I understand it's a fighter alternate class, but why? It's not an archetype. That would make sense. Is it a game balance concern? A gunslinger multi-classes into a fighter and he gains the power of a God?
Why limit them? The same failed logic applies to ninja and samurai. When I told a friend of mine you couldn't be a cavalier/samurai he said, "you most certainly can!". Our discussion opened my eyes and it's why I'm posing this question so late in the game.
And yes, yes if I don't like it I don't have to use it, but it also limits my group by saying we'll never play Society because we're houseruling half the stuff from Paizo. By that logic we might as well stop buying Paizo books.
I don't want to stop buying Paizo books. I just want some reasonable logic. Is it too much to ask?
I understand it's a fighter alternate class, but why? It's not an archetype. That would make sense. Is it a game balance concern? A gunslinger multi-classes into a fighter and he gains the power of a God?
Why limit them? The same failed logic applies to ninja and samurai. When I told a friend of mine you couldn't be a cavalier/samurai he said, "you most certainly can!". Our discussion opened my eyes and it's why I'm posing this question so late in the game.
And yes, yes if I don't like it I don't have to use it, but it also limits my group by saying we'll never play Society because we're houseruling half the stuff from Paizo. By that logic we might as well stop buying Paizo books.
I don't want to stop buying Paizo books. I just want some reasonable logic. Is it too much to ask?
It's been pointed out many times, that Alternate Classes ARE archtypes, with more abilities replaced and a full page writeup format. Thus, as you say, "that would make sense", sir.
Thanks for throwing my words back in my face. Awfully kind of you.
Calling the three new classes super-archetypes, as written, is like saying the ranger is an alternate class for fighter, or that bard is an alternate class for sorcerer. They're too different to warrant such a hollow apraisal. Each has brand new mechanics or use existing mechanics in new and different ways. An archetype tweaks a class just enough to satisfy a players need for a particular type of character. It also has a format that can be easily followed. Calling these alternate classes, when they are in fact all new classes, is just a cop out. A way to say, "hey look! No class bloat here! These are archetypes that totally overhaul a class!"
Mechanically there's no reason to make these alternate classes. Game balence-wise there's no reason to make these alternate classes. It doesn't pass the logic test at all. So if someone could impart some logic to this it would be appreciated. Thank you.
|
Thanks for throwing my words back in my face. Awfully kind of you.
Calling the three new classes super-archetypes, as written, is like saying the ranger is an alternate class for fighter, or that bard is an alternate class for sorcerer. They're too different to warrant such a hollow apraisal. Each has brand new mechanics or use existing mechanics in new and different ways. An archetype tweaks a class just enough to satisfy a players need for a particular type of character. It also has a format that can be easily followed. Calling these alternate classes, when they are in fact all new classes, is just a cop out. A way to say, "hey look! No class bloat here! These are archetypes that totally overhaul a class!"
Mechanically there's no reason to make these alternate classes. Game balence-wise there's no reason to make these alternate classes. It doesn't pass the logic test at all. So if someone could impart some logic to this it would be appreciated. Thank you.
Gubnslinger is a master of one weapon. How is that NOT a Figbhter? Should sword masters be their own class? How about axemen? Pikemen? Does every weapon need its own class?
Ninja is an oriental rogue. It's a master of stealth and attacking from the shadows. How does that not fall into the Rogue balliwack?
Samurai is a Cavalier class. It's an inspiring, non-magical leader of men and inspiring warrior. Again, how is that not the Cavalier?
Making everything a new class was one of the problems with 3.5. Some concepts are so close to one of the existing class that they don't need their own class. Gunslinger is pushing it but it should still be a Fighter archetype conceptually. Ninja and Samurai are even more obviously part of the base class they're archetypes of.
Thanks for throwing my words back in my face. Awfully kind of you.
Calling the three new classes super-archetypes, as written, is like saying the ranger is an alternate class for fighter, or that bard is an alternate class for sorcerer. They're too different to warrant such a hollow apraisal. Each has brand new mechanics or use existing mechanics in new and different ways. An archetype tweaks a class just enough to satisfy a players need for a particular type of character. It also has a format that can be easily followed. Calling these alternate classes, when they are in fact all new classes, is just a cop out. A way to say, "hey look! No class bloat here! These are archetypes that totally overhaul a class!"
Mechanically there's no reason to make these alternate classes. Game balence-wise there's no reason to make these alternate classes. It doesn't pass the logic test at all. So if someone could impart some logic to this it would be appreciated. Thank you.
