|
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 :)
Michael Moorcock, 'The Warhound and the World's Pain'?
Set during the Thirty Years War.
The book is set in Europe ravaged by the Thirty Years' War. Its hero Ulrich von Bek is a mercenary and freethinker, who finds himself a damned soul in a castle owned by Lucifer. Much to his surprise, von Bek is charged by Lucifer with doing God's work, by finding the Holy Grail, the "cure for the world's pain," that will also cure Lucifer's pain by reconciling him with God. Only through doing this can von Bek save his soul.
After many adventures, von Bek eventually finds the Holy Grail, and discovers that it will set mankind on the path to self-redemption through rationality, without the help of God or the hindrance of Lucifer.
I used to hate the idea of guns in D&D,but then I played Fable 3 and read the above book(among others)by Moorcock. Now I think it ain't so bad and might even be cool.
Yes. Yes I agree with you. 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.
The Gunslinger class + the gun rules + the Gunslinger feats + the Gunslinger magic weapon properties take up a total of about 6 to 6.5 pages of space. Even assuming there's a few more feats, magic items, and guns, that's still less than 10 pages of content devoted to guns. Ultimate Combat is a three hundred and twenty page book. Is spending less than 1/32 of your page count on a concept really "heavily embracing" it?
|
+1
I absolutely agree with everything you said. I feel somewhat similarly, although not as strongly, about the ninja, samurai, and related gear. By putting these things into a book called "Ultimate Combat" GMs and adventure writers are placed in the position of choosing:
A) Let the typical fantasy setting disappear in a flood of ninjas & guns.
B) Prohibit the use of material from Ultimate Combat, and listen to all of the non-casters whine about unfairness.
C) Prohibit the use of material from "The Ultimate books" losing quite a bit of material.
D) Pick through every book allowing and disallowing material.I would much rather see a Pathfinder Oriental Adventures book containing the ninja, samurai, oriental themed weapons, etc. I would absolutely love to see a Pathfinder steampunk or swashbuckler book that represents a few hundred years of technological advancement on the standard fantasy world. It would be an incredible help to GMs and play groups everywhere if these were separate books!
Except either of those two books you'd like to see would be VERY hard pressed to fill 320 pages in the PFRPG line of products. Hence why they are only PART of the Ultimate Combat book. And yes, as to your bullets points all are valid. Option D seems to be the best way to go. And I disagree with option A, as Golarion ALREADY HAS NINJAS AND GUNS. See Tian Xia and Alkenstar. They just have not been expanded upon rules wise until now. Dont like them, DONT USE THEM.
Everyone gets it; (collective) you doesnt like guns/ninjas/hippos/clowns/whatever in your Pathfinder. You are 100% right in your opinion to think so! Its really quite simple, DON'T ALLOW WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE. What this does NOT give you the right to do however, is dictate what should and shouldn't be printed. Why should people who DO like the added material miss out on it because not everyone likes it? This is the ONE point the anti guns/ninja crowd has yet to explain satisfactory, or even at all. I keep seeing how it ruins their view of the setting blah blah, yet not a single one acknowledges or counters the argument why people who DO like guns and ninjas should not have them because others dont like it. Its MUCH MUCH easier to disallow material you dont want, than it is to add in material you do want to use. I fail to see how this is a problem. Guns/Ninjas only exist in your game IF YOU ALLOW THEM.
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.Yes. Yes I agree with you. 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.
On these boards some users tend to be VERY vocal about certain topics and firearms is one of them (psionics another) when this is the case ultimately Paizo feels compelled to respond and they have done so now with the Gunslinger. Hopefully that's all we'll see. I won't rant or rage against firearms but I also won't purchase anything to do with them. Like most companies I'm sure the silent majority is what pays the bills.
Then it will be your loss when everyone is else is enjoying the non-gun materials in the book (which probably takes up 90% of the book) for their games and you're not, just because it has a small section dedicated to those that want guns in their game.
I really don't much care for using Background Traits in my games, but you don't see me griping about not playing with any Pathfinder books that have Background Traits in them. ;)
Ultimate Combat is a three hundred and twenty page book. Is spending less than 1/32 of your page count on a concept really "heavily embracing" it?
I thought it was a 256-page book? If it is 320 pages, all the more sweeter, but I thought the product page states 256? Did they up it, cause that would make me swoon.
Ultimate Combat is a three hundred and twenty page book. Is spending less than 1/32 of your page count on a concept really "heavily embracing" it?I thought it was a 256-page book? If it is 320 pages, all the more sweeter, but I thought the product page states 256? Did they up it, cause that would make me swoon.
