|
I am reading so many flames of this class and most revolve around the fact the gunslinger is a "western" class. Even the people who like the class are all talking cowboys and six shooters. I for one thing this is a nice concept and gives me options for a ranged class, who is not magical nor carries a bow and arrow.
What I am most disappointed with is the fact the play test has pigeon holed this to the cowboy feel. When I heard gunslinger, I thought of pirates who brandish a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other. Or a traveling potion dealer who needs a bit more protection than that old rusty sword provided. Or how about an alchemist who devised a device to basically shoot smaller doses of his concauctions rather than throwing them? It seems there are plenty of ways to bring this class to the table without it being all "howdy" and "lets head to the saloon".
My hope is with a bit more time, people will realize with a magic compass (way finder), smoked goggles and some pistols, it is reasonable to believe someone in Golarian could be advancing weapon options.
I am reading so many flames of this class and most revolve around the fact the gunslinger is a "western" class. Even the people who like the class are all talking cowboys and six shooters. I for one thing this is a nice concept and gives me options for a ranged class, who is not magical nor carries a bow and arrow.
What I am most disappointed with is the fact the play test has pigeon holed this to the cowboy feel. When I heard gunslinger, I thought of pirates who brandish a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other. Or a traveling potion dealer who needs a bit more protection than that old rusty sword provided. Or how about an alchemist who devised a device to basically shoot smaller doses of his concauctions rather than throwing them? It seems there are plenty of ways to bring this class to the table without it being all "howdy" and "lets head to the saloon".
My hope is with a bit more time, people will realize with a magic compass (way finder), smoked goggles and some pistols, it is reasonable to believe someone in Golarian could be advancing weapon options.
So take the TWP feats and use a sword and a pistol.
Or make a fighter and use a pistol.Every viable character option doesn't need to be hard-coded in the classes themselves.
|
There seems to be a vocal group of folks on here who either just hate firearms, don't understand they can shoot after they misfire (just at a penalty and with a bit more danger) and hate the names of things. Just anger over stuff that's odd to see.
Having played plenty of pirate themed RPGs that's the first thing I thought of when I saw the class, armed with a rapier and pistol and all the daring do.
When I heard gunslinger, I thought of pirates who brandish a pistol in one hand and a sword in the other.
Why? How?
What I am most disappointed with is the fact the play test has pigeon holed this to the cowboy feel.
I don't think you are too familiar with the term "gunslinger" itself.
Recommended reading
There seems to be a vocal group of folks on here who either just hate firearms, don't understand they can shoot after they misfire (just at a penalty and with a bit more danger) and hate the names of things. Just anger over stuff that's odd to see.
Please explain how hating the awful gun mechanics is "odd."
Do bowstrings snap as a matter of RAW? Do crossbows fall apart in your hands? Do quarterstaffs break if you hit something really hard?
Well, I had this one DM.... :)
Please explain how hating the awful gun mechanics is "odd."
Do bowstrings snap as a matter of RAW? Do crossbows fall apart in your hands? Do quarterstaffs break if you hit something really hard?
Did your DM write Pathfinder? If not, then your statement doesn't matter. House rules are house rules; these are the rules of firearms for the official game.
You may be joking, but undoubtedly people are going to, and have, referenced house rules as a counterargument
There seems to be a vocal group of folks on here who either just hate firearms, don't understand they can shoot after they misfire (just at a penalty and with a bit more danger) and hate the names of things. Just anger over stuff that's odd to see.
Please explain how hating the awful gun mechanics is "odd."
Do bowstrings snap as a matter of RAW? Do crossbows fall apart in your hands? Do quarterstaffs break if you hit something really hard?
Well, they probably should, but in fairness, they arn't setting out to portray relatively experimental weapon systems, using volatile explosives. They aren't following in the path of a long established and partially accurate trope.
The fact that guns malfuntion is not and should not be controversial. What should be an issue is that gunslingers do not get a pay of comencerate with the risk of using such weapons. Atleast, not yet. Just be nice if we could more constructively towards a situation where they work well, with a small risk attatched, for the gunslinger, and not so well with a larger risk, for everyone else.
The fact that guns malfuntion is not and should not be controversial.
It is and it should be in context. Does ANYTHING else in the game break as a matter of course? No. Are guns significantly better than anything else in the game to justify making a critical fumble system specifically for guns necessary for balancing? No.
The problem here is trying to make guns realistic while making them fit into a game where NOTHING is realistic and combined with trying to add guns to a game where they don't want guns to be. You can't add something that you expect people to use while simultaneously making them so bad no one wants to use them to discourage their use.
Caveat: Dogslicer.