I wasn't being antagonistic, nor giving you a verbal slap with your own words. I even used a respectful 'sir'. I was simply stating as Jacobs himself has pointed out before that Alternate Classes are in fact just more thorough Archtypes in a different format layout. His words. The fact that he said it fulfilled the criteria for your statement being true, so i used it in my statement.
No harm intended, and I am sorry to have caused offense by not having a reason you were willing to accept.
In older versions of the game, Ranger and Paladin WERE sub classes of fighter and therefor you could not be a ranger/fighter or a ranger/paladin.
Now you can I guess, but it seems silly. Although I have seen Barbarian/fighters.... whatever.
You cannot be a crossbowman/pikeman for example because both are fighters.
You cannot be a gunslinger/fighter because, the gunslinger gets it's abilities by trading/losing the fighter abilities of the same level.
that would be like having a 6th level character who was a fighter 1/ fighter 1/ fighter 1/ fighter 1/ fighter 1/ fighter 1 and getting a 12 base fortitude save because you got the +2 bonus 6 times, but still having a 6/1 BAB etc etc.
Thats why rules are made to revent dufus builds like that.
So No, you cannot be a cavalier/samurai, they are the same class, with alternate abilities.
1st, your "we might as well stop buying Paizo books" and "I don't want to stop buying Paizo books." arguments offend me.
Grow up. Arguments like this are as old as the forum and it's the first time I've ever made such a statement in my life. I trust Paizo to make products I will use and to have game logic that syncs with my own. This is the first time I've ever been baffled by a decision they've made. The fact that so many people support a self-limiting concept like "gunslingers are the exact same as fighters" is quite startling. It has it's own mechanic. Paladins, rangers and barbarians also have their own mechanics, but are also their own classes. By this rationale there can be no archetypes for gunslingers, ninja or samurai. Again, self-limiting. I've always associated Paizo with options. Seems I was wrong.
2nd, you can't take the same class twice, the ninja and samurai alternate classes are not excuses or caveats to break the rules.
Gunslinger is not the same class. Take away grit, give it bonus feats and I'll agree that it's a reskinned fighter, but with a whole slew of class abilities I'm having a hard time not seeing a whole new class.
3rd, I can see the gunslinger having nothing to do with the fighter, but the Ninja seems a Rogue in black clothes to me, and the samurai is clearly a cavalier that forgot how to do a cavalry charge.
The ninja I agree with you on. It's why I've argued for an assassinate ability as opposed to sneak attack. To better differentiate the two classes. Samurai though? The argument for me can go either way, but I've played samurai before in Rokugon with a DM who knew the culture inside and out. A samurai is a fighter, traditionally, fantastically you can lean more toward cav or even pally.
4th, you may want to elaborate your arguments if you want something more than awfully kind words, i.e. why is ok to have alternate classes and archetypes but Ninja doesn't qualify as one? why are they in fact all new classes?
Good point and thank you for that. As I've stated game logic is very important to me. Consistent power level expectations throughout play, reliable examples of things should be built and used in game. The gunslinger deserves it's own class with archetypes and so forth. It's unique and fills a fantasy niche, as well as modern fiction tropes, so that belongs in the game with it's own identity.
The ninja is a fan favorite. So it should be treated as such. If they're going for a more traditional faceman/disguising ninja then thy shouldn't have ki. Traditional ninja do not have ki, but fantasy ninja are crazy cool and that public zeitgeist should be honored.
Sam is a strange animal. Paizo really is trying something new here, so I want to support it, but it just puts a hook in my craw that they chose cav. It feels more contrived and less inspired. If they flipped Sam and gunslinger then maybe it would make more sense.
As for the rest of you who responded. Thank you for taking the time, even if you came off more venomous than you intended. A couple of you completely missed my points, but that's expected and so, movin on.
I also apologize if I've come off more venomous than intended. This really is the first time I've been disappointed in Paizo and I just want to understand the logic.
I refusemto accept "because I said so", and yes I got beat a lot as a child.
Gunslinger is not the same class. Take away grit, give it bonus feats and I'll agree that it's a reskinned fighter, but with a whole slew of class abilities I'm having a hard time not seeing a whole new class.
You state that it is a fighter and that it isn't a fighter right in black and white. Uh, wha???
