Now, if this is just for paladins, rangers, and bards, then I actually have little to no problem! But clerics, wizards, and druids? Absolutely no, they don't need any of those things.
Right, because clerics and druids aren't expected to get in the thick of battle. It's not like they have d8 hit dice or an average BAB or medium armor or anything like that.
PRD:
If I want to be really good at combat, the answer should not be "Make a wizard."
How many "really good at combat" wizard builds are there? How many of them make you at least as good as a fighter or barbarian?
But it's good that you assume that "more spells" automatically means "it's all about wizards and not for the other classes that are actually expected to get a sword to the face now and then." Because what this thread needs is more panic and exaggeration.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Who cares if it's Paizos or not?
Because if it isn't Paizo's, then you can't use it in PFS.
We don't want guns to be common in Golarion, hence the price.
We do want a gunslinger character.
We do want to give you the ability to make guns more prevalent in your game, if you want.
We do want guns to be an approximation of the way they worked historically.
We don't need them to be a perfect model of that history.
We do want them to possibly have the same effect on the game that they had historically if you want.
We do want them to be a viable, cool option for characters.
We don't want them to be broken and way too good.
I agree with all those stances, I just don't agree the guns (primarily) and the class (secondarily) properly uphold those stances.
I don't care about the price of the weapon or the per/shot price. They are fine as is.
I don't like the concept that the Gunslinger uses a resource (Grit) that is limited, yet is the only way to effectively use the weapon.
I don't like the concept that the Gunslinger fundamentally is exception with guns and no other class could even be built to be close to as effective. Gunslinger should be better than a straight fighter, but not run circles around the straight fighter when using guns.
I don't like the DPR of guns being one fifth that of a melee but compared to a heavily optimized Light Crossbow, they are about 79 % of the Crossbow damage. A far cry from Bow damage.
I'd prefer to see Grit/deeds simply features of the class.
I like Grit better than Deeds, rename Deeds to Grit.
Remove the Grit point concept.
Remove Deadeye and replace with Aim ("Move action for +4 to attack in same round" or something)
Remove Quick Clear, guns no longer jam/become broken by use.
Pistol Whip no longer requires points, otherwise the same.
Remove Covering Shot
Remove Targeting (it is just strange compared to existing non-melee effects. If kept then just remove the Head shot doing confusing and mind effecting, instead try Blinding or Deafening for 1 minute and not mind affecting)
Remove Bleeding Wound and make it into a bonus feat that is granted at that level. Make the feat something like 1d6 bleed and kill the Dex Bleed and Str damage.
Remove Blast Lock/Scoot Unattended Object/Stop Bleeding and make them available for anyone with EWP Firearm or Firearm Utility Shooter (and make the feat available as a bonus feat to Gunslingers.)
Remove Expert Loading
Remove grit from Stunning Shot
Remove grit from Deadly Shot and instead of grit make it such that the confirmation roll is more than 10 over the AC the shot is a kill shot.)
Change Gun Training to grant Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec for firearms or GWF/GWS for ones already granted WF/WS at 5th, 9th, 13th, 17th.
Change True Grit to grant a bonus to ranged attacks (+4?) and/or some other thing that is good while grit is removed.
Give us data
What sort of data? DPR ratings? In game damage output with target AC values? General player 'nah' response to "do you want to play a Gunslinger?"
What sort of data do you need?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, if this is just for paladins, rangers, and bards, then I actually have little to no problem! But clerics, wizards, and druids? Absolutely no, they don't need any of those things.Right, because clerics and druids aren't expected to get in the thick of battle. It's not like they have d8 hit dice or an average BAB or medium armor or anything like that.
PRD:
How many "really good at combat" wizard builds are there? How many of them make you at least as good as a fighter or barbarian?
But it's good that you assume that "more spells" automatically means "it's all about wizards and not for the other classes that are actually expected to get a sword to the face now and then." Because what this thread needs is more panic and exaggeration.
Sean, I respect your work highly (you can find me singing praises to you, Monte Cook, and others on these very boards), but I must ask you a question that I think is relevant, and if you can answer it for me, then you will probably answer you own question.
How many Fighter builds are there that can control the battlefield, heal their allies, buff their allies, and/or turn people into various forms of mineral or fuzzy hamsters?
As to answering your wizard question about really good at combat wizards, that would be pretty much all of them, from abjurer to transmuter; unless you mean good in melee combat, in which case its pretty much any transmuter since they get a wide variety of nice self-buff spells which don't require a lot of casting stat to take advantage of, and can even create their own flanking buddies with a wand of summon monster.
Really, my 12yo brother built a sorcerer that would melee all the time, from a kobold, and could do it with an armor class that was respectable (or impressive, depending on the level), and often made a better tank than the warrior types.
Pathfinder also has seemed to try to cut-down on melee lockdown builds.
Anyway, I await your response with excitement.
Edit: Also yes, clerics are a lot about strength of arms. They do that quite well actually. We get spells like Divine Favor and Righteous Might, which are pretty sexy. One feat and you have full heavy armor proficiency; the lower HP is offset by your healing power and great Fortitude and Will saves, and not only are you a great warrior with magic but you also buff everyone else around you; making you more valuable to the party.
I think, perhaps, the concern is that if it wasn't for the weaknesses these classes have in this one area, compared to the weaknesses that all the other classes have in all areas but this one, that it might tip the scales a little too far (just like in 3.5).
Let me put it another way:
For many of us the most frustrating thing in 3e and the most welcoming thing in PF is that 3e had far, far, far too many spells for wizards and clerics. There was a spell for every occasion, and I believe literally no book didn't have a wizard spell in it. Even the psionics book had wizard spells.
Please do not go back down that path.
Well..
Here I switched from my mountain of books for 3.5 just to have the same thing happen again?
I cant believe they think its ok to give spells that can do combat manuevers (I playtested some witch hexes that did it from a splat book, just insane even though it was only once per opponent).
Spells that can do what fighters, barbarians, and rogues can do is just not fair.
you gonna create abilities for fighters barbarians and rogues that replicate high level spells? doubt it highly.
EDIT: IF you did give high level ability like spells to rogues and barbarians and fighters I would be totally cool with this. Perhaps talents that make skills able to duplicate spells with enough ranks or something. Barbarians with rages that cause the clouds to start forming lightning.
Basically all fighters rogues and barbarians can do is damage and hamper the enemy in combat with manuevers/sneak attacks right now. If you hand that out as a freebee spell that any wizard cleric or druid can learn.... then I just ask why? what does that add to the game besides new spells and better spellcasters? if the rest of the game doesn't recieve some benefit why do it at all?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, because clerics and druids aren't expected to get in the thick of battle. It's not like they have d8 hit dice or an average BAB or medium armor or anything like that.
And they already have an enormous number of tools to do that.
Clerics can easily grab heavy armor with a single feat. They can boost their BAB in any number of ways already.
Druids have the full wildshape option going for them.
Even wizards have plenty of tools. The entire transmutation school gives them a plethora of options on how to mix it up in a fight. Failing that, they can stick to conjuration and literally pop fighters out of thin air.