That's an in game thing in and of itself - not a "realism" attempt - and doesn't apply to masterwork dogslicers.
I posted how I think the gunslinger should be fixed (as a start) in this thread.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/ultimateCombatPlaytest/gunslinger/counterIntuitiveDesignGunslingerGunsCo reClassesMultiPart&page=1#15
|
|
There seems to be a vocal group of folks on here who either just hate firearms, don't understand they can shoot after they misfire (just at a penalty and with a bit more danger) and hate the names of things. Just anger over stuff that's odd to see.
Please explain how hating the awful gun mechanics is "odd."
Do bowstrings snap as a matter of RAW? Do crossbows fall apart in your hands? Do quarterstaffs break if you hit something really hard?
I don't see me mentioning that people hate the gun mechanics in my post but whatever I guess. Sorry but those firearm rules are "final and not open for playtest" at least according to the playtest document. In the d20 system there are weapons that break when you roll a natural 1, it's not like Paizo made a new mechanic just for that. Heck they're being kind of nice since the gun will still shoot after it misfires for the first time.
If you don't like how a rule or set of rules work, then change them in your game. It's not really that hard to do and yes it is assumed that most groups don't play exactly by the rules as presented outside of tournament or living campaigns.
Honestly though if things were being more historically accurate then more PC's should die to self inflicted gun wounds then anything else related to firearms.
The Gunslinger is built around dealing with the bad firearm mechanics. You can't NOT discuss them while discussing the Gunslinger honestly.
Caveat: Dogslicer.That's an in game thing in and of itself - not a "realism" attempt - and doesn't apply to masterwork dogslicers.
So is firearm malfunction.
Almost every roleplaying game that deals with black powder and early catridge weapons includes malfunction of firearms.
Partly because they malfunctioned a little more often than other weapons, but partly because it is part of the narrative of early firearms. They don't feel right if they don't do it.
DnD couldn't be realistic if it tried,and malfunction has nothing to do with 'realism.' But it is an important thematic element the narrative of primative firearm usage. It enrichs the game. Perhapes rather than ranting and raving you could help developing ways in which the firearms rules, which are set now, could be augmented by the gunslinger, rather than just howling at the moon about something that is not only set, but actually part of what makes RPG firearms feel like firearms.
|
While I admit my first thoughts for the 'gunslinger' were cowboy/western-ish, it could easily be colonial army, or even related to the other two alternate class's presented. Firearms(rifles) were used heavily in japan for a long time and have made there way into loads of Japanese fantasy. So the un-imaginative will pigeonhole the class, the rest of us will look for RP opportunities.
As for the misfire rules, I like them. It just represents a partial jam, which happens pretty often even with modern firearms. I do think clearing the jam(removing the broken condition) could be worked out better. Maybe a craft firearms check, where gunslingers get to add half their level for free? Higher DC's let you do it faster?
It's a problem of gunslingers vs guns.
Gunslinger can certainly have a wild west theme or a cowboy ideal. I mean hell, it's called gunslinger.
Guns on the other hand could (potentially) be a weapon used for more then just gunslingers.
The issue that currently stands is that neither is true. Gunslinger is an awful mess of a class, and guns are utterly useless to anyone/everyone. Ideally, gunslinger is a cool and useful class built around using a gun, and the gun is a variable enough weapon so that non-gunslingers can use it well.
Partly because they malfunctioned a little more often than other weapons, but partly because it is part of the narrative of early firearms. They don't feel right if they don't do it.
I would have exactly zero problem with suspension of disbelief if firearms didn't blow themselves up more statistically often than they critically hit.
They would feel perfectly fine to me if they didn't introduce some bs critical fumble mechanics specific to firearms. Never mind the fact that the magical fixes for it are stupidly overpriced and it doesn't take into account game materials that would themselves have an effect.
Fact: Guns as written are logically internally inconsistent with Pathfinder.
But it is an important thematic element the narrative of primative firearm usage.
Really? Bowstrings never snapped? Crossbows never collapsed upon themselves? Spears and other wooden staff weapons didn't break in twain easily enough?
@Cartigan in reference to misfire
I think the balancing you're missing for misfire is the fact that as long as you're in the range of a firearm, you ignore their armor and use their touch AC. That's HUGE in my opinion. So a misfire to balance that is only valid IMO.
It's also a bad and illogical mechanic for the same exact reasons misfire is bad and illogical.
Firearms are doing x4 on a critical hit. Firearms ignore armor and natural armor at close range. Firearms have a grit mechanic that is not available to other weapons. I think the misfire rules are fair. I also think the misfire adds the the wonder of the weapon. Firearms are a new experimental and volatile technology. Wow, good job pathfinder. Love what you are doing with firearms and the gunslinger.
