desperado sounds pretty BAD ASS for a talent for a gunslinger. I laughed out loud in excitement about how that would look and act in an RPG. In fact, I'm grinning about it just now.

I do have a few questions, a concern/something I'd change, and some fun options.

Frirstly, when choosing your first level deed plus one other, do you get the option of choosing the second option as the second deed. In simple words, if I chose deadeye shot, could I choose rolling shot as my second deed, or will I never be able to choose rolling shot since I took deadeye shot?

Secondly, is Double Action supposed to work with and only with rifles and revolvers, or will it work for any and all firearm weapons?

Thirdly, is Eagle's eye stackable with other range-lengthening abilities and items, and with Eagle's eye being the first thing to stack or the last?

Fourthly, in Deadeye Shot when it mentions "within one range increment of the weapon she's attacking with" does that mean a 5 foot increment or the whole range of the one weapon, such as a revolver's 50 foot as an increment?

Lastly, with Hand Cannons, is it just an upgraded version of Shotgun Nightmare (or as I call it, Shotgun's Dirge)or is it a individual ability but only needs SN to make it accesable?

pardon me if these questions were already asked before-hand, some parts I read this morning and forgot about after work ^-^'''

One of the few things that I would change about it is the grit recovery system. So far, the only ability that allows you to gain grit is Close Wound and Deadeye Shot if it's successful. While this does make up for just recovering them over 8 hours as with other point using techniques in other classes, I'd still like to see some more put in there. How much grit is gained would never surpass gaining no more than 2, three at the most if it's something pretty amazing, as to me it would seem to be a real bother when the gunslinger could just recover all their grit points easy-peasy while the monk is just sitting there with a 0 ki pool and has to wait until the next day to get his.

Another thing would be to raise the grit levels a bit. I really think that something like what they did with the alchemists bombs ( level + Int modifier ) only with Dex or Wis, with Dex being my more leaned on option. As for the topic of having TO many points so the gunslinger is just making multiple Marks of Death, then we could just limit it to x a day or just raise how many grit marks it costs.

A minor thing is just to make more AWESOME DEEDS! But since what you made is an alpha, this is really just a sliding note, as you probably didn't expect so much praise from the ones you already created. If you did decide to choose to create more, I'd like to see some more deeds that build up with eachother. Again, I think of the alchemist (which is a multiclass I'm planning to use with your gunslinger alpha just to see how cool that'll be...just think of it..a teifling cowboy with explosives...:D )for this example. I like how he has many options for his discoveries, and several can only be made after you spend one or two discoveries on other things. Sure the downside is that you're losing a deed to gain a more powerful one, but maybe you could still use the lower ones if you just call on them instead of the upgraded version.

One last gripe is the odd leveled deeds. To me, who is so used to the fighter and alchemist who get their class-related feat gaining on even levels, it just seems strange to me that the deeds are odd levels instead. Of course, the two deeds that you get at 1 really do compensate with the fighter, who gets 1 at lvl 1, and then another at 2 and two levels afterwards

One thing I'd like to toss out as a neat idea is about the topic of bullets. With arrows, I know that you can give them certain abilities, such as making them holy arrows and the like. What if the gunslinger could create specialty bullets as well? Like how the alchemist can create silver and poison-weapons. The gunslinger could create armor piercing bullets, holy bullets, and even elemental bullets ((ie bullets that explode on contact, ice bulllets, bullets with acid flasks inside, etc)) You could either make it a talent that they could learn on the latter levels, like from 8-10+ or make another feat, like Craft Magical Bullets or something strange like that. Just a silly idea that seemed cool in my mind.

Good work with all you made so far! :D


Impressive!

You got the realities of firearms, cinematic embellishment, and playable game mechanics.

The only possible flaw that strikes me is the bookkeeping overhead with the amount of fluctuation in grit (a lot of add and subtract).

When I read the UC gunslinger I felt there were bits of potential buried in it somewhere. The deeds you modified from the UC version actually work well now. Your version truly shines.

Very well done.


