Think about fantasy more or less like Star Trek/Star wars:
there are many planets out there, with many cultures, and society and technology develop differently.
On tatooine, there are no Jedi, but people have heard stories of them.
One planets weapons are far behind that of another planets, some planets have the ability to trade to get what they cannot make and keep up in other worlds they are just too far behind.
Look at the difference between the wookie bow caster and the repeating blast rifle of the imperial storm troopers.
In star trek its even more broad, when vulcans came to earth, we still werent space travelers, and we had slug throwers not phasers.
This is the parallel from one gaming table to another.
its a different world with different 'rules' from one table to another.
Some will have gins, other will not.
Mostly in fantasy swords and sorcery, there really are no guns because magic is better, but in the absence or rarity of magic, technology creeps in.
Is a wand of magic missiles so very different than a gun... if the wand hand a grip and a trigger would you not use it?
TOZ earlier recommended a series of novels of 'fantasy guns' that may (or may not, I haven't read them so I can't give my own recommendation to them) help :)
I can only recommend L.E. Modesitt's "Corean Chronicles" to your group as a fine example of guns in fantasy. I don't have a problem with it thanks to those books.
I haven't read those but of course the other big one for "fantasy with guns" is The Dark Tower series from Stephen King.
|
Many people feel this way about Psionics, The Monk, Ninjas, Katanas, Samurai, Steampunk Elements, Swashbuckling in general....
By the gods, would people hate my homebrew setting. When my group actually plays in it of course.
Steampunk, samurai, swashbuckling. Hell, think of my world as an ad-hoc Final Fantasy meets the ever-awesome Golarion.
Of course, once Golarion comes out with this vehicular rules for airships and other transport, then my world is more than likely getting pushed to a backshelf.
Many people feel this way about Psionics, The Monk, Ninjas, Katanas, Samurai, Steampunk Elements, Swashbuckling in general....By the gods, would people hate my homebrew setting. When my group actually plays in it of course.
Steampunk, samurai, swashbuckling. Hell, think of my world as an ad-hoc Final Fantasy meets the ever-awesome Golarion.
Of course, once Golarion comes out with this vehicular rules for airships and other transport, then my world is more than likely getting pushed to a backshelf.
Actually one of our friends earlier ran us through a homebrewed world setting he made from 1 to 20 basically, said chars are all now demigods. Basically a Wacky North vs South where North was highly technological and German, while South was highly magical and Chinese. Had crazy steampunk, psions, airships, dragons, freaking goblinoid mecha, good times even if he did railroad.
It's a minority.but I assure you we generally mean well :)
Which one's the minority?
The way I see it, it's much easier for me to exclude things from the rulebook than to come up with quality homebrew material. Therefore, I welcome the addition of Ninja, Samurai, Gunslingers, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Magi and whatnot, because even if I'm running a low magic sword and sorcery campaign right now, I might someday wish to run a more technologically advanced world, or an asian-themed world, or just a more pulpy world in general, and then I'd rather have all those options than not have them.
|
Many people feel this way about Psionics, The Monk, Ninjas, Katanas, Samurai, Steampunk Elements, Swashbuckling in general....
That doesnt mean that the rest of us shouldnt have access to rules that would allow us to dabble in Genre-mixing just because you, and your group, dont like something.
Does anyone see the irony here of this post and the dozen or so other overly aggressive and dismissive posts that all boil down to "i disagree with you, so shut up?"
The point of the forums is to allow the community to have discussions and provide feedback to the devs. The OP provided reasonable feedback that HE and his group don't like guns and wouldn't want them to be featured in PFRPG. You have every right to disagree and post your like of guns but zero right to tell the OP not to.