Grit is a new rules system for the game that is going to accessible to every class. It is showcased in the gunslinger. This way you don't just get new rules but also a framework on how to implement them. Thematically and mechanically they linked it to the gunslinger class. The gunslinger is built explicitly off of the fighter class. That is why it is just a re-skinned fighter.
Taking all this, the gunslinger is a fighter archetype with new game mechanics. As others have pointed out, allowing a fighter to multiclass with itself is not legal or balanced. But only if you are playing in Pathfinder sanctioned games. Which they did for balance reasons so at sanctioned games, everyone in on the same page. In your own home game, do whatever you want, because it is your game and no one can tell you to play a certain way but you and your group.
Why does a large portion of the community seem so loath to house-rule the things they think are wrong? I've rebuilt counterspelling and added parry/deflect CMs, class archetypes, feats, etc. Cause it's my game.
This really points out the underlying flaws in the Gunslinger class, ultimately. If you are a Gunslinger, you should be the best with guns. Period. Unfortunately, the class as written isn't. You could do far better by mixing Gunslinger levels with Fighter levels.
That tells me the Gunslinger class needs to be reworked.
It has been argued in other threads that Gunslinger does not really play well as a Fighter Alternative Class. They have different proficiencies, different saves, different acess to bonus feats etc. In these aspects, thye are more attuned to the Ranger.
Also, just to point it out, Archtypes ARE NOT mutually exclusive all around. You can play as many archtypes as you want, provided they do not replace/modify the same class abilities. For example, Drunken Monk, Monk of the Four Winds, and Monk of the Sacred Mountain all modify different abilities, and thus you can be a Sacred Mountain Drunk Monk of the Four Winds if you desired. This is not possible with fighter as of yet since all published in the APG replace a combination of Bravery, Armor Training, and Weapon Training.
This really points out the underlying flaws in the Gunslinger class, ultimately. If you are a Gunslinger, you should be the best with guns. Period. Unfortunately, the class as written isn't. You could do far better by mixing Gunslinger levels with Fighter levels.
That tells me the Gunslinger class needs to be reworked.
I'm not arguing that. Play-testing is one of the main reasons PF is as good balance-wise as it is. What, IMHO, the gunslinger need is more bonus feats, or some sort of inherent mechanic that allows it to be great with guns.
Gunslinger is not the same class. Take away grit, give it bonus feats and I'll agree that it's a reskinned fighter, but with a whole slew of class abilities I'm having a hard time not seeing a whole new class.You state that it is a fighter and that it isn't a fighter right in black and white. Uh, wha???
????? Slow down, read it again. I most certainly did not say what you think I said.
As for houseruling. Here's the thing I never understood before, but do now. There is something I don't like about to be added to my game. I could tell my players that the classes in ultimate combat are being overhauled for my games. This means that at least two of my players will not be buying UC. Yes, it's unresonable, but if they can't use 100% of a book then they don't want to own it. Thus I'd have to bite the bullet and let them use it as is if they liked the classes, since telling a player NO only works if they're being unreasonable, not me.
A game is a collaborative thing that gives and takes. I could've just sat quietly by and said nothing. I chose to express my opinions in the hopes of revealing like minded people who may not have been comfortable expressing their ideas. You don't catch anything if you don't fish.
Surprisingly I'm seeing a lot of people support limitations over wide options. What does making these alternate classes add to the game? If ninja had an assassinate ability instead of sneak attack would people accept it as a class of its own?
I still don't understand the fear of class bloat. If the classes are all balanced against one another then there shouldn't be a problem, right? I mean, that is the fear you all wrestle with right? The thing that keeps you up at night?
I trust Paizo to make balanced classes that stand on their own and don't corrupt the power scale. I just wish other people could trust them too.
????? Slow down, read it again. I most certainly did not say what you think I said.
You say that changing grit for feats makes it a reskinned fighter. The ninja is a huge difference from the rogue. But since we already have ki, it's nothing new. How come adding ki to a rogue is different from adding grit to a fighter?
As for houseruling. Here's the thing I never understood before, but do now. There is something I don't like about to be added to my game. I could tell my players that the classes in ultimate combat are being overhauled for my games. This means that at least two of my players will not be buying UC. Yes, it's unresonable, but if they can't use 100% of a book then they don't want to own it. Thus I'd have to bite the bullet and let them use it as is if they liked the classes, since telling a player NO only works if they're being unreasonable, not me.
A game is a collaborative thing that gives and takes. I could've just sat quietly by and said nothing. I chose to express my opinions in the hopes of revealing like minded people who may not have been comfortable expressing their ideas. You don't catch anything if you don't fish.