In fact, I'll ask you in turn: Are they expected to get into the thick of battle right next to fighters? Because if they are, then what's the purpose of a fighter?
How many "really good at combat" wizard builds are there? How many of them make you at least as good as a fighter or barbarian?
There should be zero.
Do you know what the answer should to "I want to make a character that's good at combat maneuvers?"
"Make a fighter."
If wizards or clerics or druids are as good at fighting as fighters are, then what's the purpose of the fighter? To be a cleric that can't cast spells?
But it's good that you assume that "more spells" automatically means "it's all about wizards and not for the other classes that are actually expected to get a sword to the face now and then." Because what this thread needs is more panic and exaggeration.
Like I said, if I was wrong, then mea culpa. It's my mistake! I maintain that the distinction extends to clerics/oracles and druids, however.
By all means give us new paladin and ranger spells. I love those! And a few more spells for bards to mix it up in combat wouldn't be bad either!
But wizards and sorcerers, clerics and oracles, and druids? They already have enough toys. We can give the other classes toys, now.
Now, if this is just for paladins, rangers, and bards, then I actually have little to no problem! But clerics, wizards, and druids? Absolutely no, they don't need any of those things.Right, because clerics and druids aren't expected to get in the thick of battle. It's not like they have d8 hit dice or an average BAB or medium armor or anything like that.
PRD:
How many "really good at combat" wizard builds are there? How many of them make you at least as good as a fighter or barbarian?
But it's good that you assume that "more spells" automatically means "it's all about wizards and not for the other classes that are actually expected to get a sword to the face now and then." Because what this thread needs is more panic and exaggeration.
Sean, I respect your work highly (you can find me singing praises to you, Monte Cook, and others on these very boards), but I must ask you a question that I think is relevant, and if you can answer it for me, then you will probably answer you own question.
How many Fighter builds are there that can control the battlefield, heal their allies, buff their allies, and/or turn people into various forms of mineral or fuzzy hamsters?
As to answering your wizard question about really good at combat wizards, that would be pretty much all of them, from abjurer to transmuter; unless you mean good in melee combat, in which case its pretty much any transmuter since they get a wide variety of nice self-buff spells which don't require a lot of casting stat to take advantage of, and can even create their own flanking buddies with a wand of summon monster.
Really, my 12yo brother built a sorcerer that would melee all the time, from a kobold, and could do it with an armor class that was respectable (or impressive, depending on...
+1
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Folks,
The focus of Ultimate Combat will be on martial combat. There will be _some_ spells and stuff for caster classes, but these spells will largely modify the subsystems introduced in the book, and all of them will have a "combat" theme.
Ultimate Magic is filled with treats for spellcasting classes, but there are a couple of feats in there that a fighter might like (especially if he's got spellcasting buddies), and there are some ranger and paladin archetypes. None of this material is part of the main thrust of the book, but is simply there to provide a well-rounded expression of the core theme, which is "MAGIC".
Ultimate Combat will be the same, only reversed. It will not be a giant book of spells. It _may_ have something a wizard or cleric might want to add to his character, but that material will be buried under lots and lots and lots and lots of stuff for martial warriors.
--Erik
Folks,
The focus of Ultimate Combat will be on martial combat. There will be _some_ spells and stuff for caster classes, but these spells will largely modify the subsystems introduced in the book, and all of them will have a "combat" theme.
Ultimate Magic is filled with treats for spellcasting classes, but there are a couple of feats in there that a fighter might like (especially if he's got spellcasting buddies), and there are some ranger and paladin archetypes. None of this material is part of the main thrust of the book, but is simply there to provide a well-rounded expression of the core theme, which is "MAGIC".
Ultimate Combat will be the same, only reversed. It will not be a giant book of spells. It _may_ have something a wizard or cleric might want to add to his character, but that material will be buried under lots and lots and lots and lots of stuff for martial warriors.
--Erik
Seeing as how that's exactly what most 3.5 books did, you can probably understand our concern... >.>
Hmm. SKR said that there will be more pages devoted to spells than both the Gunslinger and guns combined. Depending on around how many pages is "more" of course. Hopefully, there will not be more goodies for spellcasters in Ultimate Combat than there are for martial characters in Ultimate Magic.
I trust you to make the right decision.
Ultimate Magic is filled with treats for spellcasting classes, but there are a couple of feats in there that a fighter might like (especially if he's got spellcasting buddiesUltimate Combat will be the same, only reversed. It will not be a giant book of spells. It _may_ have something a wizard or cleric might want to add to his character, but that material will be buried under lots and lots and lots and lots of stuff for martial warriors.
--Erik
If this is the case, maybe. I still dont like it. If you want to give the wizard or cleric an archetype that loses spells to gain combat prowess cool, I am all for it. If you want to give them spells that help other combatants in their party, also cool.
But the way Sean is making it sound is that it will contain spells that make it possible for wizards and clerics to wade into battle and emulate a feat or feat chain with a spell they can swap out the next day, when mister fighter is in the corner wondering why it took him four levels to learn that same stuff.
I would argue telekenesis is bad enough as it is, and its a 6th level spell.
If you make a "trip spell" a level 1 or 2 spell, that is just ridiculous.
AGAIN are you planning on letting rogues barbarians and fighters perform abilities that emulate spells of approxiametly? if so then fine, but I doubt it.
What sort of data? DPR ratings? In game damage output with target AC values? General player 'nah' response to "do you want to play a Gunslinger?"
What sort of data do you need?
They have said repeatedly in this and other playtests that they would prefer to see reports of experiences in game. Make a character and run it through a one-shot with your friends. Write about how it turned out. If you want to record your every attack, cool. If you just want to write your impressions afterwards, cool. Just get out there and put the play in playtest.
But the way Sean is making it sound is that it will contain spells that make it possible for wizards and clerics to wade into battle and emulate a feat or feat chain with a spell they can swap out the next day, when mister fighter is in the corner wondering why it took him four levels to learn that same stuff.
I did not see that at all. I saw that there will be some spells geared toward combat in the book. This whole tangent came about because someone pointed out that there would be about as much info on the new classes as there would be about new spells. The answer: very little of either.
I seriously doubt there will be a "make me into a fighter spell". Much more likely there will be some buffs. The designers avoid putting feats or class features into magic items, I doubt they are going to change their stance and add them into spells (which would put them into scrolls/wands/potions).
But the way Sean is making it sound is that it will contain spells that make it possible for wizards and clerics to wade into battle and emulate a feat or feat chain with a spell they can swap out the next day, when mister fighter is in the corner wondering why it took him four levels to learn that same stuff.I did not see that at all. I saw that there will be some spells geared toward combat in the book. This whole tangent came about because someone pointed out that there would be about as much info on the new classes as there would be about new spells. The answer: very little of either.
I seriously doubt there will be a "make me into a fighter spell". Much more likely there will be some buffs. The designers avoid putting feats or class features into magic items, I doubt they are going to change their stance and add them into spells (which would put them into scrolls/wands/potions).