CMB wrote:
One thing I'd like to toss out as a neat idea is about the topic of bullets. With arrows, I know that you can give them certain abilities, such as making them holy arrows and the like. What if the gunslinger could create specialty bullets as well? Like how the alchemist can create silver and poison-weapons. The gunslinger could create armor piercing bullets, holy bullets, and even elemental bullets ((ie bullets that explode on contact, ice bulllets, bullets with acid flasks inside, etc)) You could either make it a talent that they could learn on the latter levels, like from 8-10+ or make another feat, like Craft Magical Bullets or something strange like that. Just a silly idea that seemed cool in my mind.

I'm actually working on an alchemist archetype that uses alchemical bullets instead of bombs. It's got a vein similar to this one. You load a couple alchemical shells into your scattergun and let loose, spraying fire. Or launching an alchemical sniper round into an enemy, then watching it explode.

While I do enjoy the concept of the gunslinger firing alchemical bullets out of his guns, I really think it's territory that should be left to the alchemist. *Puffs out chest arrogantly*

The idea began when I built an alchemist with a scattergun who, in a desperate move, loaded a bomb into the barrel with some gunpowder. The result was...explosive. He has now taken time out of his adventuring schedule to build a steam-powered rifle capable of carrying his bombs up to 150 feet away (it has a water-chamber that takes a full minute to heat up before he can fire a single shot, but then again, we have a cleric that always prepares "heat metal").

-The Beast

EDIT: I do need help naming my alchemy-gunner. If anyone wants to throw in their idea.


CMB wrote:

Hello there, this is also my very first post here as well. Let me say, along with the many others here, that this was a very intriguing and rather nice gameplay alpha that you made. I read over the Paizo version and came with some of the same conclusions as you did. My first one being about the guns themselves and how little options there were.

Let me note that Desperado sounds pretty BAD ASS for a talent for a gunslinger. I laughed out loud in excitement about how that would look and act in an RPG. In fact, I'm grinning about it just now.

Glad it excites. ^-^

Quote:

I do have a few questions, a concern/something I'd change, and some fun options.

Frirstly, when choosing your first level deed plus one other, do you get the option of choosing the second option as the second deed. In simple words, if I chose deadeye shot, could I choose rolling shot as my second deed, or will I never be able to choose rolling shot since I took deadeye shot?

Both are deeds, and thus you may choose either of them if you would gain a deed (thus you could begin with both at 1st level but have nothing to spend your grit on until later, or you could pick the 2nd up at any level you'd gain a deed).

Quote:
Secondly, is Double Action supposed to work with and only with rifles and revolvers, or will it work for any and all firearm weapons?

Double Action works like Manyshot, meaning you must fire two shots of ammunition. This does mean it only functions with Revolvers, Rifles, or Scatterguns (with the scattergun immediately being empty). Also, before anyone asks, Shotgun Opera can be combined with Double Action to fire both barrels on off-hand attacks, or as part of a Shotgun Nightmare, or as part of a Hand Cannon cone.

Quote:
Thirdly, is Eagle's eye stackable with other range-lengthening abilities and items, and with Eagle's eye being the first thing to stack or the last?

Eagle eye specifies the base range increment, and thus it is applied first before effects such as distance. I'll specify in the next update of the Gunslinger that it comes first, just so there will be no confusion.

Quote:
Fourthly, in Deadeye Shot when it mentions "within one range increment of the weapon she's attacking with" does that mean a 5 foot increment or the whole range of the one weapon, such as a revolver's 50 foot as an increment?

One range increment refers to the weapon. Deadeye shot is thus ideal for someone wielding a musket or rifle, and it combos exceptionally well with both Eagle Eye and Sniper Shot; which can bring the range of the single attack up to 360 ft with all three, or 540 ft with a distance gun (since the core rules specify two doubles equals a triple). It still works with pistols, revolvers, and even scatterguns, but they have a much shorter deadeye range.

Quote:
Lastly, with Hand Cannons, is it just an upgraded version of Shotgun Nightmare (or as I call it, Shotgun's Dirge)or is it a individual ability but only needs SN to make it accesable?

The line noting that Hand Cannons functions with Shotgun Nightmare wasn't intended to imply that it could only be used with, or even required, Shotgun Nightmare; only that you could use it even while benefitting from Shotgun Nightmare (such as making AoE attacks of opportunities). It has been changed to "may function with Shotgun Nightmare" in the most recent document, because of your question.

