|
While it certainly has some problems in its current form, I rather like the idea of grit. It'd be interesting to see it applied to other forms of combat and that'd be much easier if it's based on a base class instead of just an archetype of another class. Having an archetype like 'corsair' for an archetype/variant class would be rather awkward.
This class is not a fighter. The fighters theme is excellence in combat through hard work and training.
The gunslingers feels much more like doing stupid things and getting away with it.
Another possible name for the class would be musketeer. That way, the class would still be tied to guns while increasing its implication of swashbuckling.
Shameless re-post
I do like Gunslinger. Quite a lot, frankly. Sounds badass.
Nevertheless, I'd take Musketeer because IMHO (sorry for restating it continuously) the class should have at least 4 options:
1) Musket sniper
2) Two-pistol crazy akimbo
3) Sword and pistol badass pirate
4) duelist , maybe single-handed
and 4/skill level. Use grit for stunts with sword and acrobatics too.
One should be able to repeatedly shott with pistols with specialization (in that case, the PC should be rewarded with high lethality and stuns and spectacular ricochets), otherwise the shots would be just an opening or closing strike for an assaulting, jumping pirate with the cutlass in his theet.
I do like a lot ideas of the class. Barring fixing power level of grits deeds and grit points, 'though, I think it would gain a lot from expanding those things to few more archetypes.
Core fighter can go S&B, THF, TWF, Polearm, Bow.. this incarnation should do the same with these different fighting styles.. it's just what fighters do.
Then, one would freely decide to play a gunslinger, a pirate or what else.
I feel that the two concepts are difficult to reconcile, creating a "jack of all trades, master of none" class.
IMO, a true Swashbuckler base class should get pistol proficiency but be all about the dueling with Rapiers part.
However, since I really, really want a true 20 level Swashbuckler class, I'd be happy if the devs come up with a viable concept to merge the Gunslinger with the swashbuckling sword duelist concept. But I think they want to go conceptually more into the direction of wild west films, rather than the Three Musketeers. I still hope we'll get a true Swashbuckler base class one day. :)
I feel that the two concepts are difficult to reconcile, creating a "jack of all trades, master of none" class.
IMO, a true Swashbuckler base class should get pistol proficiency but be all about the dueling with Rapiers part.
However, since I really, really want a true 20 level Swashbuckler class, I'd be happy if the devs come up with a viable concept to merge the Gunslinger with the swashbuckling sword duelist concept. But I think they want to go conceptually more into the direction of wild west films, rather than the Three Musketeers. I still hope we'll get a true Swashbuckler base class one day. :)
Well, if Gunslinger is solid, they could come up with an Archetype of the Gunslinger itself with dueling and acrobatics grits.. without tryng to balance everything in the same class.
I suppose by making the Gunslinger (I really do prefer the name Musketeer) a Fighter alternate and the Swashbuckler a Rogue archetype, an obvious cross-class option is made plain. Back in AD&D2E, when I wanted to play a pirate, the best option we had was a dual-class Fighter/Thief. With the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler as they are currently presented, that is essentially the way it works here, too.
I suppose by making the Gunslinger (I really do prefer the name Musketeer) a Fighter alternate and the Swashbuckler a Rogue archetype, an obvious cross-class option is made plain. Back in AD&D2E, when I wanted to play a pirate, the best option we had was a dual-class Fighter/Thief. With the Gunslinger and Swashbuckler as they are currently presented, that is essentially the way it works here, too.
Eh, I just think that a Swashbuckler base class should get some sort of Precise Strike ( from the Duelist PrC ) class feature, although with the caveats the current sneak attack uses, not the old one from 3.5 .
Sneak Attack itself doesn't mesh well with a Swashbuckler, IMO, since it requires you to flank or restricts you to one attack per round, the first of which doesn't work well with with a duel based class and the second of which is always a terrible mechanical choice for melee.
