|
Your reply on my last thread (which I'm goning to leave dead) didn't answer the question on the availability of Advanaced Firearms on Golarion.
From your last post, it would seem to me that they are indeed available, and in more places than just Alkenstar (Numeria was mentioned in the post).
I know they won't appear in any official published material, thats not the question. Do they exist, and are they available for purchase at the prices indicated in the playtest document.
Also how is a revolver cheaper than a pistol?
Thank you in advance. And continued success.
.
..
...
....
.....
Doooooooom
Also how is a revolver cheaper than a pistol?
Thank you in advance. And continued success.
you never give up do you, read the bloody side bar in the second playtest it explains everything for you
.
..
...
....
.....
And how does this help anyone in anyway?
Every time I post a sick kitten is healed.
Think of the sick kittens!
And how does this help anyone in anyway?.
..
...
....
.....Doooooooom
It made me giggle.
|
|
you never give up do you, read the bloody side bar in the second playtest it explains everything for youAlso how is a revolver cheaper than a pistol?
Thank you in advance. And continued success.
Really?
You really think I haven't read that. My question wasn't aimed at you (or anyone that doesn't work for Paizo), everyone else seems so hung up on the word 'may'.
My contention is that IN GOLARION, rifles and revolvers existed in the first campaign setting. So my (seemingly) logical deduction that they still exist, seems somehow flawed by others on these boards. So I've simply put the question to them.
And don't start citing Rule 0 (again).
And don't start citing Rule 0 (again).
why not? Rule 0 is a valid rule, if the DM doesn't want you to have access to advanced firearms you do not get them. If you want to use advanced firearms DM your own games
|
|
And don't start citing Rule 0 (again).why not? Rule 0 is a valid rule, if the DM doesn't want you to have access to advanced firearms you do not get them. If you want to use advanced firearms DM your own games
The problem with rule zero is that this is a campaign setting.
He's asking if there are advanced firearms in the created setting.
It is a perfectly valid question.
And don't start citing Rule 0 (again).why not? Rule 0 is a valid rule, if the DM doesn't want you to have access to advanced firearms you do not get them. If you want to use advanced firearms DM your own gamesThe problem with rule zero is that this is a campaign setting.
He's asking if there are advanced firearms in the created setting.
It is a perfectly valid question.
Well since the campaign setting is at the Emerging Guns mark Advanced Firearms are extremely rare(rarer than early firearms) it's still up to the DM if he wants them in his game, Thus Rule 0 is applied
That also goes for the Society Organized play. BTW, I haven't yet seen the Inner Sea guide, does that have the firearms rules in it and if so, how advanced do they get.
Your reply on my last thread (which I'm goning to leave dead) didn't answer the question on the availability of Advanaced Firearms on Golarion.
From your last post, it would seem to me that they are indeed available, and in more places than just Alkenstar (Numeria was mentioned in the post).
I know they won't appear in any official published material, thats not the question. Do they exist, and are they available for purchase at the prices indicated in the playtest document.
Also how is a revolver cheaper than a pistol?
Thank you in advance. And continued success.
Excuse me Overdark, but I'm going to be a little flippant here. Sometimes I just can't help it.
You know Golarion doesn't exist, right? It's a fictional tool to help some GMs run fantastic games and the setting for Paizo games and novels.
What is the answer to the question, “are there any advanced firearms in Golarion?” The answer is, “ask your GM.” Game worlds, even published ones, have truths contingent on their GM's whims. We just provide tools for those whims.
If you are the GM, you get to decide.
As for the other question, the price of the pistol in the playtest document is wrong. It will be more expensive than a pistol in Ultimate Combat. I am working from home on other parts of the book and some other projects, so I can't reference the other price. It's more expensive than a pepperbox.
|
You know Golarion doesn't exist, right? It's a fictional tool to help some GMs run fantastic games and the setting for Paizo games and novels.
What is the answer to the question, “are there any advanced firearms in Golarion?” The answer is, “ask your GM.” Game worlds, even published ones, have truths contingent on their GM's whims. We just provide tools for those whims.
If you are the GM, you get to decide.
Rule 0 is indeed Golarion canon. I love the Paizo attitude.
Your reply on my last thread (which I'm goning to leave dead) didn't answer the question on the availability of Advanaced Firearms on Golarion.
From your last post, it would seem to me that they are indeed available, and in more places than just Alkenstar (Numeria was mentioned in the post).
