I've tested the slinger a few times (didn't keep track of numbers, and it was arena style, so I'm not currently posting the results) and I have one big question when looking at this class, looking at the playtests, and looking at all the discussion.
What does the gunsligner DO? What is the overall design goal with this class? The only abilities it seems to have that promote any certain style of play are Startling Shot, Targeting , and Stunning Shot, all of which somehow screw with the enemy (flat-footed, confused, disarmed, prone, stunned, ect.) and support a controller class; and those don't even START showing up until 7th level. The rest of the abilities are just a mish-mash that don't make much sense together. Gunslinger Dodge? How does that relate at all to Gunslinger Initiative or Utility Shot? Quick Clear, Expert Loading, and Lightning Reload make sense since the class uses guns, but Menacing Shot? How does that fit into the rest of the class? Dead Shot seems like a way to squeeze some extra damage out of the class, but the only other ability that even remotely comes close to that idea is Gun Training. And what the hell does Slinger's Luck have to do with anything? Or Evasive?
My point is that this class is literally all over the place. It's trying to be everything, when it's obviously not. It feels like the concept behind the deeds, in particular, was "Instead of giving one good ability at these levels, let's give it a bunch of crappy ones that the players have to keep track of!" so the table wouldn't be cluttered.
Most classes, from the get-go, have some sort of goal. For a recent example, when the magus's playtest first arrived, almost everyone looked at its abilities and said "I know what this is supposed to do!" Spellstrike, spell combat, the armor proficiencies, and even its spell list all pointed toward the idea that "This guy should be in the thick of it, kicking ass and taking names." There were problems, but overall the idea got across.
I cannot for the life of me see an overall direction in the gunslinger. The samurai was "Okay, more defensive cavalier." The ninja was "Okay, this girl is a more combat-focused rogue." The gunslinger...has a gun. I cannot tell if it's supposed to be a battlefield controller or a damage dealer. If controller, then why do its controlling abilities not show up until level 7? If damage dealer, then why doesn't it deal damage? Is it supposed to be leaning toward its skills or its weapons? If skills, then why doesn't it get more points to spend on them? If weapons, then why the hell do its abilities not make them any less worthless than they are in the hands of any other class? The only one that really does is gained at level 11 (lightning reload) which should be given at level 1 or 2.
It also lacks any sort of fun ability until later levels. A few laughs can be had with Pistol whip and Utility shot at level 3, but they quickly run dry when you realize that the really cool stuff, Targeting, Startling Shot and Dead Shot, doesn't show up for 4 more levels. The only cool ability it has at level 1 is Gunslinger Dodge, which costs grit and is limited in use anyway.
But I got off track there for a paragraph. I really want to know, what is this class supposed to be doing? I love the idea of this class and have been attempting to design my own gunslinger far before the alpha came out. I would love to see this version pointed in a real direction where it can succeed rather than have it pointed in a thousand different directions wherein it's only mediocre.
-The Beast
Yea, Hmmmm.
Trouble with guns/ gunslinger is "western gunslingers" is where it's at.
Prior to that, after that, people with guns were pretty much just soldiers , which makes them warriors or fighters.
I still maintain, from the get go this was a huge mistake not to make this class an alternate off the alchemist. It would have had more direction. A more combat focused tinkerer/inventor with a flair of melodrama, something like a batman/ironman of the middle ages.
The Class would have been so modular you could have done a myriad of concepts.
As it is, there is almost no way to do a 'concept' without mutli-classing into something, but abilities you 'need' are so high up the gunslinger food chain it creates even a stumbling block to that. To be a good amateur gunslinger you have to have alot of feats, which puts you back at fighter, where this all started.
I think Eric is right, the 'slinger is too conceptualized which is hobbling it. Every concept you try to build that isn't 'the iconic' is self designed stumbling block personified and can't be done until levels 9-11 when 'minimum' abilities kick in and so it funnels every character to mediocrity.
However, there are truthfully, not that many concepts to go with for a gunslinger like I said.
However, there are truthfully, not that many concepts to go with for a gunslinger like I said.Agreed. Off the top of my head, some iconic gun-related character concepts are:
So that's seven gun-related character concepts that could really benefit from a handful of gunslinger class abilities. But six of those character concepts can't be done with the gunslinger class because almost all of the gunslinger's abilities are focused exclusively on catering to the one other character concept on the above list.
