|
May I inquire as to why it should be it's own class instead of an option for multiple classes?
...it definitely will not be an option for multiple classes. At least, it won't be a "single Archetype that works for multiple different classes without needing any kind of complicated or confusing wording".
I agree with the OP; the Gunslinger, as presented, should be it's own, independent, class.
I also agree with what Inferos is (I think) trying to say, that it would be nice if there was (say) a Ranger Archetype focused on Guns, and a Rogue Archetype focused on guns, and maybe even an Alchemist Archetype focused on gunpowder.
I agree with the OP; the Gunslinger, as presented, should be it's own, independent, class. This also satisfies the various people who think Ultimate Combat should have its own new Base Class solely because Ult Magic got one
+1 that is a major reason i feel it should be its own class
|
|
I agree with the OP; the Gunslinger, as presented, should be it's own, independent, class. This also satisfies the various people who think Ultimate Combat should have its own new Base Class solely because Ult Magic got one
+1 that is a major reason i feel it should be its own class
Personally, I think "they got one, so we should get one too!" is rather silly (please don't take this the wrong way, but it's the sort of argument I'd expect to hear on a playground, not a forum). It's not a reason or an explanation, it's just a statement. What does Ultimate Magic have to do with Ultimate Combat? What is so utterly lacking about Barbarians and Fighters and Monks and Paladins and Rangers and Rogues? Where is the gaping hole that was (apparently) present with the Magus? For that matter, what besides arbitrary book order prevents the Magus from showing up in Ultimate Combat?
Throwing in a new Base Class "just because" will only lead to class bloat. The general idea of Archetypes is solid, simple, and unique; I think Paizo should stick with it wherever possible.
The gunslinger, as presented, is too complicated as an Archetype, and unique enough to stand on it's own. It gets an entirely new mechanic (Grit) that works similar to Ki or Rage, complete with a long list of dedicated powers. It has a different set of class skills and proficiencies. Gunslingers lose half the feats that Fighters get, along with the Armor Training and Weapon Training, and get a bonus to Reflex saves so large it may as well be another "good save". About the only thing they keep is the Base Attack Bonus.
The Gunslinger, as presented, is about as much an "Archetype" of the Fighter as the Barbarian or Ranger or Paladin - all of which, I might add, started out as "alternative kits" for the Fighter way back in Second Edition.
It should be split off because it's unique enough to stand on its own, not because "mages got one so tanks need one too".
i don't take it the wrong way, it is a stand point that i just feel very strongly about but i accept others don't agree with me, if i had i great idea for a class i would present it but i don't so all i can say is they get one and i want one too. i personally am not scared of class bloat and i wouldn't want an inferior class just to have a class but i still want a class if other types get new classes too.
|
simply put, if it's a archetype (formally known as Alternate class features) there should be variations for all classes to use guns, Punisher is a ranger, the boondock saints are pallys. If it's a separate class, it should freely multiclass like other base classes; the fact that it's neither currently makes it some weird bizarro "class" that forces players to conform to the writing teams on pre-consived notions on how the game should be played.