I know they won't appear in any official published material, thats not the question. Do they exist, and are they available for purchase at the prices indicated in the playtest document.
Also how is a revolver cheaper than a pistol?
Thank you in advance. And continued success.
Excuse me Overdark, but I'm going to be a little flippant here. Sometimes I just can't help it.
You know Golarion doesn't exist, right? It's a fictional tool to help some GMs run fantastic games and the setting for Paizo games and novels.
What is the answer to the question, “are there any advanced firearms in Golarion?” The answer is, “ask your GM.” Game worlds, even published ones, have truths contingent on their GM's whims. We just provide tools for those whims.
If you are the GM, you get to decide.
As for the other question, the price of the pistol in the playtest document is wrong. It will be more expensive than a pistol in Ultimate Combat. I am working from home on other parts of the book and some other projects, so I can't reference the other price. It's more expensive than a pepperbox.
Thank you.
|
|
Your reply on my last thread (which I'm goning to leave dead) didn't answer the question on the availability of Advanaced Firearms on Golarion.
From your last post, it would seem to me that they are indeed available, and in more places than just Alkenstar (Numeria was mentioned in the post).
I know they won't appear in any official published material, thats not the question. Do they exist, and are they available for purchase at the prices indicated in the playtest document.
Also how is a revolver cheaper than a pistol?
Thank you in advance. And continued success.
Excuse me Overdark, but I'm going to be a little flippant here. Sometimes I just can't help it.
You know Golarion doesn't exist, right? It's a fictional tool to help some GMs run fantastic games and the setting for Paizo games and novels.
What is the answer to the question, “are there any advanced firearms in Golarion?” The answer is, “ask your GM.” Game worlds, even published ones, have truths contingent on their GM's whims. We just provide tools for those whims.
If you are the GM, you get to decide.
As for the other question, the price of the pistol in the playtest document is wrong. It will be more expensive than a pistol in Ultimate Combat. I am working from home on other parts of the book and some other projects, so I can't reference the other price. It's more expensive than a pepperbox.
So when you post flippant, sarcastic responses, its ok? But when we do it were out of line?
Ok. A little hypocritical but ok.
Yes, I know that Golarion is a fictional-world. And exists purely as a backdrop (or setting) for your adventures.
I was asking about a core assumption of the world, I know I can disallow druids if I want, that doesn't change the core view of published material that druids exist. If you don't want to give a concrete definitive answer, fine why don't you just say that instead of getting sarcastic and defensive about it.
Do advanced firearms exist ini the core assumption of Golarion? They used to, before all the new fangled gun rules come around. Do they still? Whats so wrong with the question? If I was asking if greatswords existed in Golarion (not MY Golarion) would I still be getting the sarcasm. Come on really?
So when you post flippant, sarcastic responses, its ok? But when we do it were out of line?
Ok. A little hypocritical but ok.
Yes, I know that Golarion is a fictional-world. And exists purely as a backdrop (or setting) for your adventures.
I was asking about a core assumption of the world, I know I can disallow druids if I want, that doesn't change the core view of published material that druids exist. If you don't want to give a concrete definitive answer, fine why don't you just say that instead of getting sarcastic and defensive about it.
Do advanced firearms exist ini the core assumption of Golarion? They used to, before all the new fangled gun rules come around. Do they still? Whats so wrong with the question? If I was asking if greatswords existed in Golarion (not MY Golarion) would I still be getting the sarcasm. Come on really?
What's this not-your-Golarion that you speak of?
So when you post flippant, sarcastic responses, its ok? But when we do it were out of line?Ok. A little hypocritical but ok.
Yes, I know that Golarion is a fictional-world. And exists purely as a backdrop (or setting) for your adventures.
I was asking about a core assumption of the world, I know I can disallow druids if I want, that doesn't change the core view of published material that druids exist. If you don't want to give a concrete definitive answer, fine why don't you just say that instead of getting sarcastic and defensive about it....
No, Overdark, I'm sorry, you misunderstand me...or maybe I could be clearer. I wasn't being flippant about what I was saying about the core assumption. Our core assumption is that we are going to provide the class, we are going to allow it in PFS, but it's not going to show up all over the place in the Adventure Paths, Companions, adventures, or the fiction. Everything is not going gunslinger (although it may seem that way if you read these boards).
What I gave you is the core assumption: We expect people to use it as much as they wish. We are going to present it as a rarity in the line. I would be surprised if you ever saw an advance firearm in printed Golarion product.