I just assumed it would be the same size as the Advanced Player's Guide. Mea culpa for not looking it up; I'm sure the product page is correct. That's "less than 5/128" then, which isn't nearly as neat.
I would much rather see a Pathfinder Oriental Adventures book containing the ninja, samurai, oriental themed weapons, etc. I would absolutely love to see a Pathfinder steampunk or swashbuckler book that represents a few hundred years of technological advancement on the standard fantasy world. It would be an incredible help to GMs and play groups everywhere if these were separate books!
It's fun because other publishers (you know what I mean) would have probably put these options in 3 separate splatbook with 2-3 relevant things each and tons of useless crap.
Paizo put a lot of useful stuff in the APG. Stuff very diverse that I will not use all in the same campaign, but i will use one time or another. This adds a lot to the value of the book, and the time span I will use it. UM and UC are likely to do the same.
Should Paizo regret to put diverse stuff in their books? Are customers actually complaining of this?
Moreover, you are not forced to play Ninjas and Samurai as Ninjas and Samurai. I see guns difficult to refluff, but complain for a Cavalier archetype is, frankly, quite odd.
|
My thoughts on the upcoming gunslinger, other Ultimate Classes, APG classes and other new stuff that are and will be coming out:
- There's the element of novelty for the gunslinger, ninja and samurai. Sure most people will look at these but the newer and least established a class is, the fact is that the chances people will use it in a standard 4 PC party is low.
- When the APG came out our Tuesday group had all kinds of intentions to play inquisitors, oracles, knights and what not. When it came down to a week or two before campaign start, all the regular roles were filled up (cleric, wizard, fighter) with the exception of rogue ('cause the guy had played a rogue in the last three campaigns we've done, so not to feel type casted, he went for sorcerer, and a fifth player went for ranger) :)
- In short, those of you who are 'scared' that gunslingers will line all the PRPG gaming tables in a year's time need not fear. The essentials are always going to win as they cover all functions the game require.
PS: those who have been type casted in the dreaded rogue role for years, like the player from our Tuesday group, can maybe now forced into the gunslinger role, as they can shoot locks instead of picking them... LOL!
Funny, but I don't like having firearms in the settings I run, but I have no problem running a module like S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, complete with ray guns, blasters, and hand grenades. Guess I have a double standard.
I didn't trouble to read the whole thread, but I'm assuming that someone has mentioned by now that medieval firearms have been in the game since the beginning. You also see that juxtaposition in the pulp fantasy fiction that inspired the game.
I don't like the Summoner class. They always seemed like the Eidolon was the real character to me. I probably won't have them in any of my games.
My opinion of them won't stop me from using the parts I like in the APG. It won't stop me from playing in games where a GM allows and uses them. It won't cause me to hold it against Paizo for making them and putting them in their campaign setting.
How does my opinion trump others? Why does fantasy have to be limited to one point of view? So Summoner is not my thing, but I can see that it has its place and that others do like them. If other people like them and want the character who has a magical buddy, it makes sense that Paizo makes it an option in their game. Ultimately it has very little effect on me and does nothing to kill fantasy for my or my enjoyment of Pathfinder.
Now I've played and run games that allowed for guns and enjoyed them. I'm very interest to see how they come out in UC. So if I and others would like to use them in some of our games, why shouldn't Paizo take this into account?
I don't mind guns in fantasy. I actually prefer it for the most part. I do wish guns in fantasy were "fantasy guns" and not our guns adapted to a fantasy world.
However, I do not want to have guns in PF if it means the guns are a crappier version of a crossbow! Personally, I would like to see more Western era guns like a shotgun, good rifles and the classic revolver and not another smattering of ineffective muskets and flintlocks. Essentially, guns with a good rate of fire that can compete with bow wielding characters that aren't finicky P.o.S. that will explode in your face because you handled it wrong.
I absolutely agree with everything you said. I feel somewhat similarly, although not as strongly, about the ninja, samurai, and related gear. By putting these things into a book called "Ultimate Combat" GMs and adventure writers are placed in the position of choosing:
A) Let the typical fantasy setting disappear in a flood of ninjas & guns.
B) Prohibit the use of material from Ultimate Combat, and listen to all of the non-casters whine about unfairness.
C) Prohibit the use of material from "The Ultimate books" losing quite a bit of material.
D) Pick through every book allowing and disallowing material.