That is your players. I work alongside my PCs and allow a lot of options in most games I run. But I put my foot down and keep what I don't like out. That means I've run games w/o PrCs in 3.5, for example. I had reasons for this and they, after grumbling, accepted.
Surprisingly I'm seeing a lot of people support limitations over wide options. What does making these alternate classes add to the game? If ninja had an assassinate ability instead of sneak attack would people accept it as a class of its own?
I still don't understand the fear of class bloat. If the classes are all balanced against one another then there shouldn't be a problem, right? I mean, that is the fear you all wrestle with right? The thing that keeps you up at night?
I trust Paizo to make balanced classes that stand on their own and don't corrupt the power scale. I just wish other people could trust them too.
I am all for limiting the power of new things. This way all the stuff I bought before doesn't become obsolete. And by low-balling the power level you keep balance from getting out of hand. Especially for Pathfinder events, games associated with the company, adventure paths, and future products. Everyone is on the same page and has the same options. It keeps events from having 75% of the same build showing up.
Adding power to a standard is easy. Removing power is much harder.
|
As was pointed out earlier, if you took the grit class feature out and added in bonus feats it would be a reskinned fighter.
That's what Paizo did, if you look at every deed as essentially a preselected bonus feat, and the fact they get slightly more of them than everyone else, the Gunslinger falls back in line as a more indepth Fighter.
As for the argument that Samurai = Fighter...no it doesn't. Cavalier is the only class other than paladin that has the concept of a code of honor, and repercussions for failing to uphold it. If you played rokugon as much as you claimed, you knwo for a fact that the code of Bushido is first and foremost in a smaurai's mind, be it throwing the code away when necessary (such as with the scorpion clan) or adhering to it to your detriment. (such as the crane or lion clans)This entire argument is not feasible on the ground that these ARE archetypes just with a bit mroe added and subtracted for ease of use.
I for one support our new Paizo overlords ;)
As was pointed out earlier, if you took the grit class feature out and added in bonus feats it would be a reskinned fighter.
Took out the Grit, added the bonus feats, added heavy armor prof and tower shield prof, removed Exotic Weapon (firearms) prof, changed the Base Saves, removed the free gear. The same could be said about changing Ranger into Fighter, with the addition of changing the skills.
Additionally, if you look at Grit as preselected bonus feats, then we come back to the "Everyone showing up with the same build" situation. It seems that all gunslingers come out the same, at this point in time. Hopefully round 2 will fix this issue.
|
Gubnslinger is a master of one weapon. How is that NOT a Figbhter? Should sword masters be their own class? How about axemen? Pikemen? Does every weapon need its own class?
Ninja is an oriental rogue. It's a master of stealth and attacking from the shadows. How does that not fall into the Rogue balliwack?
Samurai is a Cavalier class. It's an inspiring, non-magical leader of men and inspiring warrior. Again, how is that not the Cavalier?
Not to disagree, but I can see both sides of this argument. The Ninja is one part rogue, one part monk. The samurai is one part cavalier, one part monk. Similarly with the standard base classes, the ranger is one part fighter, one part druid. The paladin is one part fighter, one part cleric. The bard is one part sorceror, one part rogue. And why isn't the druid an alternate class of cleric? Why isn't the sorceror an alternate class of wizard? How about the new base classes? Why isn't the witch or the alchemist an alternate class of wizard? Why isn't the summoner an alternate class of wizard or cleric or druid? Why isn't the inquisitor an alternate class of cavalier or fighter? Why isn't the cavalier an alternate class of fighter?
While it may be valid to say that these new playtest classes should be "alternate classes" or "archetypes," based on the reasoning that they have striking similarities to existing base classes, the fact remains that several of those existing base classes defy that reasoning. Personally, I think it is a bad idea to restrict the gunslinger from multiclassing as a fighter. It is unique enough that it should be its own base class. I can see barring the ninja and samurai from multiclassing, but I would bar them from multiclassing with *any* other class, not because they are subclasses, but because they are code-based classes that require such a singular dedication that they won't tolerate their adherents to stray from the path, as it were. The same should probably be true of the cavalier and paladin classes (as they once were, if memory serves).
|
If all were perfect, and I were in charge, then I would differentiate the gunslinger a bit more, and have it as a full base class. I'd also maybe scale back the samurai and ninja changes just a bit and present them as archetypes.