Basically, what Stephen wrote amounts to "use your imagination", and your reaction amounts to "help me, I don't have any". Well, sucks to be you :)
I think it is more a simple misunderstanding. We all have imaginations. We all love this game. Sometimes we just disagree.
|
.
..
...
....
.....
And how does this help anyone in anyway?Every time I post a sick kitten is healed.
Think of the sick kittens!
Oh, BF, you're the only person who always stays in character.
/salute
Edit*: Does quoting your posts heal sick kittens? Or does it simply make kittens more comfortable, despite them still being sick?
.
..
...
....
.....
Edit*: Does quoting your posts heal sick kittens? Or does it simply make kittens more comfortable, despite them still being sick?
Both.
But you have to believe.
BELIEVE!
|
|
On a more serious note, I believe what the playtest is trying to convey is that advanced firearms, much like artifacts and other such items of mystery, are entirely subject to DM fiat. A Staff of the Magi, for example, does not exist unless the DM decides to incorporate it into his story. The same goes for every other "artifact." Unless a location is given or is widely known, like the Starstone, there is no guarantee that it exists at all.
Subsequently, if the assumption during the creation of these artifacts by the designers is "this doesn't exist unless the DM says so", then that's the baseline. This means that if the DM doesn't say it exists, then it doesn't. If the DM does, then it does. That's the baseline. Really, that's all the answer that is necessary, since you can't play the game without a DM anyways.
.
..
...
....
.....
I BELIEVE IN BENIGNFASCIST!
You Sir, have surly healed the more sick kittens.
On this day..
|
|
So when you post flippant, sarcastic responses, its ok? But when we do it were out of line?Ok. A little hypocritical but ok.
Yes, I know that Golarion is a fictional-world. And exists purely as a backdrop (or setting) for your adventures.
I was asking about a core assumption of the world, I know I can disallow druids if I want, that doesn't change the core view of published material that druids exist. If you don't want to give a concrete definitive answer, fine why don't you just say that instead of getting sarcastic and defensive about it....
No, Overdark, I'm sorry, you misunderstand me...or maybe I could be clearer. I wasn't being flippant about what I was saying about the core assumption. Our core assumption is that we are going to provide the class, we are going to allow it in PFS, but it's not going to show up all over the place in the Adventure Paths, Companions, adventures, or the fiction. Everything is not going gunslinger (although it may seem that way if you read these boards).
What I gave you is the core assumption: We expect people to use it as much as they wish. We are going to present it as a rarity in the line. I would be surprised if you ever saw an advance firearm in printed Golarion product.
This is a fair answer.
I think the fear some of us have is that if firearms turn out to be mechanically superior to existing weapons, they will become common by the fact that they are mechanically superior. And while there is debate on the standard firearms, I don't think there is any debate on advanced firearms.
Keeping them out of Adventure Paths is helpful, as that is an area where DM fiat is much, much more shady.
I understand wanting to have options available so you could create a firearms friendly campaign. But I think the fear is that if it becomes integrated into the primary product line, it will become the product line, and that will alter the setting dramatically.
Now if there were other settings...I'm not an enemy of any themed world where guns can exist. But the Golarion setting thus far seemed heavily focused on limiting that interaction.
So when you post flippant, sarcastic responses, its ok? But when we do it were out of line?
OOOH I know this one, I know this one!
It's ok cause you know -- it's his company's website -- as such they set the rules! You get out of line when they tired of hearing you!
So my advice is to keep it fresh -- you know pick on different points, change things up, include actual play occasionally.
|
|
I understand wanting to have options available so you could create a firearms friendly campaign. But I think the fear is that if it becomes integrated into the primary product line, it will become the product line, and that will alter the setting dramatically.Can you flesh out this fear more? Everything Steven has said, and everything I recall from every other Dev on the subject, has been that guns are an option they are laying down in the rules and then just leaving them there.
Even the whole Golarion setting is designed to be this modular, semi-autonomous regions that aim for a specific flavor.
Nothing I've seen from Paizo tells me that they are building up Golarion as having a huge meta-narrative, where the fate of nations and the world will evolve over time. Instead it is a collage of different flavorful regions that a GM can use however they want, or simply ignore.
I haven't seen the new campaign guide yet, but I was impressed with the first one in that each little section on a region was provocative enough to run an entire campaign in that one region.
The only real problem that I can see are from GMs that are so hard core sandboxy that they look on the world as some massive realm-engine and they just let the players run roughshod over the rules, allowing them to spam the environment with whatever weird crafting/spellcasting they can do to suck all of the drama out of any situation.
