|
So I made this thread and then deleted because I thought it was dumb and now I'm back again. Because the Gunslinger being based on the Fighter isn't the right way to go.
Spells get replaced by Grit and Deeds. Animal Companion gets replaced by free guns and maybe free upgrades to said guns around level 9.
The skills per level and class skills are more appropriate to the themes suggested by the class. The bonus feat progression seems more appropriate as well. Parallels can be drawn between Favored enemy and Gun Training, too. Two good saves vs one good save and Brave and Tough seem to hardly make a difference.
I really like the concept evinced by the Gunslinger but right now, what we have is not something I could play.
|
|
Also, I can't believe I didn't notice at first that Perception isn't a class skill for Gunslingers. That's ridiculous.
Go watch The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly again. Do you think Eastwood's ice blue eyes don't deserve Perception as a class skill? Rooster Cogburn of True Grit only had one eye and noticed more than a Gunslinger would. Roland of The Dark Tower was described as having "bomber's eyes" so frequently I got sick of it.
Yet another reason this class should be based off the Ranger.
I want to make a quick reply here to say this.
I agree, Partly.
To me a 'Gunslinger' is an 'old west' gunfighter or hired gun, and I Do consider that a Fighter type class. Traveling from town to town offering up their skills with guns to whoever was willing to pay the most, or in order to right some wrong they came across (depending on their alignment of course).
There were also 'scout' or Ranger types of the same. While I don't know the correct term for such a person ('Indian Scout'? 'Cowboy'?) I feel they would suit the more Ranger based class. I can totally see things like Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain fitting with this concept while not fitting with the first.
So I feel they could probably split the class between those two types with different/Separate Grit and Deed paths. (Personally this would be my direction for the class.) In which case I think it would almost call for its own base class by then. Not that I'm against the 'sub-classes' but with such a rebuild based around two classes it would seem more fitting. Not to mention the possibility of then extending the class even more with arch-types of it's own or even different Grit/Deed options. I say this because things like 'Sub-class' archetypes Might get a little confusing to people and seems like rule stacking that we don't need.
IE: You have a Fighter class that's not a Fighter and can't use Fighter arch-types but has it's own 'Fighter' arch-types that the Fighter cant use. O_o;
It might not be that confusing to most of us that have played longer or have a good understanding of the rules, but to some one Just getting into Pathfinder (Specially someone going "Oh cool! A Gunslinger! I want to play that!") or the more casual player, it would seem to lead to a bit of confusion and unnecessary extra work to figure out what the class can and can't use or what it does and does Not qualify for. And if the done as a base class, it's easier to say 'This class qualifies for Fighter feats as if it were a Fighter of the same level.' instead of 'This class is a Fighter that's not really a Fighter but has access to the Fighter feats.' (I know that not exactly what it says but I don't have the PDF with me right now. :P)
(I will note however that I totally disagree with using the Alchemist class as a base for the 'Gunslinger'. Specially where I Think someone said to treat guns as 'bombs' or in the same vein as such. I can't imagine trying to logically explain how one classes firearm does 5d6 damage while the parties fighter is only dealing 1d8, and the 'magical Alchemist aura' explanation does Not fit what I feel the class is aiming to be (which is a firearms based attacker with utility. Maybe if they want to do like a 'Gun-Mage' then that's fine and even seems fitting, but not as a general gun-fighter.)
To me As Is, the 'Gunslinger' doesn't live up to its name, as written and based on its seemingly preferred firearm type by what we've been given. I'd change the name of the class to something like 'Frontiersman' or even 'Musketeer' as the class seems to fit more with those types of people more then it does a western gunslinger. (Which is what I think of when hearing/reading the name.) Though a 'Frontiersman' would be more of a Ranger sub-class and a 'Musketeer' would be more of a Fighter sub-class, So I'm afraid that doesn't help in that respect. I also have issues with the class itself, but Ashiel did a nice writeup about most of it's issues, so I see no need to go into that.
(*Sigh* 'quick reply', I should have known better then to say that. (There were no replies to this thread when I started typing this post.) Leaving it there for the irony. :P)
Spells get replaced by Grit and Deeds. Animal Companion gets replaced by free guns and maybe free upgrades to said guns around level 9.
The skills per level and class skills are more appropriate to the themes suggested by the class. The bonus feat progression seems more appropriate as well. Parallels can be drawn between Favored enemy and Gun Training, too. Two good saves vs one good save and Brave and Tough seem to hardly make a difference.