A) What do you see as 'typical' fantasy? How does your view of 'typical fantasy' effect your game?
Do you use big, treasure filled dungeons with improbable traps and lots of weird monsters? Do you use Vancean magic? Color coded dragons? Complex Gygaxian planar mechanics?Do you allow monks- a class expressly based on Hong Kong Kung Fu flicks?Is your game tailored to resemble the works of a certain author?
B) Whining? I've yet to see a player actually whine about not getting to play a certain class.
As the saying goes: You play in the man's game, you play by his rules.
C) I wouldn't reject an entire book just because I might not use a certain small section, but that's me. YMMV
D) This is part of the DM's job.
-Ewan
|
|
I guess I don't look at D&D/Pathfinder as real history, its a fantasy rpg and all the novels I've read didn't have guns involved, maybe its just the way I came to look at the game, from the books that got me interested.
Maybe, if the goal is to replicate the source fiction that inspired the FRPG movement, you should start by removing clerics and wizards from your game, since in no book ever written are there any characters who perform the way these classes do in the D&D/PF rules-as-written, except for licenced fiction based on the games themselves (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc).
Instead of throwing down the gauntlet, asking that folks produce examples of fiction in which firearms are mentioned, the reverse is more justified; show me a book in which wizards have eliminated the long rituals of spellcasting, no longer have to debase themselves before fiendish overlords, no longer have to perform blasphemous obesiance, no longer need to carry out bloody sacrifice to power their weakest spells, no longer get disrupted from being hacked in twain, no longer get dragged screaming into Hell because the hero made them mispronounce one syllable of an incantation never designed to be uttered by a human throat.
Get the casters back to being crazy old hermits, who know a few cantrips, and some rituals that can only be performed out of combat and off-screen, and then we can talk seriously about restricting 'out of place' game elements that turn the world on its head.
I guess I don't look at D&D/Pathfinder as real history, its a fantasy rpg and all the novels I've read didn't have guns involved, maybe its just the way I came to look at the game, from the books that got me interested.Maybe, if the goal is to replicate the source fiction that inspired the FRPG movement, you should start by removing clerics and wizards from your game, since in no book ever written are there any characters who perform the way these classes do in the D&D/PF rules-as-written, except for licenced fiction based on the games themselves (Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc).
Get the casters back to being crazy old hermits, who know a few cantrips, and then we can talk seriously about restricting 'out of place' game elements that turn the world on its head.
Well, D&D wizards are actually based on Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories. Not that the Vancean magic in the game works just like Vance's stuff, but the connection is strong, obvious, and well-acknowledged. Gygax said as much.
There is no 'typical fantasy.' Narnia, Middle Earth, the Hyborian Age, E R Edisson's Mercury, Moorcock's Young Kingdoms, etc are all very different worlds. I think that this is a good thing.
|
|
Well, D&D wizards are actually based on Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories. Not that the Vancean magic in the game works just like Vance's stuff, but the connection is strong, obvious, and well-acknowledged. Gygax said as much.
There is no 'typical fantasy.' Narnia, Middle Earth, the Hyborian Age, E R Edisson's Mercury, Moorcock's Young Kingdoms, etc are all very different worlds.
(I added a paragraph while you were typing).
That's my point exactly.
Even in all those different worlds by different authors, there's still not one where magic works like D&D, even the Vancian books.
That fact alone is the biggest impediment to recreating the source material that inspired all of us to investigate this whole 'fantasy gaming' thing. Except for those who got into gaming by D&D licensed fiction, obviously.
Yet some people are wetting their pants, over the introduction of rules for technology that existed centuries before the rapier, full plate, telescopes,....
There were guns in the middle ages. The earliest guns, though only primitive handcannons was used in China perhaps as early as the 12th century. Guns were brought over to Europe at least as early as the 14th century, though they were again, still primitive. Flintlock muskets weren't developed until after the middle ages, however. So having guns in a medieval inspired setting is realistic. Furthermore, there are plenty of anachronisms in D&D already. Of course if you don't like firearms with you're dragons and in you're dungeons for other reasons that's fine.
Well, D&D wizards are actually based on Jack Vance's Dying Earth stories. Not that the Vancean magic in the game works just like Vance's stuff, but the connection is strong, obvious, and well-acknowledged. Gygax said as much.
There is no 'typical fantasy.' Narnia, Middle Earth, the Hyborian Age, E R Edisson's Mercury, Moorcock's Young Kingdoms, etc are all very different worlds.
(I added a paragraph while you were typing).
That's my point exactly.