If a GM doesn't have the skill to gracefully edit out that kind of nonsense then that's just bad GMing, not the fault of what gets offered up in the toolbox of rules.
Here is my fear.
Firearms will be mechanically superior to existing weapons to the point where everyone will want to carry them for the "high AC, low touch attack" scenarios.
They will point out that given the cost, it is unreasonable for them not to be able to have a "back-up" musket somewhere once you get to a certain level.
Crossbows become sub-optimal and are largely phased out. And suddenly we've gone from medieval scenarios to wild west meets steam punk mash-up as the default.
As everyone who hangs out on the boards for any length of time knows, there are tons of pure mechanic players out there. Role play or logic of the world be damned, they want the new toy if it is more powerful than the old toy.
If firearms being more effective than existing weapons were limited to one class, I would be fine with it. But when you make them more effective than existing weapons, of course players will want them over existing weapons.
And whenever you add a superior mechanical choice, power creep slips in just a touch.
At this point firearms are better than crossbows. Crossbows had a mechanical niche in the game, that firearms now more effectively fill.
That is power creep.
It can very easily be managed with a few rules limitations, but if you give people access to something better, they will want to play with it. You can say "the DM can" all you want, but if the player wants it and can show you the rule in the book saying it exists and you say no, your the jerk.
Same thing happened with the broken spells in the Spell Compendium, same thing happened with the broken mechanics in the splat books (Can w say Abjurant Champion anyone) and you have frustrated players who are saying "If the developers think it's fine, what is the problem?"
Players who DM are easy to work with. They get it. Players who just play often want to make the most powerful creation they can. Period.
If I am telling my players that we aren't using rules from certain sections of the book, it makes it harder. We all house rule some things, obviously, but my players do want guns. I want guns. I've played with guns in the campaign using the old rules and they worked just fine.
They were a suboptimal choice made for flavor and specific effect.
Just like they were until metallurgy and chemistry improved.
If you add something that is better than the base existing play, people will want it.
If I added Kevlar to the game, saying it largely negated armor check and movement penalties, but said it was optional and rare, it would be a problem to say to my players "Yes, this exists. Yes you have enough gold to acquire it based on it's cost as a measure of it's rarity. But no, I'm not letting you have it because of my personal sense of the verisimilitude of the campaign."
Yeah, over like a lead balloon.
I would love for Paizo to make a modern game setting. Or even a Wild West or steam punk era game setting.
But in this existing setting, where the consensus is to keep guns rare, they need to be kept rare for the same reasons they were rare in medieval times.
They were less effective than the other weapons.
Here is my fear.
Firearms will be mechanically superior to existing weapons to the point where everyone will want to carry them for the "high AC, low touch attack" scenarios.
Munchkins hardly count as everyone
They will point out that given the cost, it is unreasonable for them not to be able to have a "back-up" musket somewhere once you get to a certain level.
Then you (the GM) counter their argument with "given the rarity they are only available at certain markets."
Crossbows become sub-optimal and are largely phased out. And suddenly we've gone from medieval scenarios to wild west meets steam punk mash-up as the default.
If you run with a everything is available in every single magic-mart in every single little podunk village. Then you the GM deserve to have your world broken by the munchkin.
As everyone who hangs out on the boards for any length of time knows, there are tons of pure mechanic players out there. Role play or logic of the world be damned, they want the new toy if it is more powerful than the old toy.
The most powerful words in a GMs vocabulary is NO or in my case OK, (what is available to one is available to all).
If firearms being more effective than existing weapons were limited to one class, I would be fine with it. But when you make them more effective than existing weapons, of course players will want them over existing weapons.
And whenever you add a superior mechanical choice, power creep slips in just a touch.
At this point firearms are better than crossbows. Crossbows had a mechanical niche in the game, that firearms now more effectively fill.
That is power creep.
Maybe it is just my play style but I always thought it is the GMs job to control Power creep. He controls the world not the players. The players control the PCs that is it; not the NPCs, not what is available in the marts, not how the monsters react, not the weather, etc, That is the GMs job.
It can very easily be managed with a few rules limitations, but if you give people access to something better, they will want to play with it. You can say "the DM can" all you want, but if the player wants it and can show you the rule in the book saying it exists and you say no, your the jerk.
No you are the GM. It is your world. You are sharing it with the PCs. Not the other way around.