Personally, I saw gun use in Ptolus ruin the 'feel' of a campaign. I would not want to see it repeated. I think I will pass on gunslinger in my home game. YMMV or course. Just try to keep in mind (the collective 'you' not just you, kadeity) that a difference of opinion does not need to be squashed. You could, you know, maybe just discuss it a little instead?
|
|
The way I see it, it's much easier for me to exclude things from the rulebook than to come up with quality homebrew material. Therefore, I welcome the addition of Ninja, Samurai, Gunslingers, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Magi and whatnot, because even if I'm running a low magic sword and sorcery campaign right now, I might someday wish to run a more technologically advanced world, or an asian-themed world, or just a more pulpy world in general, and then I'd rather have all those options than not have them.
Agreed. and well said.
I'm really disappointed that "Ultimate Combat" seems to mean "things that don't belong in any campaign I've ever played in" in some 20 odd years of gaming.
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Do you really think that the Gunslinger, the Ninja, and the Samurai are the entire content of the entire book? Or that the entire book is taken up by Western and Asian themed content? Don't be silly. They're three alternate classes which, combined, take up, what, 10 pages of a 320 page book?
Why does everyone make up all of this nancy garbage about misses, dings, deflections and parries and such?
Isn't the game much, much funnier when you imagine that everything that hits you in game is a mortal wound?
Seriously, spend an encounter and pretend that every attack that lands is serious enough to kill the person, but they're perfectly fine anyways. At the end, everyone is all trudging around like Boromir, all pin-cushioned with arrows and dragging around unconscious enemies still clinging to their weapons embedded in your spine.
Gunslinger shoots a fighter in the head. Right through the temple, brain matter all splattering over the cleric. The level 20 fighter turns. "Hey. I liked that hat."
Not all, many of us play and enjoy both.Well thanks, I've been gaming for over 15 years and did not like 4E at all. I thought 3E was great, but it was new and very unbalanced (between all the books). Its nice to have a fresh start with Pathfinder, which I own all the hardcovers but have waiting for the new Campaign setting to buy anything Setting wise.Not liking 4E is the reason many (I would theorize most) of us are here my friend.
Well, there are at least two of us!
I also don't do the Asian stuff in my D&D. Now, if a DM were to use an asian setting.. then i wouldn't mind it. Some Samurai showing up in Magnimar though would just feel.. off. The same with the ninja, or gunslinger.But what about Tian Xia? I 100% support your feelings that you don't like Asian stuff in your game, I don't agree but I certainly understand your opinion. However if you are using straight up Golarion, just know Tian Xia exists, and thats more than likely the source of your ninjas and samurai. Gunslingers hone their skills in Alkenstar. Im just pointing out that these are cannon parts of Golarion, should you use that world.
And 0gre, I must respectfully disagree with you on monks. Yes they are underpowered, but they are my favorite class :) I've played more monks than anything else.
Simple actually- we aren't going /anywhere/ near there and aren't likely to do so for a very very very very very very very very long time.
If we went and made a campaign out of it- then I'd expect everyone to make characters appropriate to it.. Just like if we're in Magnimar I expect everyone to make characters appropriate to that.
Its just like the guns. It may be in the book but that doesn't mean it comes into a game I'm in. FR, for example, had guns.. and we still never saw any in our campaigns.
-S
I'm really disappointed that "Ultimate Combat" seems to mean "things that don't belong in any campaign I've ever played in" in some 20 odd years of gaming.Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Do you really think that the Gunslinger, the Ninja, and the Samurai are the entire content of the entire book? Or that the entire book is taken up by Western and Asian themed content? Don't be silly. They're three alternate classes which, combined, take up, what, 10 pages of a 320 page book?
I have no idea. Which is why I'll have to go through the book to find out before I buy it.
I'll have to make sure it isn't chock full of stuff that I will never, ever, ever use.. Such as a bunch of rules for asian weapons- when they already covered that in the core books.. or feats just to support the three classes they are adding that I'll never touch, or the entire set of equipment they are adding/modifying/changing that I'll also never touch with a 10 foot pole.
I didn't say "omg gunslinger I'll never buy the book!".. I said I'll have to be very careful with /this/ book and go through it before I buy it.. whereas usually if it says "Paizo" on it and its new- I buy it.