Firearms have a grit mechanic that is not available to other weapons.
GUNSLINGERS have a Grit mechanic that is unique to the class. Like Sneak Attack, Ki, Smite, etc, etc, etc.
I think the misfire rules are fair.
Your chance of the gun BLOWING UP is greater than your chance of confirming a critical hit.
I also think the misfire adds the the wonder of the weapon. Firearms are a new experimental and volatile technology.
Which is the wrong way to do it. Either guns are normal and make sense and have realistic costs or they don't exist. You can't both include guns for use and discourage people from using them.
Partly because they malfunctioned a little more often than other weapons, but partly because it is part of the narrative of early firearms. They don't feel right if they don't do it.I would have exactly zero problem with suspension of disbelief if firearms didn't blow themselves up more statistically often than they critically hit.
They would feel perfectly fine to me if they didn't introduce some bs critical fumble mechanics specific to firearms. Never mind the fact that the magical fixes for it are stupidly overpriced and it doesn't take into account game materials that would themselves have an effect.
Fact: Guns as written are logically internally inconsistent with Pathfinder.
But it is an important thematic element the narrative of primative firearm usage.Really? Bowstrings never snapped? Crossbows never collapsed upon themselves? Spears and other wooden staff weapons didn't break in twain easily enough?
Of cause they did, but it isn't part of the narrative of bows in the same way.
I would have to agree with Cartigan on disliking misfire. Is it thematic? Sure. But is it really fair to have the only class to have a crit fumble? Not to mention how expensive firearms are to begin with. When other classes roll a one, they simply miss. When this class rolls a one, suddenly they'll have to pay at least 100 gp (150 for the rifle) to get this weapon fixed. That doesn't seem very fun now does it?
I think firearms could stand to lose the misfire, even if that means losing the touch AC at close range. Maybe just have it target the person at a set minus to their AC at a certain range?
I think the misfire rules are fair.Your chance of the gun BLOWING UP is greater than your chance of confirming a critical hit.
No it isn't.
To blow up a gun you need to misfire twice. With a misfire range of 1, and a crit range of 1, that means a potential crit is as likely as a misfire for a pistol.
You chances of confirming are often going to be in the range of 25%-50% at long range and closer to 95% at close range.
The probability of a confirm crit is considerably higher that an exploding weapon(especially as repairing a misfire rather than using it a second time is a better choice than risking losing the weapon.)
Of cause they did, but it isn't part of the narrative of bows in the same way.
No, the narrative of black power guns is "lol, they fell into the water and now when they tried to shoot the guy, all their guns just clicked." I can't think of a single pop-culture movie or book (you know, the source of "narrative" reasons) where a black powder weapon explodes.
I think the Touch AC and the misfire are both on two extremes that personally, I dont like. What about this instead?
"Within a certain range, the gun pierces through armour, lowering the target's AC by X". This way, armour still makes a difference when dealing with the gun, but the gun can still have a chance to pierce it.
And instead of misfiring, how about jamming? Something like
"On a roll of 1, the firearm jams. The firearm can't be used until a full round/standard action (pick one) is spend unjamming the weapon."
I think this seems less harsh while still keeping with the unpredictable technology theme. Thoughts?
"Within a certain range, the gun pierces through armour, lowering the target's AC by X". This way, armour still makes a difference when dealing with the gun, but the gun can still have a chance to pierce it.
Too needless mathy. The best one I have seen is within X range, the gun targets flat-footed AC.
And instead of misfiring, how about jamming? Something like
"On a roll of 1, the firearm jams. The firearm can't be used until a full round/standard action (pick one) is spend unjamming the weapon."
I think this seems less harsh while still keeping with the unpredictable technology theme. Thoughts?
That's at least not as ridiculous or internally inconsistent.
No, the narrative of black power guns is "lol, they fell into the water and now when they tried to shoot the guy, all their guns just clicked." I can't think of a single pop-culture movie or book (you know, the source of "narrative" reasons) where a black powder weapon explodes.
Of cause they did, but it isn't part of the narrative of bows in the same way.
Guess you don't watch much sharp, hornblower, read may black library novels, play many sorcery and black powder style RPGs then. ;)
No, the narrative of black power guns is "lol, they fell into the water and now when they tried to shoot the guy, all their guns just clicked." I can't think of a single pop-culture movie or book (you know, the source of "narrative" reasons) where a black powder weapon explodes.
Of cause they did, but it isn't part of the narrative of bows in the same way.
Well duh.
Who would try to shoot with a broken gun?