Same thing happened with the broken spells in the Spell Compendium, same thing happened with the broken mechanics in the splat books (Can w say Abjurant Champion anyone) and you have frustrated players who are saying "If the developers think it's fine, what is the problem?"
Answer those questions with "That class, power, feat, skill, etc, does not fit my setting; I have a setting I can use those in but that is not the setting for the current story."
Players who DM are easy to work with. They get it. Players who just play often want to make the most powerful creation they can. Period.
No they want to make the coolest creation they can. (Some think power equals cool, yes, but they are rare.)
If I am telling my players that we aren't using rules from certain sections of the book, it makes it harder. We all house rule some things, obviously, but my players do want guns. I want guns. I've played with guns in the campaign using the old rules and they worked just fine.
They were a suboptimal choice made for flavor and specific effect.
Just like they were until metallurgy and chemistry improved.
so then house rule that your games will be using the old rules.
If you add something that is better than the base existing play, people will want it.
If I added Kevlar to the game, saying it largely negated armor check and movement penalties, but said it was optional and rare, it would be a problem to say to my players "Yes, this exists. Yes you have enough gold to acquire it based on it's cost as a measure of it's rarity. But no, I'm not letting you have it because of my personal sense of the verisimilitude of the campaign."
Yeah, over like a lead balloon.
Sounds like the players are controlling the world not the GM.
I would love for Paizo to make a modern game setting. Or even a Wild West or steam punk era game setting.
Oh Yes, Please.
But in this existing setting, where the consensus is to keep guns rare, they need to be kept rare for the same reasons they were rare in medieval times.
They were less effective than the other weapons.
No they were rare because of cost to manufacture, and prone to catastrophic failure. Current rules... guns are expensive to make, and prone to failure... sounds like they fit.
Thanks ciretose, that makes sense.
Steven, I'd suggest in the sidebar wording in the emergent category that where it speaks of advanced firearms that they specifically be described as being on the level of an artifact.
That way advanced firearms fit within a specific mechanical system category within the emergent context. That way when hyper-gamist players, devoid of any sense of verisimilitude, will be shut down by the artifact category. That'll give the GM the RAW oomph to allow or disallow them without all the fuss of demanding players.
If players are going to use the power of RAW to try and pry open advanced firearms, then just use the keywords to put a big thick padlock on the box that only the GM has the key to.
I think they are going to keep them at the level of Wondrous Items and as a Player and a DM i would prefer they keep it that way
I think they are going to keep them at the level of Wondrous Items and as a Player and a DM i would prefer they keep it that wayWhy?
Because I don't really mind how the advanced firearms are set up and keeping them as wondrous items makes it easier for me to use them against my group
|
|
Stuff
Actually they were rare for the reasons you pointed out, and the fact that they were horribly inaccurate and not particularly lethal beyond very close range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus
Taking your responses one by one.
1. It isn't just munchkins who don't want to be suboptimal.
2. Once teleport comes into play, what markets can't they access? And considering the costs, they easily fall into the available in decent sized cities realm.
3. See above.
4. I always do the "available to your enemies" approach to problem mechanical loophole attempts. That doesn't work in this case, as the advantage against the enemies is far higher than for them, since PC's don't tend to be huge or colossal.
5. The players control what they play. When as as DM you take away the options for the only thing that players control, they get itchy. Again, it is a valid argument for a player to make that if it's in the setting and in the rules, it should be available to them.
6-8. DM by Fiat vs rules means you are moving into an argument with your players against the developers. If you are playing in a setting, it isn't just your world. When Golarion included Alkenstar, the setting included guns. I've had players in the game with guns, and it worked fine because they were the exceptions since guns kinda sucked. They players were playing them for flavor and the fun of occasional exploding dice, knowing they were generally suboptimal weapons.
How do I make "exceptions" for a mechanically superior weapon? I either allow it for all or I don't. And if I allow, and it is more powerful than other weapons, a large number of players will choose the more effective weapon.
It's common sense.
9. Power equals cool is not rare. Most players want to build powerful characters. No one wants to be Aquaman.
10. I will likely be doing some kind of house ruling the old rules with weird modifications for the new gunslinger class, which will wonk balance since there will be future rules based off the new gun rules. This is why I try to house rule as little as possible.