I've always envisioned a Swashbuckler as being more of a Fighter than a Rogue, given the head-to-head fighting they end up going through. My best guess would be Free-Hand Fighter/Duelist (Exotic Weapon Prof. Firearms taken at first level). Jack up the the DEX, and keep the STR up to par.
Or it could be an archetype for the Gunslinger, though the flavor isn't really the same.
I love swashbucklers, so that might convince me to allow guns in my campaign. Makes me think of two things:
Solomon Kane makes me think that Inquisitors should get additional proficiency with firearms. :p
A swashbuckler seems more like your standard fighter/rogue who also has a gun.
Change it to Pirate, instead. Because I want a multiclass Ninja/Pirate!
|
Shameless re-post
I do like Gunslinger. Quite a lot, frankly. Sounds badass.
Nevertheless, I'd take Musketeer because IMHO (sorry for restating it continuously) the class should have at least 4 options:
1) Musket sniper
2) Two-pistol crazy akimbo
3) Sword and pistol badass pirate
4) duelist , maybe single-handed
and 4/skill level. Use grit for stunts with sword and acrobatics too.
One should be able to repeatedly shott with pistols with specialization (in that case, the PC should be rewarded with high lethality and stuns and spectacular ricochets), otherwise the shots would be just an opening or closing strike for an assaulting, jumping pirate with the cutlass in his theet.
I do like a lot ideas of the class. Barring fixing power level of grits deeds and grit points, 'though, I think it would gain a lot from expanding those things to few more archetypes.
Core fighter can go S&B, THF, TWF, Polearm, Bow.. this incarnation should do the same with these different fighting styles.. it's just what fighters do.
Then, one would freely decide to play a gunslinger, a pirate or what else.
I like the idea of options for those folks that have reservations about the class. This way the book would be more appealing to them. The name musketeer seems to work better as well.
Said it before I'll say it again.
You want a musketeer?
Fighter/Duelist, use a musket as a ranged weapon
Was that so hard?
|
|
Said it before I'll say it again.
You want a musketeer?
Fighter/Duelist, use a musket as a ranged weapon
Was that so hard?
What? That character build would be absolutely awful with a musket. They would almost never use the musket other than shot once then drop. A character that hardly uses the musket would not really be called a musketeer.
Guns as written are only of use to the new base class. I am okay with that design because it allows a built in limitation on guns in the campaign.
What? That character build would be absolutely awful with a musket. They would almost never use the musket other than shot once then drop. A character that hardly uses the musket would not really be called a musketeer.Guns as written are only of use to the new base class. I am okay with that design because it allows a built in limitation on guns in the campaign.
But it's totally realistic man! Blah blah blah, I'm joking of course, nothing is realistic. Doesn't change that this idea of a "musketeer" is foolish. The Gunslinger is not a Musketeer, stop saying it is. You could take advantage theoretically by dipping into it... but then you'd lose the actual fighter benefits, which is sad, but there are other means into Duelist.
Long story short: ... suck it up. Or complain about the awful rules for guns like the rest of us. Become one with the squeaky wheel!
Think about it, if the gun rules are altered you have no reason to NOT do the Fighter/Duelist as I said.
Said it before I'll say it again.
You want a musketeer?
Fighter/Duelist, use a musket as a ranged weapon
Was that so hard?
You want a magus?
Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight.
Your point is?
A Magus isn't an Eldritch Knight. They may serve the same basic principle, but in mechanics they differ vastly. I fail to see how a simple french guy with a rapier and musket deserves special mechanics beyond that of a Fighter or Duelist.
A Magus isn't an Eldritch Knight. They may serve the same basic principle, but in mechanics they differ vastly.Said it before I'll say it again.
You want a musketeer?
Fighter/Duelist, use a musket as a ranged weapon
Was that so hard?
You want a magus?
Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight.
Your point is?
You mean mechanics that NO ONE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF had they not existed?
People complaining about new classes and going "All you need to do is combine X/Y/Z classes!" refuse to see the forest because they are focused on trees.
You mean mechanics that NO ONE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF had they not existed?People complaining about new classes and going "All you need to do is combine X/Y/Z classes!" refuse to see the forest because they are focused on trees.