- An Old West gunslinger (the gunslinger is hard-wired to be exactly this)
- A swashbuckling musketeer (the gunslinger can't do this without multiclassing, as it has no option to take non-gun weapon abilities)
- A black powder alchemist (the gunslinger can't do this without multiclassing, as he has no option to take non-gun alchemical abilities)
- A crazy artificer (the gunslinger can't do this at all, as the game has no viable non-alchemy artifice abilities)
- A skilled aristocrat who duels with pistols (the gunslinger can't do this without multiclassing, as he has no option to gain more skills and take diplomacy- or inspiration-related abilities)
- A cold, calculating sniper (the gunslinger can't do this without multiclassing, as he has no option to take any stealth or infiltration abilities, and is hard wired to be reckless instead of cautious)
- A gun-fu master (the gunslinger can't do this at all, as the game has no Bullet Time and/or hyper-aware-in-combat options, and the gunslinger is hard-wired to be reckless instead of disciplined)
Edit: Granted, not all of the above concepts could easily fit into a single class, but I would have liked to see at least three or four of them be viable using the one and only class in the game that's supposed to focus on guns.
Absolutely agreed. The hallmark of diverse classes such as the Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and even the Bard to a limited extent, is that there are multiple different "themes" possible within the class. The point I was trying to make is that it can't even do one thing right, much less all of the above. The question, I think, then becomes, "Should the design be based around developing one idea and then expanding outward? Or should it be focused more around developing each "theme" simultaneously?"
My vote goes to the former. However, the "Western Gunslinger" should not be the initial idea which should be expanded upon. The initial idea should be as bland as possible: that of the Gunfighter. Someone who uses guns effectively. Once that ability is mastered, then the design should expand outward into Western Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Musketeer, Black Powder Alchemist, Tinker, Sniper, Gun-Fu Master, etc. The class lacks a solid core, I think. It feels hollow, as if it has a pretty outer shell, but there's really no substance beneath. It's a S#!tty chocolate bunny one gets for easter: It looks great in the package until you bite the ear off and realize it's mostly stale air.
-The Beast
I think the Gunslinger is not so much emulating the Western gunslinger types as making a statement about how the emergence of firearms in a world ruled by magic could look like. The point being, in a world that's used to all kinds of magic, firearms are assumed to be a new kind of magic, and it's users are treated as a new sort of weird mystics.
Everything about PF firearms, and their users, screams: "this is SO not a normal weapon". It's rules are weird and, according to people calling the shots, deliberately not following the standard format for ranged weapons. It's cost is more on par with lesser magical items than with any mundane technology in the system. For a cost of one musket and 50 shots, you can outfit several people with wands of Magic Missile, or tens of people with longbows and arrows. And, unlike either, a musket can rip your face off if you're unlucky.
Then, there's the Grit and Deeds it enables. Apparently, Gunslingers are so badass, their awesomeness actually leaks into the physical world and enables them to do things other people can't... but only as long as they try to use a gun. Looking at the class progression, it seems the more you stick to the gun, the more things you can do with it, and the more reliable it becomes in your hand. What's more, while most other classes that deal with doing extraordinary things have some sort of limited fuel, a Gunslinger can keep his tangible awesomesauce flowing potentially indefinitely... but only as long as he sticks to his guns. It seems like firearms are addictive, or some magical force stood behind firearms' emergence and rewarded those who help the idea spread.
Even worse, it's spreading like viral infection. Apparently anyone who chooses to use firearms can become tangibly more badass, thanks to the Amateur Gunslinger feat. Sure, technically, it's all about different mechanics behind the guns and the feat enabling you to better influence those mechanics, not unlike those feats you take to become better at any other weapon of choice. But the fluff slapped on the ability, and the fact that it introduces a whole new manageable resource into the game system, makes it feel quite different than taking Point Blank Mastery or Critical Focus.
Have you read Pratchett's Men at Arms? Remember the "gonne" and how people reacted to it? It was as if the firearm was more than a new weapon, but rather a ravenous, murderous monster in the form of an elaborate metal tube. I get a similar vibe from the gunslinger class. Well, it seems less of a ravenous metal monster and more of a weird magical focus item, but hopefully you get what I mean. Guns in PF seem to run on Narrativum rather than gunpowder, turning anyone willing to use them into a crazy action hero.