Favored Enemy and Favored terrain would not be good fits for the gunslinger, so would have out be traded out for alternate abilities. Really, the only thing to make the Gunslinger-Ranger connection is fighting style. While the ranger class might be a good model for attack, saves, and skills, the similarity really ends there. The Gunslinger really needs to be its own class, one of the greater subset of skill-based characters.
Yeah, that was one of my first impressions, too: "Why isn't this class based off the Ranger?".
|
|
Favored Enemy and Favored terrain would not be good fits for the gunslinger, so would have out be traded out for alternate abilities. Really, the only thing to make the Gunslinger-Ranger connection is fighting style.
I agree. But switching out all of the abilities for something else is what these alternates do. I don't really see many similarities between Base Fighter and Gunslinger. Bonus Feats are common, their Training abilities are wildly different, etc.
This class utterly fails as a Fighter alternate. Fighters are already the least popular class at my table and others because all they do decently is deal damage and keep going after being dealt enough damage to drop the other PCs. The Gunslinger can't even do that. Damage is subpar, AC isn't spectacular. Gunslingers are saddled with the piss poor skills of a Fighter which is one of their most glaring weaknesses.
I used to love Fighters but the more I played the more I realized that I'd like my PC to know stuff, contribute out of combat, and be more well rounded. The Ranger is the more well rounded Fighter.
Let's call a spade a spade here. It's going to be hard to convince a lot of players that anything built on the weak foundation that is the Fighter is worth playing. This is especially true of a class that evokes the classic western and the recent resurgence in some of those themes. Name one western badass who couldn't find his way out of a wet paper bag like this gunslinger. Name the one who's practically blind to his surroundings like the Gunslinger will be.
I know, as Kryt Rider mentioned, that the Gunslinger might still be able to achieve a decent score in Perception. The one I made for the Playtest had 14 Wis. But even as a human he only got 3 skills per level. So spread that around to Perception, his other class skills, and the craft skills he'll need to not hemorrhage gold to shoot bad guys and you're going to end up with not that many ranks unless other things are suffering and certainly not the score you could get with 7 skills per level and +3 class bonus.
While the ranger class might be a good model for attack, saves, and skills, the similarity really ends there. The Gunslinger really needs to be its own class, one of the greater subset of skill-based characters.
Yeah, I'd rather see the class stand on its own, too. That doesn't seem to be the direction Paizo wants to go for some reason.
Actually, I'd like to hear the reasoning for going with alternate classes instead of true base classes here. It seems a silly distinction.
Yeah. This class would DEFINITELY make a better ranger alternate. Surely the designers thought of this as well. I just want to know their reasons for going off of fighter when ranger is so much better suited to both the swashbuckler AND cowboy archetypes.
I just want to know their reasons for going off of fighter when ranger is so much better suited to both the swashbuckler AND cowboy archetypes.
Ranger does have the potential of being both. Perhaps this one alternate class for Fighter should be reworked as two archetypes for Ranger instead.
|
|
OK, so we have some agreement that Ranger would be a good basis for the Gunslinger. I'll put some more work into this now. Lets look at Gunslinger abilities.
Firearm Bond (Replaces Hunter's Bond)
At 1st level, a gunslinger gains either one
musket or two pistols for free (along with 50 doses of black powder and 50
bullets).
Grit and Deeds (Replaces Spells)
Notes: Grit gets an increase in amount per day or Deeds get bad ass. Either way this has the opposite problem that Magus Arcana had in its first playtest. It's a cool system tied to utterly worthless abilities. Something needs to happen here for these abilities to be anywhere near as good as spell casting.
Brave and Tough
We can keep the ability as is or, perhaps more appropriately give him the two good saves.
Gun Lore (replaces Track and Wild Empathy)
Gunslingers add half their level (minimum 1) to Craft: Alchemy checks to make gunpowder and Craft: Gunsmith checks.
Notes: I get that a high cost for guns and bullets is maybe good for the game. You want guns to be good but you don't want every PC to carry a gun. But it's too bloody expensive for the class that's supposed to use it. Making it easy to craft more bullets, guns, and gunpowder will be good for the Gunslinger, though. I'd be happy if Gun Lore reduced the crafting cost, too.
Bonus Feats
At 2nd level and every 4 levels afterwards, the Gunslinger receives a bonus feat.