-S
I have no idea. Which is why I'll have to go through the book to find out before I buy it.I'll have to make sure it isn't chock full of stuff that I will never, ever, ever use.. Such as a bunch of rules for asian weapons- when they already covered that in the core books.. or feats just to support the three classes they are adding that I'll never touch, or the entire set of equipment they are adding/modifying/changing that I'll also never touch with a 10 foot pole.
I didn't say "omg gunslinger I'll never buy the book!".. I said I'll have to be very careful with /this/ book and go through it before I buy it.. whereas usually if it says "Paizo" on it and its new- I buy it.
-S
I'll never understand this kind of thinking. Then again, if did accept such kinds of thinking it'd make me a hypocrite given my largely experimental musical tastes. I can see use in pretty much everything, and it boggles my mind how others can't.
Its both use and interest.
Someone might, for example, have an interest in quail. (a type of bird). I don't.
I have no problem with folks publishing books about it, or other folks buying them and reading it..
but I will never buy a book about the pudgy little birds because I'm not interested in them.
I'm also not interested in gunslingers, guns, samurai, or ninja in my D&D game.
I have not said "don't publish this book!". I just said I'll have to go through it carefully before I buy it. Ninja and such do not interest me in D&d as they do not belong in the game worlds that I, personally, participate in.
I hope they make a ton of money off of the book but if the majority of it is ninja/samurai/gunslinger and their trappings, rules, and effects, I'm afraid they won't make any money off of it from me.
-S
I couldn't tell if I'd has been mentioned but most of the technology in the game is enough to support guns. halberds plate armour etc came after guns.
see here's the thing, James Jacobs has been sleeping in his office for years and if they manage to sell enough of these new books, he'll get enough commission to spend one weekend in a motel with mirrors on the ceiling and a coin operated bed. Honestly, he's been promised.
In all seriousness, a gaming line needs new products, if they don't keep churning the press, interest dies, things dwindle, and then Bulhman and Jacobs have to hot bunk under the same desk, in shifts to get any sleep.
If only 3/4 of the Pathfinder fans buy UC for any reason, it will have been worth the effort. They know full well some people just won't have an interest in that specific content, and it's ok.
I dont own any of the races of golarion books and probably never will. It's all good.
|
And 0gre, I must respectfully disagree with you on monks. Yes they are underpowered, but they are my favorite class :) I've played more monks than anything else.
Hehe... my point is simply that we have to be tolerant of some stuff which we don't personally care for. I wouldn't dare try and excise any of the classes I mentioned... well maybe paladins. :P
|
|
see here's the thing, James Jacobs has been sleeping in his office for years and if they manage to sell enough of these new books, he'll get enough commission to spend one weekend in a motel with mirrors on the ceiling and a coin operated bed. Honestly, he's been promised.
I don't think James has a whole lot to do with this book in all honesty. I think he's way too deep in the APs and Campaign Setting stuff to be working on the rules stuffs.
see here's the thing, James Jacobs has been sleeping in his office for years and if they manage to sell enough of these new books, he'll get enough commission to spend one weekend in a motel with mirrors on the ceiling and a coin operated bed. Honestly, he's been promised.I don't think James has a whole lot to do with this book in all honesty. I think he's way too deep in the APs and Campaign Setting stuff to be working on the rules stuffs.
It's a joke, and he's already posted about sleeping in his office.
|
Am I looking forward to seeing the Gunslinger and firearms in Pathfinder? No, not particularly, and for reasons that are beyond the 11 gold/shot scenario- guns don't quite mesh with my idea of Pathfinder/D&D as "King Arthur's Europe and the Middle East, plus magic."
But my part of my group's homebrew world is modeled on samurai Japan, so what do I know? I won't be begrudging the rest of the group to use guns in their regions (I already know one friend is.)
I've seen very FEW instances where mixing magic and technology works in ANY medium.
There are exceptions. One of them is the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I've played in pirate campaigns set in that time period and it worked out great well, so the gun rules do have a place, just not in your standard campaigns.