And I'd add in a class that was a steampunk / mad scientist / inventor guy, akin to Tesla. One of the class features would be the ability to create mechanoids...robotic creatures that would work in a similar manner to the summoner's eidolon.
But maybe that's just me.
|
|
And I'd add in a class that was a steampunk / mad scientist / inventor guy, akin to Tesla. One of the class features would be the ability to create mechanoids...robotic creatures that would work in a similar manner to the summoner's eidolon.
I'm seeing ... svirfneblin alchemist! Seriously, though, maybe a Golem Master?
|
|
And I'd add in a class that was a steampunk / mad scientist / inventor guy, akin to Tesla. One of the class features would be the ability to create mechanoids...robotic creatures that would work in a similar manner to the summoner's eidolon.I'm seeing ... svirfneblin alchemist! Seriously, though, maybe a Golem Master?
See, my problem with something like the alchemist or golems is that they are blatantly labeled as magical. It's a bit of a problem in the game...nothing mundane is allowed to be flashy/impressive. My mad scientist will be able to fully function in an anti-magic field / dead magic area. No ability that either he or his creations has will be anything beyond Ex....no Su. or Sp. abilities at all.
|
|
D+D and it's cousins are about life in a magical world. And Alchemy... at least the claims of alchemists have always been magical or mystical in nature. I think harping on one specific spell shows more of an obsession than a rational argument. You don't really expect golems of which the progenitor was an animated statue of clay to be technological do you?
And yet not everything in that world is magical. Tons of monsters, and quite a few classes don't have any magical components at all.
Alchemy does have a magical background...which is exactly why I stated that it was incompatible with the class I am suggesting. Same with golums...you seem to be agreeing with me without realizing it.
Well alchemy is actually chemistry and there for science.
Just like magic is really science we can't understand yet.
Back when my daddy beat my mommy on the head with a club, and drug her back to his cave, they thought lightening and fire were magic.
Like wise nuclear energy would have been considered some hair brain alchemical claim to the fantastically impossible.
Gun powder was right there in the days of socrates.
What is far fetched? Lead into gold? Essentially all that is is the rearranging of electrons and neutrons, its not even inventing or discovering a new element, its changing one into another which they can do with OTHER elements, just havent done with gold....yet.... Im sure some guy is locked in his lab right now ,muttering "worst episode EVER", to himself and trying that very thing somewhere in the world today.
And he calls himself a SCIENTIST.
I agree that the Gunslinger is definitely a master of the gun, in the same light that a Ranger is a master at using a fighting style. However, my problem is that the Gunslinger possesses its own very unique combat mechanic; Grit. Grit is such a huge step away from anything that a Fighter can do, and I think that the grit mechanic single-handedly warrants that the Gunslinger be upgraded from an Alternate class into a Base class. Samurai, as it is, definitely can stay as an Alternate class, though I do think that the inclusion of Ki points for the Ninja makes it a little too different from Rogue to warrant an Alternate class, but I can understand that one keeping its current status.
In my opinion, a Fighter that specializes in guns should be like a British soldier during the Revolutionary war; highly trained and very disciplined in their methods. A Gunslinger's abilities lend more towards the wild-west ruffian; not the image that I personally see a Fighter as. The discipline, for me, was the dividing line from a Fighter to a Barbarian or a Fighter from a Ranger; Fighters receive formal training while Barbarians fight with instinct or Rangers with nature lore. I'd like to see something similar dividing the Fighter and the Gunslinger; a Fighter is disciplined and highly trained with firearms while a Gunslinger fights with luck and personal flair, which is also why I think Grit would be better suited towards a Charisma stat. Even if it's hard to understand what they're saying (the Cowboy from True Grit) or they're fugitives from the laws or even town sheriffs, Gunslingers are almost ALWAYS filled with personal confidence and maybe even a little narcissistic; perfect for Charisma, in my opinion.
To the OP, I seem to be the only one that entirely agrees with you on this. Because I, for one, hate the concept of Alternate Classes.
I don't understand why they can't be new classes. What exactly do they not have that doesn't qualify them to being new classes, exactly? What would you give a Samurai to make it a CLASS? How about the Ninja and Gunslinger? I don't see it.
I dislike the lack of a class in Ultimate Combat, mainly because there is a serious lack of non-spellcasting new classes and, yet, Ultimate Magic is getting its own CLASS (and another spellcaster one, woohoo...)