Quote:
pardon me if these questions were already asked before-hand, some parts I read this morning and forgot about after work ^-^'''

No problem, I'm here to help. ^-^

Quote:
One of the few things that I would change about it is the grit recovery system. So far, the only ability that allows you to gain grit is Close Wound and Deadeye Shot if it's successful. While this does make up for just recovering them over 8 hours as with other point using techniques in other classes, I'd still like to see some more put in there. How much grit is gained would never surpass gaining no more than 2, three at the most if it's something pretty amazing, as to me it would seem to be a real bother when the gunslinger could just recover all their grit points easy-peasy while the monk is just sitting there with a 0 ki pool and has to wait until the next day to get his.

Before I go further, Rolling Shot allows you to regain grit if the attack succeeds as well (both of the optional starting abilities allow you to regain grit and are viable with any build, which is why you get one automatically).

More deeds that gain grit may be added, but currently there are 2 primary abilities, and 1 secondary (which gives 2 grit), which award Grit for successfully using them. Both are usable pretty much with any build (Rolling Shot is probably better for scattergun builds, deadeye for musket/rifle builds, and handgun builds benefit from both pretty equally, and even then scatterguns as touch attacks can be nice, and rolling shots with rifles aren't bad I've found); so if I add some more in, I'd like them to be of similar strength and also fair options for most any build.

Quote:
Another thing would be to raise the grit levels a bit. I really think that something like what they did with the alchemists bombs ( level + Int modifier ) only with Dex or Wis, with Dex being my more leaned on option. As for the topic of having TO many points so the gunslinger is just making multiple Marks of Death, then we could just limit it to x a day or just raise how many grit marks it costs.

My biggest concern is that unlike Alchemist bombs, you don't have a limited number per day. The whole point around the gunslinger class' grit system, as written, is to have a pool that has a fairly low cap but can also be refilled by fighting. The idea is for it not to be like a Monk's Ki-Pool, for example. The idea of making certain abilities limited to x/day is just the kind of thing that the system is trying to avoid.

I would probably suggest making it ability + 1/2 level as a variant house rule, or I may add a feat to allow it or something, but really the idea really is to avoid an overly large resource pool, and running out quickly is part of the design goal. As it is, the 2 + 1/2 level allows the gunslinger to focus on roleplaying and playing as desired, and be viable no matter the point-buy (for example, Monks have a much harder time with low ability score games than high ones).

Quote:
A minor thing is just to make more AWESOME DEEDS! But since what you made is an alpha, this is really just a sliding note, as you probably didn't expect so much praise from the ones you already created. If you did decide to choose to create more, I'd like to see some more deeds that build up with eachother. Again, I think of the alchemist (which is a multiclass I'm planning to use with your gunslinger alpha just to see how cool that'll be...just think of it..a teifling cowboy with explosives...:D )for this example. I like how he has many options for his discoveries, and several can only be made after you spend one or two discoveries on other things. Sure the downside is that you're losing a deed to gain a more powerful one, but maybe you could still use the lower ones if you just call on them instead of the upgraded version.

I'll probably include more deeds later, and possibly some that build upon one another. I will consider it.

Quote:
One last gripe is the odd leveled deeds. To me, who is so used to the fighter and alchemist who get their class-related feat gaining on even levels, it just seems strange to me that the deeds are odd levels instead. Of course, the two deeds that you get at 1 really do compensate with the fighter, who gets 1 at lvl 1, and then another at 2 and two levels afterwards

The class is designed under the assumption that you will begin with a fairly generous amount of options at 1st level, and then increase every 2 levels thereafter (akin to sneak attack, or a spellcasting progression). Meanwhile, this is offset by the fact you gain additional grit each even level, which improves most deeds by either supplying them with more dakka, or improves their passive effects. Deadeye Shot also gets better every even level.

This is one of the reasons I suggest comparing them to spellcasters when thinking of how they get their deeds. They're really not intended to be a fighter or alchemist clone; so much as a unique play experience.