Sean has already posted that their are plans to stop vehicles, perform combat manuevers and such.
Thus my concern.
Clerics can easily grab heavy armor with a single feat. They can boost their BAB in any number of ways already.
Druids have the full wildshape option going for them.
Even wizards have plenty of tools. The entire transmutation school gives them a plethora of options on how to mix it up in a fight. Failing that, they can stick to conjuration and literally pop fighters out of thin air.
Nothing sells a book better than, "you have enough options for your character, so this book isn't going to give you any more."
In fact, I'll ask you in turn: Are they expected to get into the thick of battle right next to fighters? Because if they are, then what's the purpose of a fighter?
Have you played a cleric? I'd say that at low to mid levels, clerics fight just as much as fighters do. My cleric of Gorum, for example, has Weapon Focus and Power Attack... and gets mad when the other PCs get in over their heads and he has to waste turns healing them instead of chopping enemies into inert bits.
Fighters are supposed to have the best armor, the best consistent damage output, and to keep the enemies away from the more fragile characters. A cleric can take spells and feats to do that (as can any spellcaster), but shouldn't be as good at is as a fighter. Should we restrict an alchemist to throwing bombs and take away his mutagen? Should we take away a druid's wildshape so she has to focus on spells? The game is cooler and more interesting when people have the option to make their character the way they want, whether that's a rapier-fighter, a battle cleric, or a whip-wielding mage (all of which are characters I've played, mind you).
But the way Sean is making it sound is that it will contain spells that make it possible for wizards and clerics to wade into battle and emulate a feat or feat chain with a spell they can swap out the next day, when mister fighter is in the corner wondering why it took him four levels to learn that same stuff.
You're reading a lot into a very short statement by me. I haven't even looked at the spell turnovers in the book yet. My argument is that those kinds of maneuvers are already in the game, and it makes sense that there would be magic to improve upon them or compensate for a class's weak BAB. After all, if the fighter get's knocked unconscious and the cleric is out of channel energy, sometimes the cleric and the rogue have to "tank" the monster for the rest of the fight.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Seeing as how that's exactly what most 3.5 books did, you can probably understand our concern... >.>
Yes.
It's pretty clear that 3.5's publishing strategy was a "bad uncle" to a lot of us, and many of us get justifiably creeped out when we're locked in a room alone with something that reminds us of that experience.
We're aware of this, and do not intend to travel down the same path.
--Erik
My argument is that those kinds of maneuvers are already in the game, and it makes sense that there would be magic to improve upon them or compensate for a class's weak BAB
Respectfully, I don't get it.
Should not be a relevant part of a class the BAB? Why should a spell "fix" that? Should the fighter be able to take feats to Channel or Cast spells?
Nothing sells a book better than, "you have enough options for your character, so this book isn't going to give you any more."
Err... >.>
Have you played a cleric? I'd say that at low to mid levels, clerics fight just as much as fighters do. My cleric of Gorum, for example, has Weapon Focus and Power Attack... and gets mad when the other PCs get in over their heads and he has to waste turns healing them instead of chopping enemies into inert bits.
I know the question wasn't targeted at me but, yes. I think you also hit the nail on the head as to our concerns. He gets bummed when he has to "waste a turn" healing his party when he could be "chopping enemies to bits". Exactly why does he need more help chopping things into bits?
Fighters are supposed to have the best armor, the best consistent damage output, and to keep the enemies away from the more fragile characters. A cleric can take spells and feats to do that (as can any spellcaster), but shouldn't be as good at is as a fighter. Should we restrict an alchemist to throwing bombs and take away his mutagen? Should we take away a druid's wildshape so she has to focus on spells? The game is cooler and more interesting when people have the option to make their character the way they want, whether that's a rapier-fighter, a battle cleric, or a whip-wielding mage (all of which are characters I've played, mind you).
No one considers alchemists to be full-casters, or even close to them. At best they mimic some spells, but they're nothing remotely like a full-caster, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. As for wild shape, yes, this ability was nerfed hard in Pathfinder and for a reason as I understood it; it did in fact allow the Druid to easily take over the Fighter-types' whole shtick with pretty much no drawbacks. It got nerfed good, and now druids are a nice hybrid class, and still one of the strongest classes in the game.
Also, I noticed you missed my post, so could you toss me some info on this one:
Sean, I respect your work highly (you can find me singing praises to you, Monte Cook, and others on these very boards), but I must ask you a question that I think is relevant, and if you can answer it for me, then you will probably answer you own question.
How many Fighter builds are there that can control the battlefield, heal their allies, buff their allies, and/or turn people into various forms of mineral or fuzzy hamsters?
As to answering your wizard question about really good at combat wizards, that would be pretty much all of them, from abjurer to transmuter; unless you mean good in melee combat, in which case its pretty much any transmuter since they get a wide variety of nice self-buff spells which don't require a lot of casting stat to take advantage of, and can even create their own flanking buddies with a wand of summon monster.
Really, my 12yo brother built a sorcerer that would melee all the time, from a kobold, and could do it with an armor class that was respectable (or impressive, depending on the level), and often made a better tank than the warrior types.
Pathfinder also has seemed to try to cut-down on melee lockdown builds.
Anyway, I await your response with excitement.
Edit: Also yes, clerics are a lot about strength of arms. They do that quite well actually. We get spells like Divine Favor and Righteous Might, which are pretty sexy. One feat and you have full heavy armor proficiency; the lower HP is offset by your healing power and great Fortitude and Will saves, and not only are you a great warrior with magic but you also buff everyone else around you; making you more valuable to the party.
I think, perhaps, the concern is that if it wasn't for the weaknesses these classes have in this one area, compared to the weaknesses that all the other classes have in all areas but this one, that it might tip the scales a little too far (just like in 3.5).
Nothing sells a book better than, "you have enough options for your character, so this book isn't going to give you any more."
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I hadn't even considered that the book would have spells in it, seeing as how it's named Ultimate Combat.
Have you played a cleric? I'd say that at low to mid levels, clerics fight just as much as fighters do. My cleric of Gorum, for example, has Weapon Focus and Power Attack... and gets mad when the other PCs get in over their heads and he has to waste turns healing them instead of chopping enemies into inert bits.
And - this is important - he already has lots of tools for it.
I'm in a PF game now as a witch, and we have a half-orc Battle Oracle who's all but an insane juggernaut on the battlefield. I can safely say that he has enough tools to do his job.
Fighters are supposed to have the best armor, the best consistent damage output, and to keep the enemies away from the more fragile characters. A cleric can take spells and feats to do that (as can any spellcaster), but shouldn't be as good at is as a fighter. Should we restrict an alchemist to throwing bombs and take away his mutagen? Should we take away a druid's wildshape so she has to focus on spells? The game is cooler and more interesting when people have the option to make their character the way they want, whether that's a rapier-fighter, a battle cleric, or a whip-wielding mage (all of which are characters I've played, mind you).
Our worry is this:
In 3.x, the cleric was better at being a fighter then the fighter was.