Notes: This can work the same way as Bonus Feats do currently for the Gunslinger or there could be a selection that approximates the Archery style available to the Ranger.
More to come...
After reading this, I also agree that the gunslinger makes more sense with ranger. Rangers already use wisdom, which would be an odd stat for fighters, and the lack of perception as a class skill for fighters makes no sense as you pointed out.
I would still allow the gunslinger to have an animal companion as an option though. How many movies have you seen where the gunslinger has a loyal dog, or hawk, or something similar?
The lack of Heavy Armor prof also denotes a ranger build.
Really, I would make it a base class over an alternate.
The only reason I can think of making it a fighter alt for is to keep people from multiclassing fighter for more feats after one level of gunslinger (for free swag).
Guns should be a ranger weapon style (one reason to keep it from being a ranger alt).
Gunslinger lacks heavy armor prof (as do rangers)
The only reason I can think of to have this as a fighter alt instead of a base class is to keep people from going Gunslinger 1 (free swag)/ Fighter X (free feats)
I disagree. I see very, very little commonality between the Ranger and the Gunslinger:
- Rangers cast spells. Gunslingers don't.
- Rangers have favored enemies and favored terrains. Gunslingers don't.
- Rangers have bonds with an animal companion or with their party. Gunslingers don't.
- Rangers have all sorts of tracking abilities. Gunslingers don't.
- Etc.
Meanwhile, they do fit with Fighters. Fighters are all about specialization in one weapon (or a very small set of them, anyway). So are Gunslingers. Gunslingers sacrifice armor and armor training for grit and deeds.
The only reason I can think of to have this as a fighter alt instead of a base class is to keep people from going Gunslinger 1 (free swag)/ Fighter X (free feats)
Man's got a point there.
|
So I made this thread and then deleted because I thought it was dumb and now I'm back again. Because the Gunslinger being based on the Fighter isn't the right way to go.
Spells get replaced by Grit and Deeds. Animal Companion gets replaced by free guns and maybe free upgrades to said guns around level 9.
The skills per level and class skills are more appropriate to the themes suggested by the class. The bonus feat progression seems more appropriate as well. Parallels can be drawn between Favored enemy and Gun Training, too. Two good saves vs one good save and Brave and Tough seem to hardly make a difference.
I really like the concept evinced by the Gunslinger but right now, what we have is not something I could play.
As the person pushing for ninja's to be based on rangers, this may be a surprise, but I disagree.
The ranger has magical abilities, the gunslinger does not. The magical abilities are the reason I think rogue is the wrong way to go, but that is another thread.
Really, the gunslinger is a new BaB class that isn't a fighter or a ranger. And I think trying to shoehorn it is a problem for the current design of the class.
Personally, I would have the firearm at 1st level be a makeshift one that only the gunslinger can use (made by the gunslinger, who is the only one who knows how to use it without it blowing up in their hands) them give them craft firearm at some point. I think they gave way to many things to them at 1st level, and are just begging for this to be a dip class.
I love the idea, the execution isn't to the level we normally see from Paizo. But it's early in the playtest, so we'll see.
I feel like the other classes were imagined level by level, while this one was more just a brain storming session thrown out to the world before it was ready, the grit system feels like the action point system, which I hated, only lazier.
I'm not normally this negative on product, but this round of playtest classes just seems more haphazard than the previous rounds. Hopefully it can be hashed out in the playtest, but I don't feel like they have the same clarity of vision for these as they did with the other ones.
I kind of wonder if it is a matter of too many cooks spoiling the broth, as these classes seem like amalgams of ideas rather than a single vision seeking refinement.
Remember also that because a Gunslinger is a Fighter, it can take Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Critical Mastery, Disruptive, Spellbreaker, Penetrating Strike, and Greater Penetrating Strike (plus whatever other Fighter-only feats there are), assuming it can scrounge up the feats for them. Some of those aren't all that hot for a ranged character, but Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike definitely are, as is Greater Weapon Focus.
see my thread on sidekick/companion for similarities for ranger.
ranger skirmishers dont get spells either.
the grit mechanic is a good trade for spells, fighting style fits.
Nature bond could either be side kick (in place of animal) a trusty animal companion (like lone rangers, silver) or a weapon bond, or like i suggested a challenge or judgement ( i like challenge, the gunsligner kinda says challenge to me.... "meet me at high noon")
even favored terrain bonuses need only be altered with little imagination.