Quote:
One thing I'd like to toss out as a neat idea is about the topic of bullets. With arrows, I know that you can give them certain abilities, such as making them holy arrows and the like. What if the gunslinger could create specialty bullets as well? Like how the alchemist can create silver and poison-weapons. The gunslinger could create armor piercing bullets, holy bullets, and even elemental bullets ((ie bullets that explode on contact, ice bulllets, bullets with acid flasks inside, etc)) You could either make it a talent that they could learn on the latter levels, like from 8-10+ or make another feat, like Craft Magical Bullets or something strange like that. Just a silly idea that seemed cool in my mind.

Yes, bullets can be enhanced just like normal ammunition, including with special materials (such as silver, cold iron, etc). If there is an archery equivalent, there could probably be a firearm equivalent (such as bullets that break and release poison, etc). Likewise, if you allow spell-arrows like arrows of detonation (an arrow that functions as a basic fireball spell in the area it's shot in, and is then consumed), then a bullet equivalent could be made.

Theoretically, you could easily create a series of consumable magic bullets that cast spells when fired; similar to the bullets from Outlaw Star.

Quote:
Good work with all you made so far! :D

Thanks. I will continue to try my best. ^-^

Freesword wrote:

Impressive!

You got the realities of firearms, cinematic embellishment, and playable game mechanics.
The only possible flaw that strikes me is the bookkeeping overhead with the amount of fluctuation in grit (a lot of add and subtract).
When I read the UC gunslinger I felt there were bits of potential buried in it somewhere. The deeds you modified from the UC version actually work well now. Your version truly shines.

Very well done.

Thank you very much Freesword.

So far I haven't had much trouble keeping track of Grit while playing, but I did think of a cute way to track it if you don't want to mark it down. You can use a single d12 to track your running grit total while you're playing. My gunslinger ranges from 2-12 grit, so a d12 can track all of it between rounds and even gives the lonely d12 something to do. ^-^


All these Grit questions made me think of something...

"Each gunslinger has a pool of grit points which can
be spent to preform powerful actions. A gunslinger
begins play with 2 grit, and has a maximum grit equal
to 2 + ½ her level (rounded down)."

Does this mean that, regardless of level, every day you start with 2 Grit and through Rolling/Deadeye you can gain up to 2 + half level? Or do you start out full?

Also for the updated Rolling Shot, how about adding that you can't actually spend that grit until say level 3 or 4?

It would prevent inexperienced Gunslingers from pulling such stunts.


Heretek wrote:

All these Grit questions made me think of something...

"Each gunslinger has a pool of grit points which can
be spent to preform powerful actions. A gunslinger
begins play with 2 grit, and has a maximum grit equal
to 2 + ½ her level (rounded down)."

Does this mean that, regardless of level, every day you start with 2 Grit and through Rolling/Deadeye you can gain up to 2 + half level? Or do you start out full?

HoA Gunslinger wrote:
Likewise, some of her abilities allow her to recover grit when she uses them, allowing her the build herself up for the next difficult ability she plans to use. Spent grit is regained automatically if the gunslinger rests for 8 hours.

Bolded for convenience. You begin with your full grit each day, and then may build it back up as you go.

Quote:

Also for the updated Rolling Shot, how about adding that you can't actually spend that grit until say level 3 or 4?

It would prevent inexperienced Gunslingers from pulling such stunts.

I had considered this. I was trying to decide what level it would be appropriate at, and how to avoid the ability getting overly complicated. :P


Heretek wrote:

Also for the updated Rolling Shot, how about adding that you can't actually spend that grit until say level 3 or 4?

It would prevent inexperienced Gunslingers from pulling such stunts.

I actually like this idea. Put the proviso in at the end as something like: At 5th level, a gunslinger wielding two weapons can fire once with both of them during a rolling shot. This incurs normal two-weapon fighting penalties. A gunslinger attacking with two weapons in this way does not gain grit.

EDIT: As you can see, I suggest somewhere around 5th or 6th level. This means that only experienced gunslingers would be able to pull off such a stunt.


3 hours of straight reading later I made it to the end of this VERY long thread (Hallelujah!). Although i have to say it made for very interesting reading.

After finishing the thread I went back through the pages to try and download Ashiel's latest version of the gunslinger to see what its all about. I noticed that my version listed Desperado as a standard action while i remember somewhere early-mid page two people were talking about changing it to a full round action so I'm not entirely sure if i have the latest version or not (maybe a link posted in the OP that gets updated with the latest version of Ashiels class? would be very convenient)

Operating on the assumption that I have the latest version, I noticed several things.