Doing that is just begging for bad things to happen. If anything, if they do change that mechanic, they should have a range of things to happen. Like maybe you can just break it further, it explodes..
Or maybe you shoot yourself in the foot.
Guess you don't watch much sharp, hornblower,
..who?
read may black library novels,
And who?
play many sorcery and black powder style RPGs then. ;)
Circular logic doesn't work.
"Within a certain range, the gun pierces through armour, lowering the target's AC by X". This way, armour still makes a difference when dealing with the gun, but the gun can still have a chance to pierce it.Too needless mathy. The best one I have seen is within X range, the gun targets flat-footed AC.
That's at least not as ridiculous or internally inconsistent.And instead of misfiring, how about jamming? Something like
"On a roll of 1, the firearm jams. The firearm can't be used until a full round/standard action (pick one) is spend unjamming the weapon."
I think this seems less harsh while still keeping with the unpredictable technology theme. Thoughts?
Hmmm, I dont having it target flatfooted really makes much sense either. Not to mention suddenly, you can sneak attack with the gun. I dont think having something like a -2 or -3 would be too mathy. We do it anyways for flanking, so its not too bad of a problem. I only used X because I usually just give a general idea for an ability and not put in actually values.
Hmmm, I dont having it target flatfooted really makes much sense either. Not to mention suddenly, you can sneak attack with the gun.
"Within a certain range, the gun pierces through armour, lowering the target's AC by X". This way, armour still makes a difference when dealing with the gun, but the gun can still have a chance to pierce it.Too needless mathy. The best one I have seen is within X range, the gun targets flat-footed AC.
That's at least not as ridiculous or internally inconsistent.And instead of misfiring, how about jamming? Something like
"On a roll of 1, the firearm jams. The firearm can't be used until a full round/standard action (pick one) is spend unjamming the weapon."
I think this seems less harsh while still keeping with the unpredictable technology theme. Thoughts?
I didn't say it makes the target flat-footed, I said it targets the target's flat-footed AC. It makes much more sense because even primitive firearms fire at a much higher velocity than bows or crossbows. That makes realistic sense without stepping on the bow or crossbow's toes (and traditional role) and meshes properly with fantasy rules like Adamantium armor and magical barriers and the like.
I dont think having something like a -2 or -3 would be too mathy.
I said it was needlessly mathy. Never mind the fact that we ALREADY have a system like that - every range increment a target is outside the first reduces the to-hit by 2.
Guess you don't watch much sharp, hornblower,..who?
read may black library novels,And who?
Circular logic doesn't work.play many sorcery and black powder style RPGs then. ;)
Sharpe: A character created by the writer bernard cornwell. The Sharpe books and the associated feature length dramas are the defining pop culture treatment of the Napoleonic Wars. With 16 episodes(at around an 1h40m each) and 24 books, Richard Sharpe is in large part responcible for making Sean Bean one of the best known faces on british television.
Hornblower: Hornblower is to the navel battles of the frenchy revoltionary war and the Napoleonic Wars, what sharpe is to the laned campaigns.
written by C. S. Forester Hornblower currently runs to thirteen books.
With eight episodes released so far, and run time of two hours each.
Together they make a hefty contribution to pop cultures narrative about black powder weapons.
Black library is the games workshop sub, which published all 40k and warhammer world novels. And as far a black powder and sorcery genre fiction goes, they have been a fairly major contributor.
RPGs are part of Popculture too, and they are part of the narrative, you can't just dismiss them because you don't like that they also support this view point.
But if you want to go further afield, you need only look to treasure island which has examples of misfire.
I agree 100% with Cartigan on this one.
Either guns fit in with existing weapons mechanics or they do not fit at all.
This doesn't mean they can't be used, it's just the current way Jason et all envision how guns work mechanicly doesn't really fit. It doesn't feel correct.
Either all weapons have a malfunction DC, or none of them do.
Either there is an official crit fumble table for all weapons, or there is none.
Tone back some of the realism, and make guns viable pathfinder weapons.
Great historical and literature references for misfires
But this is Pathfinder.
It needs to fit with in the Pathfinder framework, not what worked in a novel.
Guess you don't watch much sharp, hornblower,..who?
read may black library novels,And who?
Circular logic doesn't work.play many sorcery and black powder style RPGs then. ;)
Sharpe: A character created by the writer bernard cornwell. The Sharpe books and the associated feature length dramas are the defining pop culture treatment of the Napoleonic Wars. With 16 episodes(at around an 1h40m each) and 24 books, Richard Sharpe is in large part responcible for making Sean Bean one of the best known faces on british television.