While i cant see swamp or arctic gunslingers, seaborne (pirate), urban, desert etc etc would all work.
The favored enemy would actually work too.
I like the idea alot of the side kick/loyal animal, with the alternative being a lone wolf challenge.
wish you could just merge threads, the two are pretty similar.
|
|
I disagree. I see very, very little commonality between the Ranger and the Gunslinger:
- Rangers cast spells. Gunslingers don't.
- Rangers have favored enemies and favored terrains. Gunslingers don't.
- Rangers have bonds with an animal companion or with their party. Gunslingers don't.
- Rangers have all sorts of tracking abilities. Gunslingers don't.
- Etc.
Not all Rangers cast spells. Even disregarding that, Deeds are near magical in their effect if not their description. I think they're a good trade if Grit and Deeds get better.
Rangers can have a Bond-like relationship with their gun. Like the Animal Companion comes free, so do the guns. I've even given though to a Gunslinger getting some sort of free upgrade to their gun at 9th level like Animal Companions get a big bonus at 5th or 7th.
Ranger Tracking is just a bonus to a skill. If you'll kindly look above to where I suggested a few tweaks based on changing this to Ranger, I suggested that Gunslingers get an equal bonus to Craft: Gunsmith rolls and Craft: Alchemy rolls to make gunpowder.
I don't know how to respond to "etc." But if you'll look above to where I made some suggestions as to how this idea would play out, I think you'll see that this is a good fit and good things can come from it.
Meanwhile, they do fit with Fighters. Fighters are all about specialization in one weapon (or a very small set of them, anyway). So are Gunslingers. Gunslingers sacrifice armor and armor training for grit and deeds.
Holy crap. Is your premise actually that Rangers don't have to specify some sort of, I don't know what to call it, maybe COMBAT STYLE?
That's silly. You're being silly. Stop being silly. =)
|
|
Since when are all gunslingers advocates and defenders of nature?
Since when are Rangers all advocates and defenders of nature? I've literally wanted to make a Ranger who was allergic to and hated his Animal Companion but couldn't get it to stop following him.
You're making a ridiculous oversimplification of the class.
Remember also that because a Gunslinger is a Fighter, it can take Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization, Critical Mastery, Disruptive, Spellbreaker, Penetrating Strike, and Greater Penetrating Strike (plus whatever other Fighter-only feats there are), assuming it can scrounge up the feats for them. Some of those aren't all that hot for a ranged character, but Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike definitely are, as is Greater Weapon Focus.
Why would a gunslinger need Weapon Focus or Greater Weapon Focus? He'll be rolling against touch AC most of the time. I can definitely see the value of others but I'm not seeing a lot of opportunity for all those feats. The class is feat starved as it is.
The only reason I can think of to have this as a fighter alt instead of a base class is to keep people from going Gunslinger 1 (free swag)/ Fighter X (free feats)
That's the most convincing argument I've seen yet.
Not all Rangers cast spells.
The base class Ranger is a spellcasting class. You have to take a single specific archetype to have a Ranger who doesn't get to cast spells. You're being silly. Stop being silly.
Even disregarding that, Deeds are near magical in their effect if not their description. I think they're a good trade if Grit and Deeds get better.
Lol. Here's the list of things that deeds can do:
- Fall prone in response to being shot.
- Clear a jammed gun.
- Pistol whip someone.
- Quickdraw (as in the inspiration for the "gunslinger" name)
- Use covering fire.
- Target a specific body part.
- Cause a bleeding wound.
- Shoot a lock off a door, move a small object by hitting it, or cauterize a wound with a hot gun barrel.
- Startle someone with a near miss.
- Load a gun carefully enough that it doesn't explode when it misfires.
- Stun a creature when it gets crit by a gunshot.
- Instantly kill a creature when it gets crit by a gunshot.
- Be skilled enough to not provoke AoOs.
- Move and shoot.
- Reload as quickly as an archer.
- Cause a bullet to ricochet.
- Store bullets and gunpowder on your person for future use.
- Nothing else.
Of those, the only ones that are even vaguely magical are the level 19 deeds (stun on a crit or kill on a crit), and considering that you could just take Stunning Critical at level 17 and get the same effect without having to spend a Grit, the stun one is laughable. That leaves killing something by blowing its brains out. How is that magical, again? You're being silly. Stop being silly.