1) I really like the grit mechanic as its written in Ashiel's version, I can picture the western with the gunslinger standing in the middle of a rough an tumble western town trading barbs with the BBEG as his minions slowly start surrounding him... negotiations break down and andthe gunslinger lets loose with a Desperado taking out most of the mooks before using Rolling dodge to dive for cover while injuring more.

By this point you've probably spent most of your Grit and fire from cover gaining it back slowly for next set of daredevil stunts much like an old Western. I have nothing but praise for this mechanic, although I was a bit confused by some wording. Specifically it says that you can spend no more grit than your Gunslinger level so a 3rd level gunslinger can spend no more than 3 grit. Is this no more than 3 grit per round? or is it no more than 3 grit per deed? some clarification would be nice

The only other thing is that I agree with CMB that there should be more grit recovery abilities. There are 4 rather than the two CMB mentioned namely:

Deadeye shot - 1 grit for a successful attack, good grit farming ability
Rolling shot - much like Deadeye, also good grit farming ability and both available at level one

the other two are:
Close wound - very flavorful and gives a good amount of grit but very circumstantial so not a reliable source to regain from
Blinding shots - 1 grit per critical hit so long as the Gunslinger has 1 grit remaining, good for anyone with Improved critical but it still comes down to luck and I know I've gone entire sessions without rolling anything higher than a 7

The gunslinger looks like he'll be spending grit like mad as he gets to the mid-to high levels so more grit gaining abilities would be nice. A Greater Deeds version of the level one grit gaining abilities that grants two or 3 grit might work well in my opinion

As a sniper fanboy I'd definitely like to see more sniper like abilities but that's just my very biased opinion :P

On an unrelated note:
One more bullet, Do you feel lucky punk? <3 this so much :D


Sethos wrote:

3 hours of straight reading later I made it to the end of this VERY long thread (Hallelujah!). Although i have to say it made for very interesting reading.

After finishing the thread I went back through the pages to try and download Ashiel's latest version of the gunslinger to see what its all about. I noticed that my version listed Desperado as a standard action while i remember somewhere early-mid page two people were talking about changing it to a full round action so I'm not entirely sure if i have the latest version or not (maybe a link posted in the OP that gets updated with the latest version of Ashiels class? would be very convenient)

The latest version can be found on my Heroes of Alvena website; specifically the Expanded Classes page, which includes the class. The currently posted version is 1.0.8, but I will be uploading v1.1.2 or greater a bit later today.

Quote:

Operating on the assumption that I have the latest version, I noticed several things.

1) I really like the grit mechanic as its written in Ashiel's version, I can picture the western with the gunslinger standing in the middle of a rough an tumble western town trading barbs with the BBEG as his minions slowly start surrounding him... negotiations break down and andthe gunslinger lets loose with a Desperado taking out most of the mooks before using Rolling dodge to dive for cover while injuring more.

By this point you've probably spent most of your Grit and fire from cover gaining it back slowly for next set of daredevil stunts much like an old Western. I have nothing but praise for this mechanic, although I was a bit confused by some wording. Specifically it says that you can spend no more grit than your Gunslinger level so a 3rd level gunslinger can spend no more than 3 grit. Is this no more than 3 grit per round? or is it no more than 3 grit per deed? some clarification would be nice

You cannot spend more than your level on a single deed. This doesn't mean much at most levels (since you get more grit at a rate of 1/2 your level, so most levels you will have more levels than grit), but at 1st-2nd level it prevents dumping a lot of grit into certain abilities (like Called Shot:Headshot) and overpowering things. It also passively ensures no shenanigans go on as new material is added for the gunslinger (since I do plan on adding some feats and such for it).