Hornblower: Hornblower is to the navel battles of the frenchy revoltionary war and the Napoleonic Wars, what sharpe is to the laned campaigns.
written by C. S. Forester Hornblower currently runs to thirteen books.
With eight episodes released so far, and run time of two hours each.Together they make a hefty contribution to pop cultures narrative about black powder weapons.
Black library is the games workshop sub, which published all 40k and warhammer world novels. And as far a black powder and sorcery genre fiction goes, they have been a fairly major contributor.
RPGs are part of Popculture too, and they are part of the narrative, you can't just dismiss them because you don't like that they also support this view point.
But if you want to go further afield, you need only look to treasure island which has examples of misfire.
Fairly accurate historical fiction is hardly the source of, well, anything in D&D.
|
I agree 100% with Cartigan on this one.
Either guns fit in with existing weapons mechanics or they do not fit at all.
This doesn't mean they can't be used, it's just the current way Jason et all envision how guns work mechanicly doesn't really fit. It doesn't feel correct.
Either all weapons have a malfunction DC, or none of them do.
Either there is an official crit fumble table for all weapons, or there is none.
Tone back some of the realism, and make guns viable pathfinder weapons.
+1
Fairly accurate historical fiction is hardly the source of, well, anything in D&D.
Guess you don't watch much sharp, hornblower,..who?
read may black library novels,And who?
Circular logic doesn't work.play many sorcery and black powder style RPGs then. ;)
Sharpe: A character created by the writer bernard cornwell. The Sharpe books and the associated feature length dramas are the defining pop culture treatment of the Napoleonic Wars. With 16 episodes(at around an 1h40m each) and 24 books, Richard Sharpe is in large part responcible for making Sean Bean one of the best known faces on british television.
Hornblower: Hornblower is to the navel battles of the frenchy revoltionary war and the Napoleonic Wars, what sharpe is to the laned campaigns.
written by C. S. Forester Hornblower currently runs to thirteen books.
With eight episodes released so far, and run time of two hours each.Together they make a hefty contribution to pop cultures narrative about black powder weapons.
Black library is the games workshop sub, which published all 40k and warhammer world novels. And as far a black powder and sorcery genre fiction goes, they have been a fairly major contributor.
RPGs are part of Popculture too, and they are part of the narrative, you can't just dismiss them because you don't like that they also support this view point.
But if you want to go further afield, you need only look to treasure island which has examples of misfire.
I actually physically LoL'ed at that. Fairly accurate historical fiction...Oh my, that brought a tear to my eye. Why Cardigan, With These epic lulz You Are Really Spoiling Us.
Anyway, the point remains. The narrative of primative firearms is that they misfire. All the game is doing is reflecting that, and the systems are set in stone at this point. GONE TO PRINT!!!!!
So to return to the point I was making, rather than stubbonly whipping the sea like you name is Xerxes, perhapes it would be constructive if you said, i don't like it, but it is the way it it, what do we do to make the class that depends on them work well with them as they are.
|
|
It's a problem of gunslingers vs guns.
Gunslinger can certainly have a wild west theme or a cowboy ideal. I mean hell, it's called gunslinger.
Guns on the other hand could (potentially) be a weapon used for more then just gunslingers.
The issue that currently stands is that neither is true. Gunslinger is an awful mess of a class, and guns are utterly useless to anyone/everyone. Ideally, gunslinger is a cool and useful class built around using a gun, and the gun is a variable enough weapon so that non-gunslingers can use it well.
Yeah, the touch attack prevents deadly aim thus servely limiting damage. There is no creativity in builds allowed by the class atm.
I would like to see different options such as a swashbuckler / pirate gun and rapier style. A demon hunter style using dual hand crossbows would also be great.
I think I'd be ok with the misfire function if they did more damage or, well anything that was "better" than a short sword, ranged touch attacks at 20ft just are not that great for short sword damage. i can do that with a alchemist, and they get better as the go up.
Edit: I can't help but think that the creators just figured coolness was enough to make the weapon good.
Cartican, you first ask what fiction Zombie is talking about, then when she gives you good sources, you tell that they are irrelevant.
That kind of sounds like you aren't very open to discussion on this.
No offense.
I think that the guns as is aren't good enough for having a class (or alternative or whatever) based on them.
I have nothing agains guns themselves, they probably will be even less used than crossbows, but hell, better than having an uber-weapon that replaces bows.
I see the solution as alchemist-bombs were to alchemists fire. The class needs magic (or a weird mundane explanation) that their guns do more damage and are better than the rest. Perhaps their misfire chance could get nullified somehow.
If a rogue wants to use the gun as an easy-sneak-attack for the first round, let him misfire.