Even in all those different worlds by different authors, there's still not one where magic works like D&D, even the Vancian books.That fact alone is the biggest impediment to recreating the source material that inspired all of us to investigate this whole 'fantasy gaming' thing.
Yet some people are wetting their pants over the introduction of rules for technology that existed centuries before the rapier, full plate, telescopes,....
I've run games in which full plate didn't exist, or rapiers, or spyglasses, or black powder. I've also run games in which all of those things existed, and were even common. I've never used anything much like Andoran's combination of democracy and abolitionism. I've puttered about with psionics a few times, but have generally not used it in games that I run. I've played a monk in AD&D, but I've also run AD&D games in which I didn't allow the class as it didn't fit the setting.
The DM can and should pick through the books, modify rules, refit things, disallow certain elements, etc as he pleases. I fully support that. No one should feel obligated to include everything in the books! It's your game, and you ought to use what you like. What works in one campaign, in one setting, may not work in others. The DM should decide.
What I don't get is the appeal to some sort of undefined 'typical fantasy.' There isn't any such animal.
"Typical fantasy" = "Boring unimaginative world"
I don't read that stuff, whatever it is. I can't even think of any good examples.
As far as D&D goes, most of the published D&D worlds have been pretty odd places.
Greyhawk is 'classic D&D'- meaning of course that it's a bizarre Gygaxian blend of Vance, Lieber, Howard, Lovecraft, Dunsany, Tolkien, B movie monsters, historical wargaming inspired stuff, giant bugs, dinosaurs, etc.
Mystara is possibly even weirder than GH. Glantri, anyone?
Canonical FR is pretty light on the pulp sci fi elements, but it is definitely chock full of strangeness.
Dragonlance imitiates Tolkien, but in a very D&D kind of way. It's D&D's Pulp-kien! Three moons connected with magic, kender, tinker gnomes, etc= a pretty distintive fantasy setting.
Ravenloft mashes Gothic Horror into the ripe mix of D&D for memorable results.
Dark Sun? It's...ahhh...rrr...psionic sword and sandal planetary romance D&D?
Spelljammer. Need I say more?
Planescape? I just said more
|
Adding guns to fantasy is just a matter of personal preference. You can't compare real world timelines, previous editions of games, thousands of books, etc. It simply boils down to what you want in your game. I can see some of the options function well with certain settings. For myself, I am running Legacy of Fire, not Legacy of Firearms, so I would not allow any gunslingers in LoF. I could possibly see them in Serpents Skull.
I enjoy many other games that have firearms in them, so I am not overly interested in them in Pathfinder. I don't have an urge to play one. I also don't see me using the new book much, if at all. I would have rather seen the Ninja and Samurai in a big book with plenty of fluff for a campaign that suits those types of characters. I would also have preferred to see the Gunslinger as less of a western style feel and more of a steampunk/swashbuckler feel in a book of oddball options to spice up your fantasy world.
Spelljammer. Need I say more?Planescape? I just said more
I'm sorry, but no acronym can truely describe how hard you made me laugh.
I'm sorry, but no acronym can truely describe how hard you made me laugh.
Spelljammer. Need I say more?Planescape? I just said more
:)
Happy goblin does the 'dance, magic dance!"
I'm not suggesting there should not be anything on guns, I already said I think they should come out with a book just for 'firearms', core and prestige classes, equipment, rules, etc.
The thing I don't get is: Forgotten Realms did the opposite of what you suggest, and yet you seem to be a fan of that setting.
Golarion almost couldn't be more like FR's take on firearms.
I'm not suggesting there should not be anything on guns, I already said I think they should come out with a book just for 'firearms', core and prestige classes, equipment, rules, etc. Why wouldn't people who like guns in there campaigns want more? As you can see there are people on both sides, not just yours. Yes, I'd...
I for one would rather have the rules for them in a large, versitile book. If you just do a setting neutral firearms book, it would probably be a small book and the writers would have to come up with a lot of extra stuff that you might not need, like different eras of guns. If you tie it to a campaign type you have to figure out what you want to do (Steampunk, Swashbuckling, Gothic Horror, etc). These might be fun and exciting additions to PF but it becomes a pain if your carrying around a big setting book just for firearms (We have the Iron Kingdoms book for our game atm X_x).
As UC is shaping up to be one of those books that it won't matter if parts of the book aren't in use, it will end up at game due to the wide variety of information in it. I would rather the rules be in UC then having to carry both UC and a Firearms book.