Ranger Tracking is just a bonus to a skill. If you'll kindly look above to where I suggested a few tweaks based on changing this to Ranger, I suggested that Gunslingers get an equal bonus to Craft: Gunsmith rolls and Craft: Alchemy rolls to make gunpowder.
This makes absolutely zero sense. Name me one gunslinger character in any media that made his own guns, bullets, and powder, and I'll name you 100 more that didn't make any of the above and probably couldn't have made them if you'd held a gun to their heads. You're being silly. Stop being silly.
Holy crap. Is your premise actually that Rangers don't have to specify some sort of, I don't know what to call it, maybe COMBAT STYLE?
No; if you'd bothered to read instead of just having a case of verbal diarrhea, you'd have noticed that I said that Fighters were ALL ABOUT SPECIALIZATION IN A WEAPON. Rangers are not; they are about specialization in a combat style, and casting spells, and having a pet, and tracking people, and getting along well with animals, and hiding in plain sight, and knowing a lot about geography and terrain, and being a skill monkey.
Fighters are all about one thing: being good with a weapon (or occasionally two weapons).
Gunslingers are all about one thing: being good with a gun (or occasionally two guns).
Rangers are about all sorts of things, only one of which is being good with a specific style of combat which could involve any number of different weapons.
You're being silly. Stop being silly.
Why would a gunslinger need Weapon Focus or Greater Weapon Focus? He'll be rolling against touch AC most of the time. I can definitely see the value of others but I'm not seeing a lot of opportunity for all those feats. The class is feat starved as it is.
So you're going to be attacking Gargantuan and Collossal creatures (or Large creatures with reach weapons, or Huge dragons, etc etc) from 20 feet away? And you're not going to be taking Lightning Reload and Signature Deed (Lightning Reload)? You're being silly. Stop being silly.
|
|
So you're going to be attacking Gargantuan and Collossal creatures (or Large creatures with reach weapons, or Huge dragons, etc etc) from 20 feet away? And you're not going to be taking Lightning Reload and Signature Deed (Lightning Reload)? You're being silly. Stop being silly.
When did we start talking about Lightning Reload? I thought we were talking about Fighter Feats. The reason I can't find room for fighter feats is because I need Lightning Reload and Signature Deed.
Also, I disagree with your previous statements. You are being silly.
Carry on.
I am down with rangers instead of fighters.
So you're going to be attacking Gargantuan and Collossal creatures (or Large creatures with reach weapons, or Huge dragons, etc etc) from 20 feet away? And you're not going to be taking Lightning Reload and Signature Deed (Lightning Reload)? You're being silly. Stop being silly.When did we start talking about Lightning Reload? I thought we were talking about Fighter Feats.
You were talking about WF being useless because you can't miss. I countered that by pointing out that, A, you only hit touch AC within 20 feet (assuming you use pistols, and using muskets is just plain moronic as the rules are currently written until level 11, so using pistols is a pretty safe assumption IMO), and B, even touch attacks can miss on the last iterative (ie, when you're using Lightning Reload).
Of course, you don't care to make any actual, logical, internally consistent counter-arguments; you simply resort to ad hominems and straw men. Carry on, then.
I actually made an entire version of the gunslinger as an alternate monk class if anyone cares to take a look.
|
|
Of course, you don't care to make any actual, logical, internally consistent counter-arguments; you simply resort to ad hominems and straw men. Carry on, then.
Good lord. Yet another example of tone being invisible on the internet. I thought we had a fun little back and forth going there. You were apparently getting pissed. For the record, the smile emoticon that accompanied my first "you're being silly" was intended to show that I was just poking a bit of fun. I am sorry if you were offended. I'll keep my conversations with you about this game strictly professional.
Also, if you consider "silly" to be an ad hominem attack, which I do not, you are equally guilty. Since you apparently also took critical thinking as an undergrad, you'll remember that you can't justify your own use of "silly" because I did it first because it is another logical fallacy called a "Red Herring." As for straw man?
You were talking about WF being useless because you can't miss. I countered that by pointing out that, A, you only hit touch AC within 20 feet (assuming you use pistols, and using muskets is just plain moronic as the rules are currently written until level 11, so using pistols is a pretty safe assumption IMO), and B, even touch attacks can miss on the last iterative (ie, when you're using Lightning Reload).