Quote:

The only other thing is that I agree with CMB that there should be more grit recovery abilities. There are 4 rather than the two CMB mentioned namely:

Deadeye shot - 1 grit for a successful attack, good grit farming ability
Rolling shot - much like Deadeye, also good grit farming ability and both available at level one

the other two are:
Close wound - very flavorful and gives a good amount of grit but very circumstantial so not a reliable source to regain from
Blinding shots - 1 grit per critical hit so long as the Gunslinger has 1 grit remaining, good for anyone with Improved critical but it still comes down to luck and I know I've gone entire sessions without rolling anything higher than a 7

The gunslinger looks like he'll be spending grit like mad as he gets to the mid-to high levels so more grit gaining abilities would be nice. A Greater Deeds version of the level one grit gaining abilities that grants two or 3 grit might work well in my opinion

Agreed. I'm thinking of increasing the grit gained by these abilities by 1 at 8th, and 16th level, since they will need this grit to be able to keep many of their Grit-sinks (Burst Fire, Desperado, Called Shot, etc) valid at higher levels without having to spend 12+ rounds regaining grit.

Quote:

As a sniper fanboy I'd definitely like to see more sniper like abilities but that's just my very biased opinion :P

On an unrelated note:
One more bullet, Do you feel lucky punk? <3 this so much :D

Glad you like it. I'm currently playtesting a sniper-based gunslinger right now, and I must say thus far it's playing very well (my tabletop version is level 3, while my online version of her is still 1st level). She's currently wielding a musket, and uses Deadeye Shot + Trick Shot to hit all kinds of things, and she will eventually pick up Sniper Shot, Eagle Eye, and the Improved Critical feat; allowing her to make very long touch attacks with a 12-20/x3 critical chance.

That's not quite as killer as it sounds (at 20th level, it's about 71 damage, which is much lower than archers can pull, but it's nice), but it's pretty darn accurate, and works great as a counterspell (readied action -> shoot mage = Concentration DC from hell). However, at 3rd level she's very impressive as a sniper (she deals 2d6 weapon + 1d6 precision from up to 120ft away as a touch attack, so she's keeping up with the party's archer for damage).

With eagle eye, sniper shot, double action, improved critical, a distance rifle, and a full-attack, you can get some pretty good results at very far ranges (I posted the math some many posts back about the viability of a critical build using sniper shot).

Anything you're looking for in particular, as far as snipers go?


Hi. Awesome class, most impressed, agree with you about the official gunslinger's flaws, etc etc.

However, I'm a big fan of weapons not being too similar and each weapon having its place at all levels of the game. As things are, pistols are just plain worse than revolvers. 25gp makes a difference, yes, but it's still never sensible to take a pistol over a revolver if you get the chance. Would it hurt to give the pistol 2d4 damage and bump the price up to 30gp? That way, it's the best small gun to take if you want it as a secondary weapon, it's slightly more sensible to be a pistol user for the look of it and the weapon finds its own unique role in the game.
I know you've gone through the damage-per-round math, but rifles still look very powerful to me, so why not reduce their damage die to 1d12, making them only slightly less awesome, but giving the musket its place too?


Flintlock pistols and muskets are not going to compete with revolvers and rifles without laughable hamstringing of the latter.


Who said anything about compete? If they're even the tiniest bit better in any reasonable situation, there's some point in them existing and they're an interesting option. Otherwise they are worthless beyond first level and pretty much a waste of people's attention. They're redundant and they're traps.
Even If I was talking about competition, why couldn't they compete? The alternative to hamstringing revolvers and rifles is to make flintlocks and muskets very powerful. I don't see why not, in a game where other weapons and equipment from many time periods co-exist and manage to be useful.


Of course they are worthless. No one with access to revolvers and rifles is going to use flintlock weapons. They are not as powerful, harder to operate, less accurate, and prone to EXPLODING.


So what's the point? You wouldn't make an intentionally underpowered, illiterate cave-man class with only club proficiency 3/4 BAB and no skills, so why muskets?

EDIT: I guess my point is, if the gunslinger being underpowered isn't ok, why is it ok for half the guns to be so much weaker than the rest?


My point is, if there are going to be revolver and rifles you CAN'T HAVE flintlock pistols and muskets. There is no way to make both viable weapons unless you set up some sort of arbitrary system where you can't get revolver and rifles AT ALL until some higher level thus forcing people to take revolvers and rifles. Which looking at how they are doing guns now would be totally unsurprising.

101 to 150 of 330 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Combat Playtest / Gunslinger Discussion: Round 1 / Gunslinger Review - Gunslinger, Guns, Core Classes (Multi-Part) All Messageboards