When we see that the cleric - already a very powerful class! - may be getting even more tools to be fighter-esque, we look at 3.x and think about how much we don't want to go down that road again.
Having a lot of options is great! The problem is when some of those options outweigh others to such a fantastic degree. We already have battle clerics. Druid already has wildshape. I'm not saying those should be taken away from; I'm saying that they don't need more added on.
You're reading a lot into a very short statement by me. I haven't even looked at the spell turnovers in the book yet. My argument is that those kinds of maneuvers are already in the game, and it makes sense that there would be magic to improve upon them or compensate for a class's weak BAB. After all, if the fighter get's knocked unconscious and the cleric is out of channel energy, sometimes the cleric and the rogue have to "tank" the monster for the rest of the fight.
To which I have to ask: will we see the fighter get tools to compensate for his nonexistant spellcasting? If you patch the intentional weaknesses in one class, you can't just leave the others to drown.
if the cleric can compensate for his medium - not even weak - BAB to be "Fighter lite" in case the fighter is knocked unconscious, then I feel the need to wonder what the fighter does when the cleric is knocked unconscious.
|
Creative Director
|
Looks like a good point for me to step in and address the role of guns in Golarion.
We put guns into Golarion for the same reason we put an Egyptian analogue, a gothic horror realm, Vikings, dwarves, genies, Baba Yaga, and a nation where lasers and robots can be found in "metal dungeons" (aka parts of a giant crashed spaceship): Because the game itself is strengthened if it appeals to a wide range of play styles. That's ALSO why the 40-some regions of Golarion are relatively compartmentalized. If you don't like dwarves in your game, you can blot out the Five Kings Mountains from your Golarion and the main dwarf area is gone. If you don't like superscience like robots and lasers, remove Numeria and you're fine. And if you don't want guns in your game, remove the Mana Wastes (where Alkenstar is located) and game on.
Some elements are more "invasive" in the game (like dwarves), but others, like robots and guns, can be removed as you wish without doing much damage to the support structure of the world at all.
In the upcoming "Inner Sea World Guide," the actual rules for firearms and gunpowder takes up about a page. This includes damage, pricing, misfires, penetration, and all of that stuff, with the gun choices themselves being limited to four choices—pistol, pepperbox (a version of a pistol with six barrels that you can rotate to fire faster, which provides a solution for iterative attacks), musket, and cannon (a siege weapon that gunslingers won't really be using anyway).
The reasons we don't want to change the fundamental way guns work is mostly because if we make major changes, then suddenly the rules for guns in this new book are pre-outdated, which is unfortunate. But if it comes to that, it comes to that, and we'll just have a little bit more errata for the book than we wanted.
The gunslinger class itself, on the other hand, is NOT a part of the "Inner Sea World Guide," so any solutions that we can come up with that involve adjusting that class are MUCH more attractive to us. Adding additional types of guns, or rules for how guns interact in campaign worlds where guns are more common, is ALSO an attractive solution since it expands options rather than rebuilds the baseline.
In any case, "Ultimate Combat" still has a LOT of time in the oven, which means we've got a lot of time to tinker with and fix the rules. If it turns out that the only way to salvage things is to completely rebuild how guns themselves work, we'll do that. But that's the LAST option, and we'll do that only once we're convinced that the other options for adjustment I mention above simply don't work.
The feedback we're getting from the playtest is invaluable information for us, and it's really helping us a lot in getting these questions answered. But try to remember that there's a difference between "playtest" and "group design." If we don't immediately validate suggested fixes or new designs posted to the boards by saying, "Yes! That's the solution!" try not to get too disappointed, because that's not the point of the playtest at all. Neither is it fair to assume that a playtest is a promise. If a playtest reveals problems, we'll fix them. That's what the playtest is for, after all. It's NOT for giving folks finished rules that they can then expect to be unchanged forever.
Should we have started the playtest proceedure for guns earlier? Perhaps. And in an way, we DID. There were rules for firearms in the first Campaign Setting hardcover, after all. Those rules have been available for folks to use and give us feedback about for two and a half years. And the current incarnation of guns is, in fact, the result of that feedback, so it's certainly not like the gun rules in the playtest document came out of nowhere.
Anyway... in closing, try not to get too worked up by how things work in the playtest. Give us feedback, and we'll use your feedback to fix the problems. If it turns out that means completely redesigning how guns themselves work, we'll do that. I just don't think it'll come to that.
DUDE! crashed space ship?? space ship = dungeon?? OH man where do I buy that source material!!?
I didnt even know that existed! have you written this yet or is it on the burner??
Anyway James +1.
I was trying to say that with "im giving up" because i felt I play tested what i could and im waiting for changes, and already gave my input/suggestions.
With that being said, Im playing pickle style tonight because I think that's not 'group' design, but rather a quick variant thats worth looking at before it gets put into a design for the masses to play test, isnce I get what PDK was trying to say about it.
Plus it will keep my Gunslinger alive in play test until inevitable changes do come out.
Pepperbox?
That was a teeny little thing IRL, but I bet that would look cool in a .45 cal barrel setting.
To quote Arnold "Phase plasma rifle in the 40 watt setting?..... Hey! only what you see man!"
I want my crashed space ship dungeon, chop chop!
|
Creative Director
|
We haven't done much more with Numeria's crashed spaceship yet. There's 4 pages of art and map and words coming soon in the "Inner Sea World Guide" on the site, though, as well as a little bit more about how to incorporate technological items into the game.
As for the pepperbox... yeah; it never really made a big and lasting splash in the real world, but it WAS a proto-revolver, and I'm not sure I wanted actual revolvers in Golarion yet (even though there's a few illustrations of them being in Golarion if you look in the right places). Also, pepperboxes just look neat.
And as for "giving up," I hear ya. I've always felt that after a few days or a week or so, we've pretty much got enough information to have a stab at the first batch of revision work on playtest stuff, to be honest. The perception, I'm afraid, is that since we don't actually immediately show off our decisions as PROOF that we're listening that a lot of folks assume that we're ignoring them. That's not the case at all.
We haven't done much more with Numeria's crashed spaceship yet. There's 4 pages of art and map and words coming soon in the "Inner Sea World Guide" on the site, though, as well as a little bit more about how to incorporate technological items into the game.
As for the pepperbox... yeah; it never really made a big and lasting splash in the real world, but it WAS a proto-revolver, and I'm not sure I wanted actual revolvers in Golarion yet (even though there's a few illustrations of them being in Golarion if you look in the right places). Also, pepperboxes just look neat.
And as for "giving up," I hear ya. I've always felt that after a few days or a week or so, we've pretty much got enough information to have a stab at the first batch of revision work on playtest stuff, to be honest. The perception, I'm afraid, is that since we don't actually immediately show off our decisions as PROOF that we're listening that a lot of folks assume that we're ignoring them. That's not the case at all.