See, what you've taken to be some sort of dispute of your argement was a question. I asked why we were talking about the two feats that were not fighter feats. Is that what you think was a straw man? My question? I don't think it fits the definition.
In any case, the Level 11 'Slinger I just made for more Arena action has +12 on his final iterative which is more that enough to reliably hit touch AC. This is without resorting to Weapon Focus or its Greater cousin. The fact that it would be lowered when using something like Rapid Shot hardly means anything as I'm simply replacing that crap shot with a far better shot. And +10 is still good enough to hit touch AC pretty reliably. I just don't see the feats being there to support much use of these feats.
Since you seem to really hate this idea I will respond to your previous points in greater detail.
1. Entangle and bleed are effects that can also be caused by magic. I agree that most of the abilities are quite mundane. I should have formed that point better. I think the next version of this class will have more deeds along the lines of bleed and entangle as this is currently a crap class skill and those kinds of things make Grit more useful and less horrible. So in that way, I think Grit and Deeds can be viewed as a sort of non-Vancian magic. You are free to disagree.
2. Skill bonuses. If you think that the skill choices here are bad because it doesn't fit the theme very well, you might be right. However, if you had read my post above you'd have seen that in this case I was going for making the class less cash intensive to play. I'll reproduce my comments below.
Notes: I get that a high cost for guns and bullets is maybe good for the game. You want guns to be good but you don't want every PC to carry a gun. But it's too bloody expensive for the class that's supposed to use it. Making it easy to craft more bullets, guns, and gunpowder will be good for the Gunslinger, though. I'd be happy if Gun Lore reduced the crafting cost, too.
I still think its a good idea. Although it might not be true of John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, or Jack Sparrow, I don't think the Gunslinger is going to be able to find a gunsmith/bullet manufacturer in every town like the other classes can find a blacksmith. While the thematics might be off, the heart of the mechanics are in the right place.
3. Combat Styles v. Specialization. If you look at the two ranged Styles you'll see that they are focused on one weapon just like the gunslinger. Archer can make use of longbows, shortbows and their composite varieties. Crossbowmen make use of the various crossbows that exist in Golarion. Gunslingers do that pretty much exactly.
Fighters specialize in one weapon, typically. They get Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Improved Crit and so forth for that weapon. But those are individual choices for a player to make. The class abilities of Fighters really allow improved usage of a wide variety of weapons. Just your first instance of weapon training can provide bonuses for longswords, scythes and falchions, a pretty disparate bunch of weapons. They're not even all swords! I do not think this is comparable to the emphasis the Gunslinger class puts on firearms.
If I had another four hours to spare I might take that challenge... Though it would likely be a lot more work than what I did with the monk alternate class.
Thematically, the 'slinger is more or less broken down into two types (at least when speaking about western style gun types) that is the city slicker, and the range rider.
Doc Holiday, Wyatt Earp etc, city slickers (and the rarity)
ALL the rest of the gunfighters of the west, were tough, rugged, usually less than well groomed dusty travelers that spent more night sleeping under the stars, living off the land and navigating the barren wastes from one watering hole to the next. Whether Lawman or Outlaw, they both had nearly the same life style, in fact some traded lawman for outlaw, or outlaw for lawman, interchangeably at times in their life.
They knew the trails and secret hiding spots like no other.
So this doesn't sound like a ranger?
city slickers are simply urban rangers, their favored terrain is saloon or city streets.
Almost all gunfighters had a horse that was almost more important to them than their gun (animal companion), and one of them was even called a ranger by name , the LONE Ranger, but then there was an entire society of them called rangers, the TEXAS Rangers. What do they do? HUNT men.
Mechanically, class features wise, the gunslinger isnt far from ranger at all (much closer than fighter), and the idea of a trusty steed, a faithful parrot, or even a sidekick is really awesome for this character (so companion mechanic works here)
Gun fire is all about terrain advantage, whether it be hiding behind whiskey barrels for cover, or setting up your sniper shot in a good desert canyon.
So favored terrain not a far stretch at all.
Spells are traded out for grit.
Favored enemy not a far stretch.
For those that don't want a companion for their slinger, you could have the 'lone wolf' option that gave them a challenge (which i like), a weapon bond (not a bad idea either), or maybe a judgement (not all of them but a limited choice between a few)
Obviously combat style directly fits (either sword and gun, rifleman, or two gun style)
So how is that not a good fit for ranger?