For a more down to earth example of what I'm talking about, when firearms have been first introduced to Japan, a translator's mistake caused the Japanese to believe that using firearms required moral and spiritual enlightenment. Similarly, firearms in Pathfinder seem to require superhuman bravery, and reward said bravery with abilities that almost defy logic.
Having this in mind, from the narrative perspective, I love the Gunslinger class. I could probably run an entire campaign centered around the emergence of guns, the havoc it wrecks and the plots of sinister cosmic forces standing behind it. I'm not yet sure if I love the class equally from the gamist's perspective, as it seems kinda lackluster. But I do hope they stick to tweaking, balancing and expanding rather than overhaul it into something basic and flavorless (we always have the Fighter for that).
Just my two cents, perhaps somebody will feel inspired :)
This is so doable in one class, gun-fu, black powder alchemist, artificer, swashbuckler, seriously it could easily be done, if Deeds were like arcanna/discoveries, and more of them and everything needed for these were selectable in deeds, things that are 'required' to make the gun work are non grit class features and that would leave the feats open to get the other things the class needs to be different concepts, plain and simple.
|
Agreed. Off the top of my head, some iconic gun-related character concepts are:
* An Old West gunslinger (the gunslinger is hard-wired to be exactly this)
* A swashbuckling musketeer (the gunslinger can't do this without multiclassing, as it has no option to take non-gun weapon abilities)
* A black powder alchemist (the gunslinger can't do this without multiclassing, as he has no option to take non-gun alchemical abilities)
* A crazy artificer (the gunslinger can't do this at all, as the game has no viable non-alchemy artifice abilities)
* A skilled aristocrat who duels with pistols (the gunslinger can't do this without multiclassing, as he has no option to gain more skills and take diplomacy- or inspiration-related abilities)
* A cold, calculating sniper (the gunslinger can't do this without multiclassing, as he has no option to take any stealth or infiltration abilities, and is hard wired to be reckless instead of cautious)
* A gun-fu master (the gunslinger can't do this at all, as the game has no Bullet Time and/or hyper-aware-in-combat options, and the gunslinger is hard-wired to be reckless instead of disciplined)So that's seven gun-related character concepts that could really benefit from a handful of gunslinger class abilities. But six of those character concepts can't be done with the gunslinger class because almost all of the gunslinger's abilities are focused exclusively on catering to the one other character concept on the above list.
Edit: Granted, not all of the above concepts could easily fit into a single class, but I would have liked to see at least three or four of them be viable using the one and only class in the game that's supposed to focus on guns.
Just... +100 with you and this topic. It's the feeling I got on the alpha, and the feeling I still get with the beta. It's a shame that the class seems stuck to almost one and only role because of lack of variety. This is why I say this doesn't feel "Paizo" enough to me, especially when the politic with APG and future books is shouting (pun !) "MOOOAR CUSTOM".
This is so doable in one class, gun-fu, black powder alchemist, artificer, swashbuckler, seriously it could easily be done, if Deeds were like arcanna/discoveries, and more of them and everything needed for these were selectable in deeds, things that are 'required' to make the gun work are non grit class features and that would leave the feats open to get the other things the class needs to be different concepts, plain and simple.
It's -exactly- what we made and proposed at the end of round 1 playtest, in what you described "a houserule we don't care about since this isn't what we will see in round 2", remember ?
Again, I allow myself to humbly remind the designers that the 1.5 Alpha gunslinger is still here and available to show what the gunslinger could be, based on the community's expectations. If the base class will stay as it is right now (and it is almost perfect in the Old West-style), there are still a lot of concepts, deeds and mechanisms in the pdf that would make nice variants or options in swashbuckling, sniper, artificer and gun-fu. It's OGL and you can see by yourself that it contains the kind of things that the customers are expecting, so feel free to feast on it's meat even if it's to take the best parts and let the others rot under the sun while a gunslinger plays harmonica in a dramatic effect.
It's -exactly- what we made and proposed at the end of round 1 playtest, in what you described "a houserule we don't care about since this isn't what we will see in round 2", remember ?