Gunslinger shoots a fighter in the head. Right through the temple, brain matter all splattering over the cleric. The level 20 fighter turns. "Hey. I liked that hat."I would totally play a game like that with you, bro.
Oh, yeah.
I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game. I know they are very early stages of guns but imagining someone not in heavy armor getting shot a few times and still fighting takes whatever realism there is in fantasy away. I know if I don't want to use it I don't have to, I just think something like this should stay out of one of the core books. Why not put out a book called 'Firearms' or something, the people that want it will buy it. I know I can't be alone, everyone in my group doesn't want anything to do with it. I hope they reconsider.
You, sir, have not played a single Final Fantasy game, have ya?
Simple actually- we aren't going /anywhere/ near there and aren't likely to do so for a very very very very very very very very long time.
If we went and made a campaign out of it- then I'd expect everyone to make characters appropriate to it.. Just like if we're in Magnimar I expect everyone to make characters appropriate to that.
Its just like the guns. It may be in the book but that doesn't mean it comes into a game I'm in. FR, for example, had guns.. and we still never saw any in our campaigns.
-S
The guns in FR are rare, only common in and around the islands of Lantan. Just how I like it. But I enjoy guns in a fantasy game, too. Renaissance technology at best, with few alchemical/magical/engineering improvements. When the Gunslinger is finalized, depending on how it turns out, I can't wait to introduce it into my Realms game. A player of mine can convert his maenad Rogue into a maenad Rogue/Gunslinger and actually have FUN with using guns instead of hosed :D
I've seen very FEW instances where mixing magic and technology works in ANY medium.
There are exceptions. One of them is the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. I've played in pirate campaigns set in that time period and it worked out great well, so the gun rules do have a place, just not in your standard campaigns.
Really?
I've yet to see mixing magic and technology work poorly quite frankly.
|
I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game. I know they are very early stages of guns but imagining someone not in heavy armor getting shot a few times and still fighting takes whatever realism there is in fantasy away. I know if I don't want to use it I don't have to, I just think something like this should stay out of one of the core books. Why not put out a book called 'Firearms' or something, the people that want it will buy it. I know I can't be alone, everyone in my group doesn't want anything to do with it. I hope they reconsider.
Guns clash with my idea with high fantasy rpgs so I just ban them when I'm GM. But have no problem with them being in UC just like I have no problem with samurai, ninja being in the same book. (Currently not running an Asian-themed campaign.) I'd rather have fewer books with (nearly) everything available in them than a whole slew of books focused on niche stuff.
Creative Director
|
see here's the thing, James Jacobs has been sleeping in his office for years and if they manage to sell enough of these new books, he'll get enough commission to spend one weekend in a motel with mirrors on the ceiling and a coin operated bed. Honestly, he's been promised.I don't think James has a whole lot to do with this book in all honesty. I think he's way too deep in the APs and Campaign Setting stuff to be working on the rules stuffs.
That's actually true. I WAS the person to take the first stab at designing the gunslinger (for a post-apocalyptic game I've been working on over the past decade—gave the class to Jason and Stephen to idea mine, althoguh I'm not sure much of that original class made it through to the playtest version) and at designing the rules for guns (after talking with Jason, I took a stab at that because there's about a page of rules for guns in the upcoming Inner Sea World Guide; he and Stephen refined those rules to be what you see in the playtest, and those rules will be appearing, in a relatively truncated form sans a gunslinger class, in the Inner Sea World Guide).
But yeah, the bulk of my time is indeed spent working on the Pathfinder Adventure Path, Module, Campaign Setting, and Player's Companion lines these days.
And yes, I'm still waiting for that fancy motel weekend.
"Hot bunk"?Bulhman and Jacobs have to hot bunkOn the list of things I'd never thought I'd get to read on the internet, that comes in at #11.
Hot bunking or hot racking is a naval term, used to describe assigning more than one crew member to a bed. They rotate shifts, and the guy who was on shift goes to a warm bed. Hence the name.