As I"ve said before, D&D right now is medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon that follows a pastiche of modern morality fighting against brain sucking aliens from the future.
...I mean, I guess you can say guns take it too far, I'm just not sure how.
As I"ve said before, D&D right now is medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping a greek pantheon that follows a pastiche of modern morality fighting against brain sucking aliens from the future.
...I mean, I guess you can say guns take it too far, I'm just not sure how.
and that makes Touhou "normal" by comparison as well.
why can't i get my saturday DM to run a Touhou styled pathfinder campaign? that grognard shall learn to love Hakurei Reimu, and all her little girlfriends too. Izayoi Sakuya, Cirno, Marisa Kirisame, Alice Margatroid, and Remilia Scarlet.
|
|
I haven't read those but of course the other big one for "fantasy with guns" is The Dark Tower series from Stephen King.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 have no problem with device that poorly imitates a low level casters ability. A few holstered wands of magic missiles make a dangerous foe.
I see some folks upset about flavor. Honestly it's your table, the flavor is yours create and adjust. If your a slave to the core RAW then I think it's easy enough to interpret. Gunslingers are just another option certainly not going to overshadow a wizard or a dragon anytime soon. See it for what it is and don't confuse it with our own history.
I'm not suggesting there should not be anything on guns, I already said I think they should come out with a book just for 'firearms', core and prestige classes, equipment, rules, etc. Why wouldn't people who like guns in there campaigns want more? As you can see there are people on both sides, not just yours. Yes, I'd rather not see them in UC, but its not the end of world.
You have to understand this in the context of pathfinders actual release schedule. They arent releasing 20 books a year. They are releasing 3 for the rpg. 1 of them is a bestiary. Thats 2 a year to split between character options like UC and the APG, and DM material like the GMG. So gunfighting, has to go in the book about fighting, ultimate combat. There is no place for a 'big book of firearms' in the Pathfinder RPG line.
You have to think how much stuff in a rule book never sees the light of day?
Remember the old DMG, that was like gray matter. Most gaming tables used 10% of that book at best.
Or Fiend Folio or one of those books how many monsters int he book did you actually meet up with. Every monster book has monsters in it any given table just doesnt use.
I can't remember the last time i saw a gelatinous cube (actually it was in droskars keep in the kobold king module), but heck the gun section of ultimate combat is going to take a a few pages, the ninja and samurai around the same, this isnt going to be a 9-12 pages book, so there will be ALOT of cool things in it.
|
|
Your probably right, especially considering there isn't enough material to produce a 256+ hardcover, I was only thinking of a 64 or 96 page softcover. My mind will not be changed though, I just don't like guns in sword n sorcery rpgs.
The thing about guns is you probably couldn't even fill a 64 or 96 page book. There just isn't a whole lot to them, MAYBE 20 pages if your stretching things. This is probably why I'd guess they are going in as part of UC and not their own book.
And I cant speak for everyone obviously, but I'm not one trying to convince the anti-gun people to like guns. Let me say that again, it is your right to like and dislike whatever parts of the game you do. My entire stance is against the part of the community whose mantra is "I don't like this, so it shouldn't be in the game AT ALL". Or "I dont like it, so NO ONE should have it" if you will. If you don't like something, don't use it and it no longer is an issue in your game! Problem solved. Im not a fan of psionics, plenty of people love it. I am not going to whine and moan about how Paizo shouldnt even make a Psionics book eventually. It gets made and I don't buy it. My game is unaffected. Or if they hide psionics in another book that I want, I buy said book, and Psionics never gets used. Either way, its a simple fix on the player and GM's end.
Your probably right, especially considering there isn't enough material to produce a 256+ hardcover, I was only thinking of a 64 or 96 page softcover. My mind will not be changed though, I just don't like guns in sword n sorcery rpgs.You have to understand this in the context of pathfinders actual release schedule. They arent releasing 20 books a year. They are releasing 3 for the rpg. 1 of them is a bestiary. Thats 2 a year to split between character options like UC and the APG, and DM material like the GMG. So gunfighting, has to go in the book about fighting, ultimate combat. There is no place for a 'big book of firearms' in the Pathfinder RPG line.
I'm not suggesting there should not be anything on guns, I already said I think they should come out with a book just for 'firearms', core and prestige classes, equipment, rules, etc. Why wouldn't people who like guns in there campaigns want more? As you can see there are people on both sides, not just yours. Yes, I'd rather not see them in UC, but its not the end of world.
Indeed and 64 page soft covers are not part of the RPG line, which means that it simply wouldn't work.
