I hear many people are concerned that gunslingers will ruin the fantasy ambient of their Golarion campaign.
I think a major part of this is the name Gunslinger. It immediately conjures pictures of the American frontier and cowboys.
If that is the intention of the developing team then kudos - you have hit the mark.
If that was not the intention I think changing the name of the class will help many people accept the class into a more classic fantasy seting.
Smoe names to consider might be pistoleer, musketeer, arcabuser, black powder adept, gunner, dragoon I am sure you can easily come up with a dusin more names that do not have wild west connotations.
I think it has a lot more to do with the dislike for firearms than the name. At least in regards to gunslingers ruining people's fantasy setting (I'm not of this mindset). Though there is plenty of examples where people have gotten hung up on class names here, so who knows.
Personally, when I read the name my first thoughts were lame (along with why does a fire arm class and two oriental classes belong in the combat book?) As I read the class description though, I instantly thought of Jack Sparow, the three musketeers (disney version, with Kefer Sutherland) and that general genre of crazy swash buckling, musket wielding craziness. Now...as I read the mechanics, my mind started to go elsewhere, but we're discussing theme here right...
Society players aside, I think if people just flat out do not want anything to do with firearms/black powder, the way Paizo is presenting them is the best. Having a class in this book, some rules in that book, makes it easy to still purchase the books one is interested, and not feel like a HUGE chunk of them is made up of something you don't want.
Also, Golarion has black powder. This is a fact. If someone doesn't like this fact, then house rule and change what you need to. I don't like having a billion stated out, named NPCs....so I don't run Forgoten Realms, but if I did I wouldn't lament my wowes all over the net...I would just tell my group "Hey, Elminster and Drzzit and all those guys don't exsist here. You wont run into them, you won't hear about them." Simple enough to tell the group "Hey guys, we're playing in Golarion, but the gunslinger is off limits, and you won't ever find any firearms/black powder stuff."
The problem is that people are really bizarrely rigid and conservative on what they constitute as "fantasy."
Nevermind this literally going against the purpose of fantasy.
The problem is that people are really bizarrely rigid and conservative on what they constitute as "fantasy."
Nevermind this literally going against the purpose of fantasy.
While I understand what you're saying, I'd say trhe "purpose" of fantasy, or a fantasy rpg (or any other), is entertainment. If the presence of guns ruins that, don't have them. Or do, if you find it "fun", that's up to the DM / group. Personally I can see a Three Musketeers / pirates type fantasy setting with guns (as well as spells, etc.). Probably a good deal of fun. I don't think guns fit the theme of my homebrew campaign setting though. Hence they will ot make an appearance there. Although I am tempted to do an "alternate history" 17-18th century setting for fun...
I for one have no problem at all with guns in fantasy.
Jack Sparrow/Black Beard, the musketeers, Dick Turpin etc. there are a lot of interesting fiction and RL characters aut there who used guns.
Historically they fit in well too. Going to the local military history museum it is apparent that from 1500's guns where becoming quite common; both as pistols and rifles, but also built into daggers, axes and hammers. As soon as they reached Europe the nobility went absolutely crazy with them.
Remember that the Spanish infantry who colonized the Americas in mid 1500's where mainly arcabuseers.
My point is that a gunslinger does not HAVE to be a cowboy and I hope the final class would be released under a name that does not limit players' ability to maintain a sense of fantasy in the campaign.
Oh... I can easily see a Numerian gunslinger having a more steampunk theme going on.
Is it so hard to leave the usage of this class up to GM discretion. Like the ninja and samurai, I wouldn't let people play these classes if it didn't fit into the setting.
My point is that a gunslinger does not HAVE to be a cowboy and I hope the final class would be released under a name that does not limit players' ability to maintain a sense of fantasy in the campaign.
And my point is, there's no reason a more western gunslinger isn't fantasy. Hell, there's a laundry list of D&D-isms that are more in place in a western then they are in "high fantasy!"
How many medieval or greek or ancient heroes started their adventure in a bar? Now how many western heroes did?
Is it so hard to leave the usage of this class up to GM discretion. Like the ninja and samurai, I wouldn't let people play these classes if it didn't fit into the setting.
I respect that point of view.
However, I am also concerned about Pathfinder Society play, which is mostly RAW.I would like to see a final gunslinger that can fit seemlesly into that campaign.
Creative Director
|
Is it so hard to leave the usage of this class up to GM discretion. Like the ninja and samurai, I wouldn't let people play these classes if it didn't fit into the setting.I respect that point of view.
However, I am also concerned about Pathfinder Society play, which is mostly RAW.
I would like to see a final gunslinger that can fit seemlesly into that campaign.
I'm still not convinced a gunslinger, even a PERFECTLY BALANCED ONE, could fit "seamlessly" into Golarion, and by extension, the Pathfinder Society. We'll see. (Not everything in the rulebooks needs to be IN Golarion, but everything in there COULD be in Golarion... for the PFS though, there is the matter of limiting options to official world choices.)