TBH I play tested the HECK out of Fighter when the Beta for this game was comming out, I've always been a fan of the fighter, and always played one unless something major was missing in a group ( I always wait to see what everyone else has made and then ask the dm/group what do we need) I never got any answers directly from You or Jason back then, Now There are direct ones. (I dunno if that means anything)
I did not mean to say "I hate you and your game" so much as I was saying "Im done for now"
The old style pepper box (My mom used to have one dating back to 1903) didnt actually rotate the barrels to a single firing pin (like a gattling gun) , the pepper box's firing pin rotated to stationary barrels. It was a unique design, but it was never available in anything larger than a .32 caliber short (and was most popular in .22) this was largely due to the fact that the design was quite delicate and too much "bang" damaged the little guy.
Thats not to say Golarions pepper box cant have rotating barrels or have a rotating firing pin that doesnt break as bad as the original and we can have nice big barrels.
Also the misfire mechanic isnt quite as dramatic when you can just pull the trigger again on another cylinder/barrel; and...
I just want to say, you dont think my hill giant gunslinger will use cannons?? You are sadly mistaken!!
lastly....
I want my space ship....If you dont have enough writers, i come cheap, some say free!
That being said, cant wait til my wife is using her witch to cast hexes on robots shooting lasers out of their eyes!
My argument is that those kinds of maneuvers are already in the game, and it makes sense that there would be magic to improve upon them or compensate for a class's weak BABRespectfully, I don't get it.
Should not be a relevant part of a class the BAB? Why should a spell "fix" that? Should the fighter be able to take feats to Channel or Cast spells?
+1
I would like an answer to this as well. If you are giving the cleric the ability to be like a fighter or a wizard the ability to be like a fighter without either of them giving up spell progression or something significant I would like to know why you think that will progress the game or cause balance?
If the fighter goes down in battle and the cleric and rogue have to step in its not supposed to be a big deal all of a sudden???? I thought when my party member goes down its supposed to matter in combat?
Third time I will ask: Are you going to give fighters rogues and barbarians the abilities to mimic or similiar high level spells??
James: Very excited to see more about the Silver Mount - I assumed there was a PFRPG "Barrier Peaks" in the works eventually, and I for one look forward to it greatly, as I'm sure it'll be worked in wonderfully.
Rather than joining the Dev-dogpile on "giving up" and "too much magic in the UC book", could you or one of the other UC-Dev's maybe comment on some of the things I mentioned in my post on the first page of this thread? I think it collects a lot of the concerns and things noted by the playtest community at large here, minus the sensationalism.
Also, please, please, PLEASE- make sure they correct "Scoot Unattended Object" to "SHOOT", as I'm growing ever so tired of seeing folks quote it repeatedly as "Scoot". ;)
We all appreciate the effort you guys put into everything, and as I'm sure you all understand full well, the 'outrage' resultant is really only indicative of how much folks love the product you've created. It's hard to get worked up over something you don't care about! ;)
We haven't done much more with Numeria's crashed spaceship yet. There's 4 pages of art and map and words coming soon in the "Inner Sea World Guide" on the site, though, as well as a little bit more about how to incorporate technological items into the game.
As for the pepperbox... yeah; it never really made a big and lasting splash in the real world, but it WAS a proto-revolver, and I'm not sure I wanted actual revolvers in Golarion yet (even though there's a few illustrations of them being in Golarion if you look in the right places). Also, pepperboxes just look neat.
And as for "giving up," I hear ya. I've always felt that after a few days or a week or so, we've pretty much got enough information to have a stab at the first batch of revision work on playtest stuff, to be honest. The perception, I'm afraid, is that since we don't actually immediately show off our decisions as PROOF that we're listening that a lot of folks assume that we're ignoring them. That's not the case at all.
Let me second the sentiment of 'who what where gimme now' with regards to the previously unkown to me Numeria. Though if you thought there was alot of flavor oriented heat with including firearms...woo wait till those folks get a lot of crashed space ships...
Anyway, I think everyones frustration is the realization that obviously you can and will make changes to the gunslinger, and we want to provide playtest data, but as it stands, no one in their right mind would want to spend some of their precious table time playing one. Many of us love the idea of the gunslinger, and we want to give all the feedback we can, but right now we have nothing more to give because the class just doesnt work. We WANT to playtest it and we are eagerly hoping/asking/praying for a revision or at least a minor update (like we got with the armor issue in the original playtest of the summoner).
I dont think anyone is assuming you guys wont do further work on the gunslinger, just that we are impatient to get in there and roll some dice, but we cant do that without some kind of revision.
I also think that if there are going to be other forms of guns, particularly ones that work better for a gunslinger, we need it in the playtest. If you find a way to make the gunslinger work with just the single shot pistols/muskets, but it hasnt been playtested with pepperboxes, or any other kind of firearm that ends up included, we have missed an opportunity to propperly playtest the class and could run into problems with the final material because of it.
*stuff about space ships*
Numeria is one of my favorite places in the Pathfinder Campaign setting, as it seriously tackles the "crashed space vessel" incredibly well in a fantasy game. Numeria has huge metallic "mountains" around its landscape, buried deeply into the crust of the landscape. There's even a really cool evil-ish organization trying to unlock its secrets. It also is apparently a place where a lot of adamantine comes from.
Soooo much adventure potential, and great excuses to throw various aberrations, constructs, and even undead (haunted space ships for the win), and much more. Also would be a really cool way to start a campaign that eventually traversed planets.
Oh wait, was it only me that realized greater teleport can totally port you across planets or even into different regions of the universe? It is on the same plane afterall...
6_^ = Happy Wizard Monacle.
Should not be a relevant part of a class the BAB? Why should a spell "fix" that? Should the fighter be able to take feats to Channel or Cast spells?
Because a battle cleric is always going to be worse at sundering than a fighter, even if they are the same level and both have Improved Sunder. And if the cleric wants to use some of his (limited) daily spell resources to give him a buff to Str for a limited time or a bonus to sunders for a limited time, he should be able to do so--because that's a spell he's not using on something else. If the spell was "you can sunder just as good as an identical fighter build all day," then that spell would be WAY overpowered and would steal too much from the fighter. I'd cut that spell from a manuscript if it showed up on my desk.
No, we generally don't allow classes to gain magical powers from feats. But you're mixing the issue. Channeling energy and casting spells are class abilities. Combat maneuvers are something everyone can do, they're not just limited to certain classes, and it makes sense that magic would exist to improve on such things. Just as everyone can learn to pick locks (but rogues are best at it), and there are expendable resources (spells) that make a caster lockpicker temporarily as good as a rogue, it's reasonable to have expendable resources that make a caster sunderer or tripper temporarily as good as a fighter--because every time a wizard prepares knock, that's one less invisibility or scorching ray he can do that day. *Limited resources* is the key to this discussion. And if I'm playing the cleric in the group and I want to be able to sunder as part of my schtick (maybe I worship a god of destruction and I like to break things), my BAB is going to make it hard for me to keep up with enemy CMDs, and eventually it's never going to be worth it for me to sunder; that sucks, and I should be able to use another resource from my class to compensate for that weakness, at least temporarily. Especially if you don't have a standard 4-iconics party, and the group has two clerics instead of a fighter and a cleric--the battle cleric has to be able to take on the role of fighter, certainly not as well as the fighter all the time, but good enough in a pinch if he has to. The game is better overall if people have more options to create the sort of character they want, yet some classes are consistently better at certain tasks.