Please tell me what fanciful and lovely mechanics a base Musketeer would have, cause it sure ain't grit. Oh... wait... let me guess... the same things a Duelist would have? OHSHI-! MY MIND IS BLOWN!
Sarcasm and all aside, that was just too good an opportunity not to say that.
|
|
A Magus isn't an Eldritch Knight. They may serve the same basic principle, but in mechanics they differ vastly. I fail to see how a simple french guy with a rapier and musket deserves special mechanics beyond that of a Fighter or Duelist.
Oh, I agree that the magus has an interesting mechanic. But I also happen to think that the grit mechanic would work rather well for a swashbuckling character.
You might be able to play a swashbuckling character as a duelist, but the feeling I'm striving for is rather different.
You mean mechanics that NO ONE WOULD HAVE THOUGHT OF had they not existed?People complaining about new classes and going "All you need to do is combine X/Y/Z classes!" refuse to see the forest because they are focused on trees.
Please tell me what fanciful and lovely mechanics a base Musketeer would have, cause it sure ain't grit. Oh... wait... let me guess... the same things a Duelist would have? OHSHI-! MY MIND IS BLOWN!
Sarcasm and all aside, that was just too good an opportunity not to say that.
Next time, don't waste your PoO on something that simply reemphasizes my point.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
Yeah, breaking the rule of what not to refer to, but the Wikipedia entry on musketeers talks about them not just being French, but being part of military units all over the world. The French ones were popular from "The Three Musketeers." by Alexandre Dumas.
I am no history buff, so go ahead and prove Wikipedia wrong that musketeers were not part of armies from all of the world as early as the 1300s in china and as late as the early 1800s everywhere else.
I am working on rebuilding several different versions of the gunslinger. One of them is going to be more open to customization and allow wider types of play styles, much like how other classes allow different builds. This one focuses on guns though, and it's abilities focus on that.
Another rebuild will have some abilities for bladed melee weapons, and will be closer to a musketeer.
Needless to say, this is going to be a great deal of work. I will be trying to implement ideas from this playtest, so if you have any more on how to build a musketeer class, let me know.
I like the idea of a (revised) grit-based Musketeer, who has fighting style options (like a ranger) based on long-range musket shooting, two weapon pistol shooting, finesse weapon fighting, and TWF. If the Gunslinger is supposed to be a fighter archetype, why does it give up one of the big things a Fighter has going for it: being a double threat, capable of performing acceptably as a ranged or melee attacker when their primary strategy isn't optimal? Also, the only reason the fighter doesn't completely outperform the Gunslinger at guns is because there is no designated Firearms category for weapon training, so the fighter can't get +5 to hit and damage with firearms the way they can with crossbows or rapiers.
|
|
If this idea has been posited elsewhere please let me know. But might I suggest something rather radical in nature?
It's safe to say we like the idea of Grit and what it does for a class. However, why not make it a feature of (oh, I'm about to say those most blasphemous of words!) Prestige Class.
One could easily afford the Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Firearms) feat and it would allow for other options as well. Instead of creating an entire alternate class for the Fighter, how about it's an option that Fighter's, Rogue's, and other classes who take up the mantle could opt into.
My suggestion (since we like the concept of Grit) is to have Grit reworked into a feat similar to Amateur Gunslinger but have Grit do other things not related to guns at all. This way swashbuckling characters can take advantage of the Grit system without having to be gunslingers.
As for the proposed Prestige Class, it should have EWP (firearms) and Grit (possibly the feat name) as requirements. It would use the grit system from the feat and give you new options to use grit for (such as all the options we have now, only more refined)
Looking at the Gunslinger as it, you take out grit and the class falls apart. I have viewed many threads about the Gunslinger and most are in agreement that the Fighter is simply better. So why give the Fighter a complete makeover when we can offer a feat (or a feat tree!) and a prestige class that does the job?
None of this is said in malice against the class, as we are in the Alpha test. It's just an option to be considered.
What do ya think?