Again, I allow myself to humbly remind the designers that the 1.5 Alpha gunslinger is still here and available to show what the gunslinger could be, based on the community's expectations. If the base class will stay as it is right now (and it is almost perfect in the Old West-style), there are still a lot of concepts, deeds and mechanisms in the pdf that would make nice variants or options in swashbuckling, sniper, artificer and gun-fu. It's OGL and you can see by yourself that it contains the kind of things that the customers are expecting, so feel free to feast on it's meat even if it's to take the best parts and let the others rot under the sun while a gunslinger plays harmonica in a dramatic effect.
And I was right, what you had in your house rule is nothing like we saw in round 2, is it?
|
|
And I was right, what you had in your house rule is nothing like we saw in round 2, is it?
Absolutely, not gonna argue about it.
Yet a lot of people seem to complain about the lack of customization and ask for similar content that was thought about in the 1.5, especially concerning these builds that are currently unplayable with the actual rules - that is, iconic musketeer/buccaneer, gun-fu, sniper, etc. - so maybe this houserule was a bit more than I could quote a vulgar, useless personnal take on the concept, isn't it ?
The point of the play test is to develop a useful version to be printed into the book we all intend to buy, not spend so much time and resources as to go so far off the current road the class is on as to literally be ignored by the Dev's (which it was).
Look at the amount of time you and others put into it, now measure how much of what you put into it, got into the round 2 gunslinger?
The point of these threads is to talk about the gunslinger not something that will never see print, because, well to put it bluntly, no matter how good it is, they just will simply never let you design it for them, call it ego.
|
|
The point of these threads is to talk about the gunslinger not something that will never see print, because, well to put it bluntly, no matter how good it is, they just will simply never let you design it for them, call it ego.
I know about this, and nobody "designed a class" for them, the whole 1.5 "class" was more of a sketch with concepts or ideas that people asked for - and still ask for, like this very topic proves it. It was far from perfect and derivated from the original to keep the idea of a new base class using a kind of development similar to the alchemist, and by so I understand why it didn't got a lot of support, but it is still a good mirror of all suggestions that were made. What annoys me isn't that almost nothing was used from it in the actual gunslinger ; maybe we'll see some concepts come back in variants, and if we don't at least it was maybe of some use ; it's the way you snub it like houserule junk all the while asking for things it proposed. I don't know if being insulting is the intent, but at least I can say it feels like it.
"snub it like houserule junk"
It is a houserule. That's what it is. The Dev's ask for playtests, no rewrites, the more you write for them the less likely they are to go anywhere near it, the vaguer you are the more likely you are to get something like you were hoping.
Put that much detail and effort into something, and they won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Plain and simple.
"snub it like houserule junk"
It is a houserule. That's what it is. The Dev's ask for playtests, no rewrites, the more you write for them the less likely they are to go anywhere near it, the vaguer you are the more likely you are to get something like you were hoping.
Put that much detail and effort into something, and they won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Plain and simple.
Maxx, as much as I liked the 1.5, Pentagast is right. If it was instead just a straight pdf of ideas proposed and possible ways to execute them, then I could definitely see the devs taking it seriously. But presented as an actual class in its own right, with so much work and detail put into it, they are not likely to touch it if only for fear of favoring the 1.5 (or Ashiel's class) and, as Pentagast said, sheer ego.
It's depressing, but likely true.
And to Amorangias: I absolutely agree that the flavor of this class is solid, but I think that, from a gamist perspective (a perspective I don't often like to take) it just has no solid core mechanic to stand on. And in order for a class to really see use, it needs to a solid core as well as outreaching flavor. Just look at a class like the barbarian. It succeeds due to the fact that it has both a strong, solid core mechanic (Rage) and branches of sub-mechanics that add both quality and flavor to the class (Rage Powers, Uncanny Dodge, Fast Movement, etc.) As stated in the OP, until 7th level it has nothing to DO. It feels like it's trying to make its core mechanic Guns, but that's bad game design. Anyone can use guns. It's a Gunslinger, so yes, it uses guns. But in order to be a class, it has to do more than just shoot them. It has to be exceptional with them. From level 1.
Overall, this whole damn playtest feels more like a playtest of Guns than the Gunslinger, yet we're not supposed to be testing the guns (except perhaps the advanced firearms). We're supposed to be testing the class.
And it doesn't hold up.