I know the question wasn't targeted at me but, yes. I think you also hit the nail on the head as to our concerns. He gets bummed when he has to "waste a turn" healing his party when he could be "chopping enemies to bits". Exactly why does he need more help chopping things into bits?
Because he has a cleric BAB instead of a fighter BAB. Because he has medium armor instead of heavy armor. Because he has to spend ability score boosts (a limited resource) and magic items (a limited resource) to increase his Wisdom (in order to keep up with his spells) as well as his Strength (to deal reasonable damage in combat). He is not as good as a fighter or barbarian at dealing damage. He's never going to be. He shouldn't be. But if I want to spend his spells on bull's strength or whatever to not make his damage quite so pathetic compared to the fighter or barbarian, I should be able to do that because it is my character and my choice on how to spend those limited resources.
How many Fighter builds are there that can control the battlefield, heal their allies, buff their allies, and/or turn people into various forms of mineral or fuzzy hamsters?
Control the battlefield? There are several options in PF that allow a fighter to do that. As for the other things, none, which you knew. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about whether not a spellcasting class should be able to temporarily compensate for its weaknesses in melee by expending limited resource class abilities (spells). Fighters and rogues don't have class abilities that are limited resources, they're at full power all the time and can use their abilities over and over all day long.
{As to answering your wizard question about really good at combat wizards, that would be pretty much all of them, from abjurer to transmuter; unless you mean good in melee combat,}
Come on, we're talking about melee, obviously I meant melee combat builds for wizards. Don't make straw man arguments.
{in which case its pretty much any transmuter since they get a wide variety of nice self-buff spells which don't require a lot of casting stat to take advantage of, and can even create their own flanking buddies with a wand of summon monster.}
Are you seriously suggesting that "a transmuter" is the answer to "what good melee builds are there for wizards? That a transmuter can do as well in melee as a fighter, rogue, or cleric?
{Really, my 12yo brother built a sorcerer that would melee all the time, from a kobold, and could do it with an armor class that was respectable (or impressive, depending on the level), and often made a better tank than the warrior types.}
Can he do it with a wizard? We're talking about wizards. You're changing the subject. Address the subject (wizards), then we can move on to sorcerers.
{We get spells like Divine Favor and Righteous Might, which are pretty sexy.}
Divine favor, 1st-level spell, lasts for 1 battle (1 minute). So a low-level cleric can take that to help achieve parity for one fight, but it means he has one less cure or shield of faith or meat shield (summon monster) to use that day. It's a tradeoff. It's balanced.
Righteous might, 5th-level spell, lasts for 1 battle 1 r/level. So a mid-level cleric can take that to help achieve parity for one fight, but it means he has one less breath of life or mass cure light or flame strike or raise dead or meat shield (summon monster) that day. As in, "sorry, fighter, you're going to stay dead because I chose to buff myself instead of saving a spell to heal you 5d8+9 damage. It's a tradeoff. It's balanced.
Neither of those spells would be balanced if they lasted 10 min/level or more. They'd let the cleric outshine the fighter and barbarian, and that would suck.
I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I hadn't even considered that the book would have spells in it, seeing as how it's named Ultimate Combat.
That's a very strange viewpoint for anyone to have, considering that "casting spells in combat" is such a common element in the game that there's a section on it in the Combat section of the Core Rulebook, and there's a feat in the Core Rulebook called "Combat Casting." Oh, and that we have a crusader class (cleric) that casts spell and fights in combat, and the inquisitor, paladin, and ranger are also classes that do melee combat and can cast spells, not to mention the bard and inquisitor.
{One feat and you have full heavy armor proficiency; the lower HP is offset by your healing power and great Fortitude and Will saves, and not only are you a great warrior with magic but you also buff everyone else around you; making you more valuable to the party.}
And my point is that you have the option to take that feat to improve your armor prof, and you have the option to use your magic to buff party members, or buff yourself so you're a decent warrior (not a "great" one).
{And - this is important - he already has lots of tools for it.}
2011: The year of no more tools for your class!
{When we see that the cleric - already a very powerful class! - may be getting even more tools to be fighter-esque, we look at 3.x and think about how much we don't want to go down that road again.}
We don't want to go down that road either.
{To which I have to ask: will we see the fighter get tools to compensate for his nonexistant spellcasting? If you patch the intentional weaknesses in one class, you can't just leave the others to drown.}
Again: Using one of your *limited* spells per day to temporarily keep up with the fighter or barbarian in combat doesn't make the fighter or barbarian invalid, any more than using the knock spell makes the rogue with Disable Device invalid, or using the expeditious retriat spell makes the Fleet feet invalid, or that darkvision makes playing a dwarf or half-orc invalid. The best response to "I am expending some of my limited powers to do something for a short time that you can do all the time" is "have fun when your spell runs out, I'll still be doing my thing when you've blown all your magic, and for hours after that."
Crystal's drow fighter 14 in my game routinely does 100 points per round, and that's before she takes crits into account. Jodi's drow cleric 14 could *maybe* get somewhere near to that amount of melee damage by casting a bunch of spells, but (1) she'd have to spend several rounds *in combat* doing that because most of these combat buffs last a very short time, (2) those buff-casting are rounds she's not doing damage, (3) she has to deal with concentration checks to cast those spells without disruption, (4) her buffs can be dispelled, whereas the fighter's abilities can't be dispelled. It's a tradeoff. Likewise, my cleric of Gorum can cast some spells to buff himself and be close to Ostog the barbarian's damage, but that's less healing I can do in an emergency, those buffs cost me actions that mean I'm not attacking, and so on. It's a tradeoff. And Ostog is a badass every round without spells. Hmmm.
Channeling energy and casting spells are class abilities. Combat maneuvers are something everyone can do, they're not just limited to certain classes, and it makes sense that magic would exist to improve on such things.
To my mind, this is exactly the problem, Sean. Some classes (casters) have things that only they can do. Some other classes (fighters, etc.) have only things that everyone can do. That disparity is built in from the ground up in 3.0 onward, and needs to be addressed -- backwards compatibility be damned if need be -- if Pathfinder is ever to lose the designation of "The Caster Edition."
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
If I may make a modest suggestion, the OP's main issue seemed to be with full attacks not doing more than 1d8 in a round. How about creating an ability that allows the gunslinger to attack with two pistols without suffering all the Two-Weapon Fighting penalties? You can use your second iterative attack to attack using the second weapon. Any further iterative attacks can be spent to reload as part of the full attack action, thus ensuring that you're ready to fire the next round.
The problem with the "limited resources" is that they honestly aren't that limited.
You get a lot of spell slots, more then enough to cover you once you get past level 4 or 5. Not to mention there's always wands and scrolls to cover you as well.