I also agree with the OP on the logic that a Ranger can simply be just an alternate Fighter, a Bard an alternate Sorcerer, a Barbarian an alternate Fighter, etc. Heck, even the Druid as an alternate Cleric! What exactly is is about them that sets them apart and called full-fledged classes? Why can't the same thing be applied to Gunslinger/Samurai/Ninja?
To the OP, I seem to be the only one that entirely agrees with you on this. Because I, for one, hate the concept of Alternate Classes.
I don't understand why they can't be new classes. What exactly do they not have that doesn't qualify them to being new classes, exactly? What would you give a Samurai to make it a CLASS? How about the Ninja and Gunslinger? I don't see it.
Paraphrase from the various posts of developers:
1 - to prevent 'class bloat', they are being presented as alternate classes.2 - to prevent confusion, they are getting a much fuller write-up then the usual archetype.
3 - for fluff, since these classes have been in high demand, they are getting a fuller treatment. This way individuals who want 'cowboys' or Asian flavor have it already presented.
4 - because of their similarity to present classes, they are Alt Classes. This way you cannot potentially overpower your PCs, especially for Paizo sanctioned events and games.
5 - because they will be easier to support, both because they are present early in the life of PF and can be included in future releases, and because they can use options available to their parent classes.
I dislike the lack of a class in Ultimate Combat, mainly because there is a serious lack of non-spellcasting new classes and, yet, Ultimate Magic is getting its own CLASS (and another spellcaster one, woohoo...)
There is only so many ways you can design a non-spell-casting class. The Magus is a full-fledged base class because it did not use any existing class as it's primary mold. Instead it was a brand new (sorta) concept that couldn't be replicated in another class's form with brand mechanics. The 3 Alternate Base classes of UC are, quite obviously, the redesigning of already present classes.
I also agree with the OP on the logic that a Ranger can simply be just an alternate Fighter, a Bard an alternate Sorcerer, a Barbarian an alternate Fighter, etc. Heck, even the Druid as an alternate Cleric! What exactly is is about them that sets them apart and called full-fledged classes? Why can't the same thing be applied to Gunslinger/Samurai/Ninja?
The fighter, barbarian, ranger, and paladin are just alternate warriors. The wizard, sorcerer, witch, oracle, cleric, druid, are just adepts in pretty hats. Why are they different classes? Heck, when you cut down to it, everything is based off the commoner.
Because 3rd ed./3.5/PF is an RPG based on classes. That is why we have the wizard, fighter, and magus. They do work differently, enough so their subset of rules needed to be presented as a new class. The ninja, samurai, and gunslinger change significantly less from their 'parent' class then the cavalier did to the fighter, the summoner did to the druid/wizard, etc.
What I do not understand is why they should be separate classes.
I don't want to stop buying Paizo books.
Then don't. If this little thing bothers you so much that you get all conflicted about buying the books, you should seek help. That's not normal behaviour, man.
I do agree that the gunslinger probably should be called its own class. It has almost nothing in common with the fighter. The things that are similar are things warrior type classes usually get.
Basically not one fighter class feature is there, and even the saves are different. That's beyond what a variant class should be about.
I don't want to stop buying Paizo books.Then don't. If this little thing bothers you so much that you get all conflicted about buying the books, you should seek help. That's not normal behaviour, man.
I do agree that the gunslinger probably should be called its own class. It has almost nothing in common with the fighter. The things that are similar are things warrior type classes usually get.
Basically not one fighter class feature is there, and even the saves are different. That's beyond what a variant class should be about.
Ive said this in other threads, i really think the motivation for making it a fighter variant is, because after a few levels dipping in gunslinger, as written it was way better to go fighter.
So because it looked that way the devs made it a fighter variant to prevent the fighter level dipping.However, i think after the play test and a rewrite, we may see it in a different form entirely.
I still think it makes a better ranger.
Alternate classes don't reduce "class glut." You're still generating a character going, "hmm... do I want to play a fighter? Or a gunslinger? Or a ranger? Or a barbarian? Or a paladin? Or maybe a sorcerer? Or a magus..." and on and on. You've still added the additional choice - Gunslinger is in the mix, just like every other core class, base class, and archetype. It isn't decreasing the number of classes at all. All it does is force people to never multiclass with fighter. They can still multiclass with ranger, paladin, alchemist, or whatever else. They're prohibited from taking levels as one class, and when you start telling a player "you're not allowed to play this one class..." Shoot, it's not even the case that you can't multiclass sorcerer and wizard, and there's little reason why you should be able to.