"Hot bunk"?Bulhman and Jacobs have to hot bunkOn the list of things I'd never thought I'd get to read on the internet, that comes in at #11.
Where one person sleeps in the bed and when they roll out, the other rolls in. Bunk is kept warm. I learned it in the military, although I don't know if it originated there.
see here's the thing, James Jacobs has been sleeping in his office for years and if they manage to sell enough of these new books, he'll get enough commission to spend one weekend in a motel with mirrors on the ceiling and a coin operated bed. Honestly, he's been promised.I don't think James has a whole lot to do with this book in all honesty. I think he's way too deep in the APs and Campaign Setting stuff to be working on the rules stuffs.That's actually true. I WAS the person to take the first stab at designing the gunslinger (for a post-apocalyptic game I've been working on over the past decade—gave the class to Jason and Stephen to idea mine, althoguh I'm not sure much of that original class made it through to the playtest version) and at designing the rules for guns (after talking with Jason, I took a stab at that because there's about a page of rules for guns in the upcoming Inner Sea World Guide; he and Stephen refined those rules to be what you see in the playtest, and those rules will be appearing, in a relatively truncated form sans a gunslinger class, in the Inner Sea World Guide).
But yeah, the bulk of my time is indeed spent working on the Pathfinder Adventure Path, Module, Campaign Setting, and Player's Companion lines these days.
And yes, I'm still waiting for that fancy motel weekend.
hah! good fun!
Anyway for those of you who don't know "hot bunk" is a navy term.
There are three shifts on ship, 8 hours each (or two shifts of 12) so while on person is on duty, one person is off duty, and the other person is sleeping, but between them there is only enough space for one 'bunk' (or bed), so at shift change, off duty guy goes to bed, bed guy goes on duty and on duty guy goes off duty.
So there is always someone in the bunk, and by the time you get there, it is 'hot' from the body warmth of the last guy.
It's a term to say you have to share sleeping quarters. (essentially because there isnt enough room or money to pay for separate ones)
It was meant as a joke, poking at the fact that they don't actually make that much money, once the whole thing is said and done, between putting a book to press, shipping, handling, editing, sub contractors blah blah blah, so they have to keep churning out more material and rob peter to pay paul....
any way its not as funny when you have to explain it all out.
It was just a joke. I'm glad James thought it was quirky and weird.
Oh and James, Post apocalyptic rpg?? You mean between TMNT-after the bomb, and cyberpunk that genre isn't covered?? Tell me you don't enjoy playing an adolescent radioactive black belt hampster?
Surviving a gunshot in-game: It grazed you. It went through your arm/shoulder/leg cleanly, it dinged off your armor just enough to rattle you and leave you sore.
Surviving an axe: It grazed you. It was a shallow cut. It slammed off your armor enough to rattle you and leave you sore.
Same diff.
Remember that hp doesn't directly describe how wounded you are, if at all. It's an abstraction.
That's how I run it. If HP aren't abstract, then the game is even goofier than otherwise. :)
|
|
I won't be having guns in any of my campaighns. Nor will I purchase anything that heavily embraces them. I am disappointed that Paizo has chosen to spend their limited resources in this area but what can I do.
This is exactly how you handle the situation. Its a lot easier to not allow some rules than it is to create new rules for MANY players. You don't like guns, you don't have to use them nor do you have to buy the book. Thats the beauty of these books! But there are just as many people who like guns. They have just as much right to have guns that you do to not have them. It amazes me the amount of people who whine about how they hate this and that, so it shouldn't even be added, instead of NOT buying something. Thats selfish, but everyone is being a bit selfish when it comes to what they feel should or should not be in the game. For what its worth, I have no problem with guns in my Pathfinder. I don't think Ill use them unless changes come, however. But I will still allow them if someone chooses to use them in my games.