-The Beast
I keep falling back to the arcana/discovery way of things here and keep thinking that this is the feel it should have,
Like some people point out, if you actually end up with advanced firearms, half your class features are bunk. If you don't have advanced firearms you suck up all your resources trying not to suck wind.
Deft shootist needs to be a free feat at some point in the level progression like rapid reload became.
I think amateurs should still be able to take it.
Id think this class needs both a monk/ranger 'style' combat feat tree (select a,b,or c at level x and 1,2,3 at level Z etc) AND Deeds like Discoveries/arcana.
I don't think it will actually work any other way.
Even as it stands it's too hard to make an amateur gunslinger that isn't a ranger or a fighter because of the 'feat need'.
|
Seems like you don't get any nice toys until level 7+... And even then you can't do it reliably until you get Signature Deed.
I think I would play a Gunslinger at, say, level 12. I would use targetting as a signature deed, and all of the feat taxes (dodge, mobility, quick draw, rapid reload, deft shootist, signature deed, extra grit) out of the way. That would be fun.
Along the way, though, not so sure.
Well lets see, Fighters, fight; Summoners, summon; Wizards, wizard; and finally Rogues, rogue... so I would say Gunslingers, gun sling.
The gunslinger is what you play in a party as the 'sixth' character.
You already have an arcanist, a tank, a healer, a ranged guru, an trap/skill monkey and you just want to play, no one is depending on you to actually perform or do anything, because they have it covered.
Why must the Gunslinger be the general shooty guy when we can handle all kinds of shooty guys with Archetypes for different classes?
The more I think about it, the more I'm of the opinion that "gunslinger" should be an archetype instead of a class. But not a fighter archetype. An archetype for a new base class. A gritty (or daring), lightly-armored warrior base class.
Remove all of the gun stuff from the existing gunslinger chasis. Keep some version of grit. Add a list of non-gun deeds that can be selected like rogue talents. (Have things like daredevil stunts, dread pirate deeds, gladiatorial moves, inspiring heroic acts, impossible quirks of luck, street fighting styles, and swashbuckling maneuvers.)
As a placeholder, call this new base class the ruffian. He's the quintessential, rough-and-tumble action hero that's at the heart of numerous character concepts. Now make "gunslinger" a ruffian archetype that grants firearm proficiency, provides an hierloom gun, and replaces the broad list of generic ruffian deeds with a narrower list of gun-related deeds.
Then you have one single base class that covers numerous character concepts, from cowboy to gladiator to pirate to swashbuckler and any number of other things in between.
I absolutely see merit in this idea. And I would be 100% behind the devs if they decided to go this direction.
But realistically, it's not going to happen. The "beta" of the Gunslinger is already in our hands, and Stephen has been stating in other threads ideas that we will be seeing in the "Final" gunslinger, suggesting that there will probably not be a round 3. It's depressing, since the class still needs a LOT of work to function properly, and it's not as if we don't have time to test it (the book isn't scheduled to arrive until August, and knowing' Paizo's release schedule, that date is likely to get pushed back about a month).
My suggestion is simply that the devs take a long, hard look at the class, and then decide what they really want out of it. What should it do, in what directions should it be able to go, and what is its core concept? These are all questions that, I think, haven't really been given the attention they deserve. Once they have, I suggest a round 3 is released (sometime in May? Give it a while, I think).
-The Beast
I really think the gunslinger is "almost" good.
What i think is making the grit pool it's own feat. It can fuel grit deeds, which any class can tap into. Allow it as an optional mechanic powered by a feat.
Leave the gunslinger abilities "grit less" with optional rules for 'heightened' performance from the deed if grit is spent. (example, pistol whip allows the gunslinger to use a firearm as a melee weapon, with grit it can cause knock down)
Some minor tweaking and this is all good.
With that not happening, the deed selection (like talents, arcana etc) moving around some abilities, bringing some feats into the deed fold (like signature deed and secret stash and no name) to lessen the feat burden on the gunslinger and adding a few things like commando/rogue crawl and it's going to be a good class.
Edit: oh and some deeds would be gunslinger only, like the fighter, other deeds anyone can use and still others would require fire arm proficiency.
This is probably too complicated, but I think is still a better idea than amateur gunslinger.
what would the purpose for this new base class be?
A fighter with grit?