Thematically, the 'slinger is more or less broken down into two types (at least when speaking about western style gun types) that is the city slicker, and the range rider.
Doc Holiday, Wyatt Earp etc, city slickers (and the rarity)
ALL the rest of the gunfighters of the west, were tough, rugged, usually less than well groomed dusty travelers that spent more night sleeping under the stars, living off the land and navigating the barren wastes from one watering hole to the next. Whether Lawman or Outlaw, they both had nearly the same life style, in fact some traded lawman for outlaw, or outlaw for lawman, interchangeably at times in their life.
They knew the trails and secret hiding spots like no other.
So this doesn't sound like a ranger?
city slickers are simply urban rangers, their favored terrain is saloon or city streets.
Almost all gunfighters had a horse that was almost more important to them than their gun (animal companion), and one of them was even called a ranger by name , the LONE Ranger, but then there was an entire society of them called rangers, the TEXAS Rangers. What do they do? HUNT men.
Mechanically, class features wise, the gunslinger isnt far from ranger at all (much closer than fighter), and the idea of a trusty steed, a faithful parrot, or even a sidekick is really awesome for this character (so companion mechanic works here)
Gun fire is all about terrain advantage, whether it be hiding behind whiskey barrels for cover, or setting up your sniper shot in a good desert canyon.
So favored terrain not a far stretch at all.
Spells are traded out for grit.
Favored enemy not a far stretch.
For those that don't want a companion for their slinger, you could have the 'lone wolf' option that gave them a challenge (which i like), a weapon bond (not a bad idea either), or maybe a judgement (not all of them but a limited choice between a few)
Obviously combat style directly fits (either sword and gun, rifleman, or two gun style)So how is that not a good fit for ranger?
/Golf clap. Way to go Pendagast, you nailed it.
Many posters have also complained that they want the Gunslinger to be able to function as a switch-hitter, Swashbuckler type. Rangers are awesome switch-hitters. The fighter may be slightly better (more feats), but the flavor of the ranger outweighs the small advantages of the fighter.
Ranger > Fighter for me any day (I like my characters to be able to do stuff other than swing a sword).
I gotta say, basing the Gunslinger on Ranger is infinitely cleaner than trying to stomp it in as an alternate Fighter class. Retool the Deeds to be worth as much oomf as a spell (cool options, less times per day is still better than the goofy stuff currently available). I like the analogues between the Ranger class features and a Gunslinger equivalent as most recently posted by Pendagast. Mostly because you create more than a single character type in doing so. Why waste time with an alternate class if you really only have a couple viable "character" options? Forget mechanics for a second and look at the actual roleplay issues. Ranger just brings to mind (for me at least) a number of build-types and combinations instead of "really good shooter guy that shoots guys really good"
As far as multiclassing as a Fighter being some unholy taboo? Toss out the current published rules for the alternate Gunslinger class and pretend that it was retooled to fit a Ranger chasis, why would Gunslinger/Fighter be any more game breaking than a Ranger/Fighter, Gunslinger/Magus, Inquisitor/Gunslinger?
I gotta say, basing the Gunslinger on Ranger is infinitely cleaner than trying to stomp it in as an alternate Fighter class. Retool the Deeds to be worth as much oomf as a spell (cool options, less times per day is still better than the goofy stuff currently available). I like the analogues between the Ranger class features and a Gunslinger equivalent as most recently posted by Pendagast. Mostly because you create more than a single character type in doing so. Why waste time with an alternate class if you really only have a couple viable "character" options? Forget mechanics for a second and look at the actual roleplay issues. Ranger just brings to mind (for me at least) a number of build-types and combinations instead of "really good shooter guy that shoots guys really good"
As far as multiclassing as a Fighter being some unholy taboo? Toss out the current published rules for the alternate Gunslinger class and pretend that it was retooled to fit a Ranger chasis, why would Gunslinger/Fighter be any more game breaking than a Ranger/Fighter, Gunslinger/Magus, Inquisitor/Gunslinger?
Id say, if an ultimate design goal is to keep the gunslinger/fighter from looking too attractive, the goal would be to work in an access to fighter feats and a few more bonus feats in the advancement chain and it wont be a worry.
Im gonna do some staring at the comparisons now.
Ok here we go, gunslinger gets ranger base saves (easy enough)
kick out brave and tough altogether.