*IF* I decide to allow the Gunslinger class option in my games at all, it will be considered what it truly is - a base class, just like all the others. You want a level of fighter in there? Take it. It'll delay your higher class levels, just like taking a level of a different class will. I'm starting to get a little tired of Paizo making arbitrary restrictions that actually limit options and the fun of building a character that I want to play, personally.
It´s been brought up elsewhere that the GS could be based off of Ranger or even Monk more plausibly.
Although that would mean it can´t be M-Classed with those classes, instead.
I agree that simply making it it´s own base class is a pretty good option, allowing M-Classing with any of those Classes, while likely providing impetus to remove features which overlap with them (e.g. Weapon Training and Bravery). I think that would be better in the end... Because Gunslinger shouldn´t be THE only way to have a competent gun-using fighter type, and Gun using variants of FIghter, Ranger, and Monk SHOULD be made as well - in this same book, since this is where Guns are being introduced. Gun-Fighters don´t REALLY match Grit, do they? And though I´ve advocated for basing the GS off of Ranger, keeping them separate allows M-Classing with full spectrum of Ranger abilities. ...Really the main one I DON´T like the idea of M-Classing is the Monk, given combining Flurry + Ki Extra Attack + Grit. Maybe Monk is really the best basis for the extreme Alt-Class version of Gunslinger...?
It´s been brought up elsewhere that the GS could be based off of Ranger or even Monk more plausibly.
Although that would mean it can´t be M-Classed with those classes, instead.I agree that simply making it it´s own base class is a pretty good option, allowing M-Classing with any of those Classes, while likely providing impetus to remove features which overlap with them (e.g. Weapon Training and Bravery). I think that would be better in the end... Because Gunslinger shouldn´t be THE only way to have a competent gun-using fighter type, and Gun using variants of FIghter, Ranger, and Monk SHOULD be made as well - in this same book, since this is where Guns are being introduced. Gun-Fighters don´t REALLY match Grit, do they? And though I´ve advocated for basing the GS off of Ranger, keeping them separate allows M-Classing with full spectrum of Ranger abilities. ...Really the main one I DON´T like the idea of M-Classing is the Monk, given combining Flurry + Ki Extra Attack + Grit. Maybe Monk is really the best basis for the extreme Alt-Class version of Gunslinger...?
ammo/reload issues prevent the flurry of bullets thing, but it would be pretty good to reproduce the hollywood "fanning" of the pistol to get out all six rounds, would be cool.
Alternate classes don't reduce "class glut." You're still generating a character going, "hmm... do I want to play a fighter? Or a gunslinger? Or a ranger? Or a barbarian? Or a paladin? Or maybe a sorcerer? Or a magus..." and on and on. You've still added the additional choice - Gunslinger is in the mix, just like every other core class, base class, and archetype. It isn't decreasing the number of classes at all. All it does is force people to never multiclass with fighter. They can still multiclass with ranger, paladin, alchemist, or whatever else. They're prohibited from taking levels as one class, and when you start telling a player "you're not allowed to play this one class..." Shoot, it's not even the case that you can't multiclass sorcerer and wizard, and there's little reason why you should be able to.
*IF* I decide to allow the Gunslinger class option in my games at all, it will be considered what it truly is - a base class, just like all the others. You want a level of fighter in there? Take it. It'll delay your higher class levels, just like taking a level of a different class will. I'm starting to get a little tired of Paizo making arbitrary restrictions that actually limit options and the fun of building a character that I want to play, personally.
+1
Exactly. I don't know where the idea of "avoiding class glut" comes from. I also don't understand why they can't have Ninja/Rogues, Samurai/Cavalier (though the cultures severely clash), or Gunslinger/Fighter. In my games, I plan on doing the same thing. Allowing the characters to multiclass into whatever with their "alternate" class. I don't see how it'll break anything apart, because like you pointed out, they lose their higher level class features in both classes.Good one about the Sorcerer/Wizard, a Sorcerer definitely is just an "alternate class wizard".
I don't have a problem with that because a Gunslinger/Rogue is a better build. They fire their gun then pull their dagger out of their boot. The greater loss is if you cannot combine Gunslinger/Duelist. What if I want to roleplay as one of the 3 or 4 Musketeers?
To the last 6 post,
+5 vorpal
I guess I've always liked the idea that everything I get from Paizo can be used as is. Obviously that cannot be the case. Eventually they would pander to what they believe is the majority and I would be left holding the bag. However, simply expanding the options provided by Paizo will make me look like a hero! Open multi-classing it is! Thank you all for your time in discussing this. I feel like we've made some headway as a community.