In the end it makes much more sense to fall on the "add it in for those who want it and let those who don't a) ignore it and/or b) not buy the book in the first place" camp. Two main reasons the way I see it. One, Paizo, as much as the love doing their jobs, is a company first, and they need to make a profit to continue putting out their stuff. Part of making that profit involves selling new ideas. Unfortunately it is impossible to make some that 100% of the people will agree on, fact of life. So that means they need to put out a wide range of ideas, to appeal to as many people as possible. Voting with your wallet is the BEST way to inform Paizo what the majority thinks works and what doesnt. They see certain books will sell better than others, and take notice.
Because of the nature of PnP games, its very easy to ignore books and even parts of books you do not care for! This leads into my second point. Ok, that was my second point. Its much easier, at least for most players I know, to ignore content and not buy books, than it is to leave stuff out and have it houseruled in. Not every one who plays is an RPG designer in their off time. Not everyone is capable of adding in the additions they'd like to see that currently aren't available in the rules. Anyone is capable of saying "I dont like this, its not allowed in my game." or "Ehh I dont think ninja's belong in my world, and gunslingers, they dont make any sense! Im not going to buy this book."
The phrase that comes to mind to me is "Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it." In this case, replace "need" with "want".
This game is for everyone. To rant and rave about how something that one person might be waiting with baited breath to use should not be included comes off as a bit selfish. Sure, both sides can be selfish, but for the reasons I've stated, its best to fall on one side of the camp or other.
And for what its worth cibet44, I'm quoting you not to tell you are wrong, but to illustrate what I feel is the PROPER mindset that should be had in all this. You are handling the situation correctly and maturely and I applaud you for this. You have your opinion, and you are voicing that with your wallet!
Ive played final fantasy and tactics
you must have really Hated Mustadio then. He even had the "targeting specific body parts" trope the gunslinger has.
I think guns are perfectly welcome in fantasy; however i dont think that, without major changes, that very many people will play a "gunslinger" more than a session or two, ever.
I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game. I know they are very early stages of guns but imagining someone not in heavy armor getting shot a few times and still fighting takes whatever realism there is in fantasy away. I know if I don't want to use it I don't have to, I just think something like this should stay out of one of the core books. Why not put out a book called 'Firearms' or something, the people that want it will buy it. I know I can't be alone, everyone in my group doesn't want anything to do with it. I hope they reconsider.
Someone not in heavy armor taking multiple direct blows from an axe and still fighting is not very 'realistic', either. ;)
As other have noted, the whole idea of level increasing HP is an abstraction. A 20 hit point blow to a normal man might be a decapitation or a shot to the heart. The same number against a high level fighter may represent a grazing blow. Grazing gunshots or grazing axe blows- I don't see a huge difference in game terms.
I think that rules for guns certainly do belong in the new Ultimate Combat book. That's a perfect fit. If a DM doesn't like that portion of the book, he can and should ignore it.
Guns have been part of 'official' published D&D since at least the late 1970s. I don't mean just medieval guns, either. The AD&D 1ST DMG has rules for using revolvers and dynamite in AD&D!
ALKENSTAR FOREVER!
Like most companies I'm sure the silent majority is what pays the bills.
Do you imagine that hating guns (and refusing to buy a book that has even one class/archetype built around them) puts you in the silent majority, or the vocal minority?
You're going to refuse to buy the entire book because it has one class that uses guns?
Um.
I can't stand the thought of having guns with Sword and magic, I think it ruins the game.
...
I hope they reconsider.
Why reconsider?
What you're suggesting is like the one guy that hates pepperoni, complains about it till everyone is sick of it... and so the other five are stuck with cheese on the game night's pizza. You don't really want to be "That Guy", do you? Some of us remember that you've been able to use blackpowder devices in Fantasy Settings since they were invented! :)
This is something I've been telling people who repeat this same "I hate guns. I don't want them in my fantasy game." speech for the last decade or so.
---
If you're the GM... keep them out of your games.
If you're a player... don't play in games that have them.
---
Simple as that, OP. Having it in the book doesn't hurt you or your game at all. Not having it in the book screws the people that want it.