1st level: Deed, firearm, grit
2nd: combat style (im throwing out brave and tough altogether)
combat style could be shootist (two gun fighting), musketeer (for pirates and other melee weapon in one hand pistol in the other types), and marksman (for long rifle types).
3rd: deed, favored terrain (different but similar, like urban, desert, etc)
4th: Companion/sidekick (horse, etc or a mechanic for a humanoid companion) or the lone wolf option (which i think should be "Steely Eyed Stare" a gunslinger challenge, if the challengee fails in a test of wills...bascially intimidation, he gets debuff imposed on him.)
5th: gun training, +2 grit pool
6th: combat style, iron will bonus feat
7th: deed
8th: bonus feat, 2nd favored terrain
9th: Evasion, gun training 2
10th: combat style, +2 grit pool
11th: deed
12th: bonus feat
13th: gun training 3, 3rd favored terrain
14th: bonus feat, combat style
15th: Deed, +2 grit pool
16th: Improved Evasion
17th: gun training 4
18th: 4th favored terrain, improved iron will, combat style
19th: deed
20th: bonus feat, capstone (whether true grit stays or gets replaced irrelevant). +2 grit pool
If you want the gunslinger to get access to specialization etc/ make it happen in the combat style section, just make them options on the list, in in the bonus feats write up section. (ie the gunslinger can choose buns feats from the fighter only list, but not his normal feats he gets from levels)
Bring grit/deeds up on par to replace spells (which shouldnt take much doing, ranger spells are that great and grit/deeds arent THAT lacking)
Leave Skill points same (as ranger). leave all the skills the same for gunslinger except add: Perception, stealth , survival.
and a bonus of 1/4 level to craft alchemy (gun powder only) and Craft Gunsmith.
and bingo1 we got 90 % of tis class, just have to smooth out combat styles, deeds and the sidekick/lone wolf mechanic.
gripes?
Edit: im not completely sold on favored terrain so thats either something we could have less of (like only two) or toss entirely in favor of keeping balance or other goodies.
|
|
ALL the rest of the gunfighters of the west, were tough, rugged, usually less than well groomed dusty travelers that spent more night sleeping under the stars, living off the land and navigating the barren wastes from one watering hole to the next. Whether Lawman or Outlaw, they both had nearly the same life style, in fact some traded lawman for outlaw, or outlaw for lawman, interchangeably at times in their life.They knew the trails and secret hiding spots like no other.
So this doesn't sound like a ranger?
This.
Truly and sincerely this.
I'm not sure what cowboy movies you guys have been watching but these guys lived off the land hunted and tracked animals and men. Think of all the things you can't make with the current Gunslinger.
1. The Man with No Name/Blondie (Clint Eastwood): This one might be a toss up. On one hand, Blondie could make good use of the Bluff class skill offered by the current version of 'Slinger. However, he lacks the skills per day to really invest in this unless he's not allocating to other useful things. A Ranger version could invest here. Plus, you think Blondie could have survived that trip though the desert with no water without Endurance? Do you think that Blondie could have noticed every slimy bastard that tried to get the drop on him and Tuco in the bombed out town without a kickass Perception score?
2. Rooster Cogburn/La Boeuf: These guys were consummate trackers and woodsmen. They were definitely Rangers (one was, in fact, a Texas Ranger). As an aside, True Grit was a really great movie. The best Coen brothers movie I've seen since O Brother and Lebowski.
3. Malcolm Reynolds: Now stay with me here, it's hard to translate this game to a space opera but I think there are some good similarities. I think Mal was a bit of skill monkey. He alternated between Intimidate, Diplomacy, and Bluff which is not something you can do without a good number of skills per level. He knew how to take advantage of the lay of the land evidenced in a number of episodes. Certainly he had Favored Terrain: Serenity ;)
i think reloading should be worked out in the deeds.
I like your basic outline Pendagast. I'd still like to replace the Hunters Bond mechanic for a better Firearm mechanic. Something that allowed his gun(s) to get better or his skill with them to increase.
well hunters bond could be the sidekick or a weapon bond, there is still deeds to get better and there is already gun training.
what else are you thinking of?There is so much room in deeds for them to get better i really think you could put something in there, without loosing the bond for those people who want the sidekick or faithful steed.
Personally, Id loose the "regain grit" part of things and let the +2 grit here and there plus the option to get additional grit from a feat or two... that should be enough, especially when reloading fast ( a necessity) doesnt cost grit.