Certainly a wizard that memorizes knock has one less Web. But what about the wizard that makes a scroll of knock?
You keep talking - a lot - about how the cleric needs to be able to function as a fighter-lite. The issue, then, is this - what can a fighter be other then "a fighter?" The cleric can be a healer, or it can improve and buff it's allies, or it can rain destruction on enemies, or it can curse and debuff it's foes. The fighter can...well, he can fight.
When you give other classes the ability to be that "fighter lite," even if just for a limited amount of time, you are stealing the fighter's niche. The fighter is very limited on what it can do. Already the cleric has the ability to give his attack bonus a major kickstart.
You're asking what you should do as a cleric who wants to sunder? Sunder things! Sunder things and accept you aren't as good as a fighter would be. The cleric doesn't need to have a spell for every occasion. She doesn't need to be able to be "as good" as a fighter at everything, or even close to it.
I feel like we're coming from two entirely opposite points of view. You feel that a x spellcaster should have a spell for y occasion, regardless of the occasion, because it fits a build. I disagree strongly and feel that spellcasters should be generally built towards a purpose and that class niche matters. It's ok for the cleric to be not as good as the fighter at sundering, and it's ok for them to not have a spell to make up for it.
You keep talking about character concepts, but how about a fighter that does extraordinary things without needing a spell?
At the end of the day, I feel that the answer can sometimes be "No, there's no spell for that, this is what the fighter is best at."
Edit: Incidentally, barbarian is a bad example for you to use, because they most definately have a limited resource. They can only rage for so many rounds, and they can only learn so many rage powers.
As for other limited resources, every class has one, called "HP." Fighters can't go on forever. Sooner or later they need to be healed. If clerics are allowed to bypass their medium - not weak, medium, they're still good at fighting - BAB, what do fighters get to bypass their poor saves and their poor skill points and their inability to heal themselves?
Because a battle cleric is always going to be worse at sundering than a fighter, even if they are the same level and both have Improved Sunder. And if the cleric wants to use some of his (limited) daily spell resources to give him a buff to Str for a limited time or a bonus to sunders for a limited time, he should be able to do so--because that's a spell he's not using on something else. If the spell was "you can sunder just as good as an identical fighter build all day," then that spell would be WAY overpowered and would steal too much from the fighter. I'd cut that spell from a manuscript if it showed up on my desk.
My only issue is that the Cleric will have anyway a lot of stuff to do, included call in more creatures to do stuff for him. The cleric has spells and feats. Fighter has.. well, feats. I could be wrong, but I see a discrepancy in the amount of resources invested.
Don't get me wrong - I like cleric be caster&melee, I just raise my alarm level to yellow seeing that the class has already several stuff to melee quite well AND a lot of other options.
No, we generally don't allow classes to gain magical powers from feats. But you're mixing the issue. Channeling energy and casting spells are class abilities. Combat maneuvers are something everyone can do, they're not just limited to certain classes, and it makes sense that magic would exist to improve on such things. Just as everyone can learn to pick locks (but rogues are best at it), and there are expendable resources (spells) that make a caster lockpicker temporarily as good as a rogue, it's reasonable to have expendable resources that make a caster sunderer or tripper temporarily as good as a fighter--because every time a wizard prepares knock, that's one less invisibility or scorching ray he can do that day.
.
Again.. I see this already happen. Telekinesis and true strike are a good example. I just wonder what could happen adding up more stuff. Don't get me wrong, I'm very interested and curious,I dislike the attitude of judge first, discuss then and see later.
But I ask: where is the border? When those spells stop to be utilities and become "thank you my spell does what your CLASS does"?
And someone already asked - if a caster becomes a temporary sunderer, what the meleers get? Isn't it a dangerous ground? IMHO the risk to destroy niches, water down classes is high.
Don't think I'm for total balance and similar things. I'm very satisfied of the game 'til now (I bought every hardcover by Amazon UK to have them in English and earlier, I'm Italian, go figure) and I will buy UM and UC for sure. I just look at the past.
Maybe this (customers looking at the past) is something like a "curse" this game will get for a while. I want just to re-state that I like a lot what I've seen 'til now, barring minor things.
I gotta go with Prof. Cirno here.
Channeling energy and casting spells are class abilities. Combat maneuvers are something everyone can do, they're not just limited to certain classes, and it makes sense that magic would exist to improve on such things.To my mind, this is exactly the problem, Sean. Some classes (casters) have things that only they can do. Some other classes (fighters, etc.) have only things that everyone can do. That disparity is built in from the ground up in 3.0 onward, and needs to be addressed -- backwards compatibility be damned if need be -- if Pathfinder is ever to lose the designation of "The Caster Edition."
This. You can't argue "No ofcourse fighters and rogues and barbarians cant have channel energy or abilities that emulate spells because those are class features" The fighters main class feature is feats. The rogues main class features are talents.
All wizard spells and cleric spells can duplicate both of these.
As for your comment about Disable device being negated by knock, it is.
As for your comment about expiditious retreat (a 1st level spell), it is.
Most rogue talents are doable by spells, the only exception so far I have seen is the ninja (which gives mirror image at a level before a wizard). Rogues have to give two talents to get a 1st level spell but most wizard spells can duplicate all of the talents rogues can do. hardly a fair trade.
Lastly, I do not see how a fighter can control the battlefield anywhere near the capabilities of a wizard druid or cleric. They get attacks and combat manuevers, which as you pointed out so bluntly, are available to everyone. I dont see a fighter making the ground into mud, or dropping a cloud, or sprouting tentacles from the ground.
PS: Base attack bonus is not very much a limitation on battle prowess when you have spells that either boost your attack or weaken enemies to the point where it does not stand a chance. Just my opinion.
|
...pepperbox (a version of a pistol with six barrels that you can rotate to fire faster, which provides a solution for iterative attacks...
Can I use my pepperbox rifle now? Hehe :D
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Channeling energy and casting spells are class abilities. Combat maneuvers are something everyone can do, they're not just limited to certain classes, and it makes sense that magic would exist to improve on such things.To my mind, this is exactly the problem, Sean. Some classes (casters) have things that only they can do. Some other classes (fighters, etc.) have only things that everyone can do. That disparity is built in from the ground up in 3.0 onward, and needs to be addressed -- backwards compatibility be damned if need be -- if Pathfinder is ever to lose the designation of "The Caster Edition."
I strongly suspect that there is literally nothing that we can do with Pathfinder to get the small number of people pushing the "caster edition" meme to all of a sudden decide that they like the game. That meme is being pushed specifically by people who dislike the game and who aren't likely to be satisfied by anything short of a new edition that leaves "backwards compatibility" in the dust. So pleasing that crowd is not high on the agenda at the moment.
That said, as a player who often chooses martial classes over spellcasters, I definitely see the need for providing distinctive options for non-magic characters that give them their own "niches" to dominate.