However I understand that you have no interest in bringing firearms into your fantasy, and in that case you shouldn't. I am fairly confident the vast majority of people can find 10-15 pages in any 300 page sourcebook they arent going to use. For you that will be the firearms stuff. With their given release model, it will impossible for paizo to produce sourcebooks that everyone will want to use 100% of, and it is their intention and expectation for people to cherry pick what they want.
The problem is, over the years, how the game has developed into a "it says here in the rule book I can do/have this" whiney pants arguement.
In the old days only a DM had a DMG and usually he only had all the rule books. These days, everyone has the rule books, everyone has become a rules lawyer and if you don't stick to everything in the book exactly as it is written, it's YOUR homebrew and I dont like it!! Wa Wa Wa all the way home.
Like I've seen many paizo people post, Page 9, Core Rule book (which IS RAW) the Most Important Rule.
People, grow some hair on your chest and don't allow people to argue with you about rules at your table.
It is a problem tho, and people who see a rulebook come out with stuff they don't want have nightmares about their gamer comming to their table with a new set of outrageous things to give them headaches.
The problem is, over the years, how the game has developed into a "it says here in the rule book I can do/have this" whiney pants arguement.
In the old days only a DM had a DMG and usually he only had all the rule books. These days, everyone has the rule books, everyone has become a rules lawyer and if you don't stick to everything in the book exactly as it is written, it's YOUR homebrew and I dont like it!! Wa Wa Wa all the way home.
Like I've seen many paizo people post, Page 9, Core Rule book (which IS RAW) the Most Important Rule.
People, grow some hair on your chest and don't allow people to argue with you about rules at your table.
It is a problem tho, and people who see a rulebook come out with stuff they don't want have nightmares about their gamer comming to their table with a new set of outrageous things to give them headaches.
I agree, and the only place this is actually a problem in my opinion is organized play, where you really are stuck with the letter of the rules, but then again, if you agree to play in a place where there is a whole country all about guns, it isnt really right for you to then complain about someone using firearms.
The problem is, over the years, how the game has developed into a "it says here in the rule book I can do/have this" whiney pants arguement.
In the old days only a DM had a DMG and usually he only had all the rule books. These days, everyone has the rule books, everyone has become a rules lawyer and if you don't stick to everything in the book exactly as it is written, it's YOUR homebrew and I dont like it!! Wa Wa Wa all the way home.
Like I've seen many paizo people post, Page 9, Core Rule book (which IS RAW) the Most Important Rule.
People, grow some hair on your chest and don't allow people to argue with you about rules at your table.
It is a problem tho, and people who see a rulebook come out with stuff they don't want have nightmares about their gamer comming to their table with a new set of outrageous things to give them headaches.
I also can't understand why this is a problem. In my current game I'm playing the DM said their are no Elves, Halflings, Half-Orcs, or Druids availible for players. Half-orcs didn't exist in the world and the others were "bad guys" for the campaign. Our DM cut out chunks of the Core book and when he gave us the campaign setting we didn't whine once.
Edit to add an amusing story: One of our last games in 3.5 a Gelatinous Cube accounted for two PC deaths :)
pouncing cubes, humorous, now im going to have to have one climb a tree and pounce out of it in a jungle setting like a cheetah!
|
|
I will buy and am looking forward to UC, I would rather the gun stuff not be in there but I see there are many who do want it and it would probly piss them off alot more if they took it out compared to me just having to overlook it.
I got someone to change their mind on the Internet.
This thread should be skinned, stuffed, and mounted.
I did not change my mind, still don't like guns in PF/DnD. Definately not anything you said came close to persuading me. LOL
OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS
I wonder if Paizo is getting the hint that their gunslinger rules aren't that well received and they need to do some fixin'.
The issue is the fan base is divided:
some are realist trying to keep the gunslinger down in real terms even if ever weapon/armor in Pathfinder is not close to realism.Than you have the fantacist: who dislike guns in their world.
They claim because they think they were not guns in medival times (they wrong accordingto history) so upset.
Then there are the game players: What expensive stuff to use gun, slow reload, misfires, and low damage?
So hopefully they listen to group 3 as
the fantacist can't be appeased. They won't care if they wrong factually (ironically since there claim is based on whether it was), they don't like guns in fantasy.
And the Realist don't want the class to be fun/viable, they only care that is is hard as a real gun user would be back than.
The game players should be listened as the expensive nature is arkward. Why is gunslinger mechanically imhibited so? Presumily he should be better than common joe with a gun.