:)
To the last 6 post,
+5 vorpal
I guess I've always liked the idea that everything I get from Paizo can be used as is. Obviously that cannot be the case. Eventually they would pander to what they believe is the majority and I would be left holding the bag. However, simply expanding the options provided by Paizo will make me look like a hero! Open multi-classing it is! Thank you all for your time in discussing this. I feel like we've made some headway as a community.
:)
Likewise.
So, Paizo, if you're reading this, you're slowly causing a following to allow free multiclassing with the "alternate classes" anyway...might as well go all the way and make them classes! :D
Eventually they would pander to what they believe is the majority
How do you know they don't know that it's the majority?
like a 2nd Level Rogue Ninja with 2D6 Sneak attack.
I wouldn't have a problem with that. You're giving up a whole lot to get that second sneak-attack-die one level early. You would still have a +0 BAB, +0 Fort, and +0 Will. The only thing that improves about your character by multiclassing Rogue/Ninja is sneak attack, which you improve at a schedule of 1 level earlier than normal. Everything else about the character would suffer from multiclassing. All of the cool class abilities, from either class, you'd get at least 1 level later than normal.
In fact, I'd never even consider multiclassing ninja and rogue, since there are almost only disadvantages to doing so (unless level 2 is the level the rest of the campaign would be played at). However, I feel that those who do want to multiclass ninja and rogue should be allowed to.
Note that if you keep going rogue/ninja it all evens out, he just gets a front end SA boost, and everything is the same thereafter (2 levels without SA, etc).
==Aelryinth
I really don't know how the Ninja is at finding and disabling traps. How is he at opening locks?
I believe that you cannot multiclass Rogue-Ninja, Gunslinger-Fighter, Cavalier- Samurai because the abilities are too similar and they stack strangely and in an un-balanced way, like a 2nd Level Rogue Ninja with 2D6 Sneak attack.
A player could do this in 3.5 with rogue/spellthief or rogue/ninja (if you didn't mind just getting Sudden Strike instead...). It didn't happen all that often, and was primarily useful to get into Arcane Trickster a level early. It's a bit nasty on the front end, but not game breaking, and it prevents or delays access to useful class features like talents or Evasion. Even using Unearthed Arcana's fractional BAB/Saves system, you aren't getting that much out of it - it's certainly a meaner combo for NPC attackers than for PCs in the long haul. It isn't broken, certainly.
|
In older versions of the game, Ranger and Paladin WERE sub classes of fighter and therefor you could not be a ranger/fighter or a ranger/paladin.
Now you can I guess, but it seems silly. Although I have seen Barbarian/fighters.... whatever.
Remember Unearthed Arcana? Made the Paladin a sub class of Cavalier. I wonder if it might be interesting to try a game where we were to move the old subclasses back into their old homes... :)
Remember Unearthed Arcana? Made the Paladin a sub class of Cavalier. I wonder if it might be interesting to try a game where we were to move the old subclasses back into their old homes... :)In older versions of the game, Ranger and Paladin WERE sub classes of fighter and therefor you could not be a ranger/fighter or a ranger/paladin.
Now you can I guess, but it seems silly. Although I have seen Barbarian/fighters.... whatever.
yea i remember that, the paladin also became a character who obsessed over armor and had to upgrade to the heaviest goofiest turtle shell he could find. I always hated that.
Of course back then, mutli-classing could only be done my certain races into certain class and dual classing could only be done by humans, but then you could never go up in the old class again.
I still also remember the original AD&D ranger who wore plate mail and cast spells from the druid AND magic-user spell lists.
I believe that you cannot multiclass Rogue-Ninja, Gunslinger-Fighter, Cavalier- Samurai because the abilities are too similar and they stack strangely and in an un-balanced way, like a 2nd Level Rogue Ninja with 2D6 Sneak attack.
Wow, an extra +1d6 to sneak attack is sooooo game breaking? I highly doubt it. For an extra +1d6 real early, the 20th-level Rogue/Ninja is still off by +1d6 SA, I believe. Where's the imbalance?
And if we're going by that route, maybe Fighter/Barbarians should not be allowed. All it takes is a Mithral Fullplate-wearing Fighter/Barbarian to be "game breaking". Or Sorcerer/Wizards, that's way too many spells per day. (Despite lack of higher level spells)