It sucks to dump a whole bunch of skill points in Climb as a rogue only to have your buddy's wizard fly past you to the top of the Treasure Tower, and it sucks when the a@@~&!% cleric casts a bunch of spells on himself to do 250 points of damage per arrow, where there is literally nothing that you, as a measley fighter or ranger, can do to keep up.
So I'm going to be watching this book'd development very closely to make sure that the spells are not just 100 versions of Tenser's Transformation, and to make sure that our designers and freelancers are providing genuinely new and genuinely interesting options for characters that genuinely have nothing to do with magic except the enhancement bonuses on their weapons and armor.
Darn you all, and you too, SKR, for derailing this thread horribly. :P
And SKR, re: the amount of new magic / caster vs melee etc... I think a lot of people fail to mention the base issue with all of this. New spells can be gained all but instantly for casters. It's rare and difficult for a martial/melee type to get new toys.
It's class envy. Not for the class and it's particular abilities in specific, but for not being able to learn something new as soon as it's introduced to the game. New spells hit print, the cleric memorizes them the next morning, the wizard as soon as he can pick up a scroll. But for martial types - new feats mean waiting till you level. And that's assuming you don't need to chase down prereqs.
That's my biggest gripe re: new spells being added. But note that I'm not pitching a fit. :) Now, if anyone wants to go back to page one and comment on the things I mentioned about the Gunslinger.... ;)
Why am I debating all of this? It's my birthday. I'm on vacation. And I can't convince people whose minds are made up.
SEEYA SUCKAZ!!!!! :)
Everyone seems to be posting their opinions here, so I'm posting mine.
To the posters;
I'll admit I opened this thread out of idle curiosity. I read the thread because of my interest in the gunslinger class. I hope that I'm not speaking for JUST myself when I say that the beating the developers are getting seems to be singularly unfair.
Several times the dev's have stated what should have been understood - this is a trial of the class to figure things out. A few of the respondents have asked legitimate questions without snark.
It is beneficial, from time to time, to sit back from the computer screen remind yourself that there are hard working people on the other end of the internet, and be considerate.
To the dev's;
As always, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the development of material for this game (that I thoroughly enjoy playing) and while I have my concerns about the class as well (nothing that hasn't been said a million times) I have faith in the pathfinder developers to maintain the high standards that their products have set and maintained over the life of the company. Thank you for making our shared storytelling playground a more interesting and colorful place to be.
Hokey, maybe. Corny? sure. You folks don't get enough praise for the things you get right, damnit.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That said, as a player who often chooses martial classes over spellcasters, I definitely see the need for providing distinctive options for non-magic characters that give them their own "niches" to dominate.
It sucks to dump a whole bunch of skill points in Climb as a rogue only to have your buddy's wizard fly past you to the top of the Treasure Tower, and it sucks when the a#@~#&! cleric casts a bunch of spells on himself to do 250 points of damage per arrow, where there is literally nothing that you, as a measley fighter or ranger, can do to keep up.
Ok this makes me feel a little better. At least Erik is aware of the situation.
Why put ranks in climb when my 3rd level wizard can do that better than I can when I reach 10th level with his spider climb... exactly.
Please Erik, please, do not back down from this point of view. Many agree.
And developers, the reason we speak up is because IT IS DO ABLE!
you guys are brilliant, dont give up on something because its hard and fall into the easy ways of selling books (not saying you are). If the game does great things, it will sell.
Why am I debating all of this? It's my birthday. I'm on vacation. And I can't convince people whose minds are made up.
SEEYA SUCKAZ!!!!! :)
For what it's worth Happy Birthday Sean.
I'm going to be watching this book's development very closely to make sure that the spells are not just 100 versions of Tenser's Transformation, and to make sure that our designers and freelancers are providing genuinely new and genuinely interesting options for characters that genuinely have nothing to do with magic
Hold the line, Erik.
I strongly suspect that there is literally nothing that we can do with Pathfinder to get the small number of people pushing the "caster edition" meme to all of a sudden decide that they like the game. That meme is being pushed specifically by people who dislike the game and who aren't likely to be satisfied by anything short of a new edition that leaves "backwards compatibility" in the dust. So pleasing that crowd is not high on the agenda at the moment.
That might be true of some people; I should have thought twice about using a term favored by them, for which I apologize. That said, there's a LOT that Pathfinder could do in an "Ultimate Combat" book that would not destroy backwards compatibility, but would help things immensely. Something as simple as an addendum to the Fly skill, that sets a high DC check to stay airborn if hit with a ranged weapon -- that would suddenly make the wizards' flying into a major risk, as opposed to an auto-win. That check could be made to scale with damage, so that flying doesn't become an auto-win again at higher levels. That's one change that would take maybe half a page, maximum. For a book full of stuff like that, I'd pay top dollar.
That's what I was hoping "Ultimate Combat" would be. Instead, it's looking to be a random mishmash of OA stuff, and spells, and a class that revolves around a single piece of overpriced equipment.
For what it's worth Happy Birthday Sean.Why am I debating all of this? It's my birthday. I'm on vacation. And I can't convince people whose minds are made up.
SEEYA SUCKAZ!!!!! :)
+1. Not made up ;)
That's what I was hoping "Ultimate Combat" would be. Instead, it's looking to be a book full of OA rejects, and spells, and a class that revolves around a single piece of overpriced equipment.
This is quite unfair. You said this from a Playtest, not from a preview. Is different.
This thread is pretty schizophrenic so I'll try and address the two major points:
Gunslinger as written is not worth playing. The reasons have been elaborated on far better than I could by other posters. I just want to give a +1 in support of that point; so the purpose of the thread is not forgotten.
Niche Disparity/Spell Creep or whatever you want to call it- Prof Cirno pretty much nailed it. As an aside, why is it do you think you see so much more E6/Low Magic/Caster Nerf threads on these boards compared to pretty much everywhere else in the PF world that discusses these things? It's my personal belief that is not co-incidental. I think this is so important, it probably deserves it's own thread to make sure the relevant concerns are seen by developers.
-Idle
This is quite unfair. You said this from a Playtest, not from a preview. Is different.
That's what I was hoping "Ultimate Combat" would be. Instead, it's looking to be a book full of OA rejects, and spells, and a class that revolves around a single piece of overpriced equipment.
to be fair that is all they are presenting to playtest.
If they want us to be fair they should let us playtest new additions that could potentially change the whole game (like certain spells they describe) or certain rules they intend to add (or remove).
Putting out a playtest that doesn't give the right impression of what the book will contain is like putting out a free sample of a different flavor than what we would get in the box.
This is quite unfair. You said this from a Playtest, not from a preview. Is different.
That's what I was hoping "Ultimate Combat" would be. Instead, it's looking to be a book full of OA rejects, and spells, and a class that revolves around a single piece of overpriced equipment.
to be fair that is all they are presenting to playtest.
If they want us to be fair they should let us playtest new additions that could potentially change the whole game (like certain spells they describe) or certain rules they intend to add (or remove).
Putting out a playtest that doesn't give the right impression of what the book will contain is like putting out a free sample of a different flavor than what we would get in the box.
Are you suggesting a 300 pages PDF of playtest?