I'm still not convinced a gunslinger, even a PERFECTLY BALANCED ONE, could fit "seamlessly" into Golarion, and by extension, the Pathfinder Society. We'll see. (Not everything in the rulebooks needs to be IN Golarion, but everything in there COULD be in Golarion... for the PFS though, there is the matter of limiting options to official world choices.)
I understand that, but I would still love to see firearms become a viable choice even in a PFS game :)
Yeah like those guys that run "Golarion, and by extension, the Pathfinder Society". I wish they would loosen up. ;)
I stand by my statement.
Golarion has space alien elves and devil worshipping nazis and literally 70's pulp magical planets.
The distinction that western style anything doesn't fit is entirely artificial.
I stand by my statement.
Golarion has space alien elves and devil worshipping nazis and literally 70's pulp magical planets.
The distinction that western style anything doesn't fit is entirely artificial.
While you are correct on all(most) counts it is nonetheless an issue for many gamers - and while it might not be taken seriously it should at the very least be taken into consideration.
The gunslinger and ninja and samurai are cool "second" or even "third tier" concepts in the list of things you might want to put in your Pathfinder campaign.
That's why they're in a book called "Ultimate Combat" and not one called "Core Rulebook".
Can you confirm that the intention with the gunslinger is to make western style fantasy characters.
The gunslinger and ninja and samurai are cool "second" or even "third tier" concepts in the list of things you might want to put in your Pathfinder campaign.
That's why they're in a book called "Ultimate Combat" and not one called "Core Rulebook".
This is my favorite post out of all of the whole discussion.
The gunslinger and ninja and samurai are cool "second" or even "third tier" concepts in the list of things you might want to put in your Pathfinder campaign.
That's why they're in a book called "Ultimate Combat" and not one called "Core Rulebook".
An excellent point.
Additionally, does it matter WHAT they're called? As a DM or a player, you are free to call the classes whatever you want (the names are just there for clarification.)
For example, in the Rokugan campaign setting for Dungeons and Dragons, the Crab clan had barbarians. However, they were never reffered to as barbarians. They were berzerkers. Instead of being outcasts living on the fringe of society, they were well respected warriors who just happened to go into battle frenzy.
There were no fighters. There were bushi. Bushi were fighters, in all ways.
Same mechanics. Same class. Different name.
D&D 3.0 even had a section of the book dedicated to the concept of customization in names and appearences. Your Greatsword is a claymore. Mine is a zwiehander. Your Deflect Arrows feat is "Deflect Arrows". Mine is "Three-pawed Monkey Flies Over the Mountain".
If Gunslinger doesn't fit your world, use Musketeer. What's a Musketeer? It is a Gunslinger.
The gunslinger and ninja and samurai are cool "second" or even "third tier" concepts in the list of things you might want to put in your Pathfinder campaign.
That's why they're in a book called "Ultimate Combat" and not one called "Core Rulebook".
+1
It matters a lot. That's why we buy these books instead of just making up our own games.
Additionally, does it matter WHAT they're called? As a DM or a player, you are free to call the classes whatever you want (the names are just there for clarification.)
But..it's only a single word. Yes, the Harry Potter wand/wang substitution experiment made a valid point to the contuary, but all in all the books are there to provide rules and guidelines.
I'd understand your arguement if I was referring to changing a mechanic. However, I'm simply suggesting that if the DM and/or player is uncomfortable with "Gunslinger" that they make the subsitution for "Musketeer" themselves.
What if, in the Dungeon Master's Guide or even in the class description itself, there was a list of alternative names for the class? These names would be usable in place of the name given for the class, with the understanding that whenever the published material referred to the class it would be under the name given.
Examples:
Gunslinger: pistoleer, musketeer, arcabuser, black powder adept, gunner, dragoon
Wizard: mage, thaumaturge, auger
Oracle: medium, seer
etc.
There's also the possibility that by leaving gunslinger as Gunslinger, they open up other possible names as possible varients. i realized this as I did the above exercise, using a thesarus and realizing that many of the synonyms for classes are taken by varients for those classes. If 'slinger is made into a base class instead of an Alt, this could very well be the case.
It matters a lot. That's why we buy these books instead of just making up our own games.
Additionally, does it matter WHAT they're called? As a DM or a player, you are free to call the classes whatever you want (the names are just there for clarification.)But..it's only a single word. Yes, the Harry Potter wand/wang substitution experiment made a valid point to the contuary, but all in all the books are there to provide rules and guidelines.
I'd understand your arguement if I was referring to changing a mechanic. However, I'm simply suggesting that if the DM and/or player is uncomfortable with "Gunslinger" that they make the subsitution for "Musketeer" themselves.
Don't worry. You're right. A change of name for flavor's sake is fine. Hopefully that was just sarcasm. Hopefully...