11. The players are controlling the world because they want the things the setting says are available to them?
12. We agree on wanting those settings. We disagree with having those setting separate from Golarion.
I personally preferred Forgotten Realms to Ebberon, but I'm glad both existed for people who liked darker games. I loved the concept of Rifts, but wished they had fixed the mechanics. And our group plays superheroes with both the Aberrant and Mutants and Mastermind systems.
But none of those settings mixed well together, as they all had different feels and intents.
13. I addressed above with the link to the arquebus. Early firearms were more about smoke and sound than actual effectiveness. The goal of war at that point was to get your opponent to run away first so that your Calvary could run them down.
Guns were loud and scary to peasants. But they couldn't hit anything, and didn't pierce squat outside of point blank range. Much less effective than a crossbow or long bow.
But in Pathfinder it isn't an Arquebus, it's a Musket. :3
Not to be nitpicky, but one is better to the other.
But in Pathfinder it isn't an Arquebus, it's a Musket. :3
Not to be nitpicky, but one is better to the other.
This is part of the problem. For medieval purposes, a musket is an advanced firearm.
Again, I would love to have a firearms setting.
I also love having a medieval setting.
i really wouldn't say that Pathfinder is medieval, the campaign setting is all over the place
|
My stance as a GM, when I read emerging guns, is that Golarion is a pepperbox, pistol and musket setting. "Rare and wondrous" to me means a showcase in a museum OR very experimental (i.e. misfire if you roll a natural 19 or less), and thus not accessible to PCs.
PS: could someone please confirm that the emerging guns sidebar reference to Craft Firearms feat is in fact the Gunsmithing feat? Cheers!
Taking your responses one by one.
1. It isn't just munchkins who don't want to be suboptimal.
2. Once teleport comes into play, what markets can't they access? And considering the costs, they easily fall into the available in decent sized cities realm.
3. See above.
4. I always do the "available to your enemies" approach to problem mechanical loophole attempts. That doesn't work in this case, as the advantage against the enemies is far higher than for them, since PC's don't tend to be huge or colossal.
5. The players control what they play. When as as DM you take away the options for the only thing that players control, they get itchy. Again, it is a valid argument for a player to make that if it's in the setting and in the rules, it should be available to them.
6-8. DM by Fiat vs rules means you are moving into an argument with your players against the developers. If you are playing in a setting, it isn't just your world. When Golarion included Alkenstar, the setting included guns. I've had players in the game with guns, and it worked fine because they were the exceptions since guns kinda sucked. They players were playing them for flavor and the fun of occasional exploding dice, knowing they were generally suboptimal weapons.How do I make "exceptions" for a mechanically superior weapon? I either allow it for all or I don't. And if I allow, and it is more powerful than other weapons, a large number of players will choose the more effective weapon.
It's common sense.
9. Power equals cool is not rare. Most players want to build powerful characters. No one wants to be Aquaman.
10. I will likely be doing some kind of house ruling the old rules with weird modifications for the new gunslinger class, which will wonk balance since there will be future rules based off the new gun rules. This is why I try to house rule as little as possible.
11. The players are controlling the world because they want the things the setting says are available to them?
12. We agree on wanting those settings. We disagree with having those setting separate from Golarion.I personally preferred Forgotten Realms to Ebberon, but I'm glad both existed for people who liked darker games. I loved the concept of Rifts, but wished they had fixed the mechanics. And our group plays superheroes with both the Aberrant and Mutants and Mastermind systems.
But none of those settings mixed well together, as they all had different feels and intents. {ooc] as I said it may be a difference in styles. I see no problem because it is the GMs world, the setting books are just the foundation upon which he expands.
I think the critical misunderstanding here with "do advanced firearms exist in the core game assumption" is that the devs (and others) are saying yes but only rarely, and then others are taking that to meaning that you can find it at a weapon shop or make one yourself easily, since it exists.
Sometimes, "rare and wondrous" means it's only ever found as "treasure". This means, no gun shoppe to buy one, and the theories and techniques involved in creating it are more advanced than anyone has figured out yet (hence the Numeria reference).
Finding one as a macguffin weapon for an AP or campaign arc is extremely different from "every high level PC will have access to getting one if they want".
This is the disconnect. Straight from the Dev's mouth: advanced firearms are okay at breaking the game, because the game assumes they aren't going to be used. They are there for people who want to play a Golarian that has advanced beyond the tech it is currently portrayed.
|
|
I think the critical misunderstanding here with "do advanced firearms exist in the core game assumption" is that the devs (and others) are saying yes but only rarely, and then others are taking that to meaning that you can find it at a weapon shop or make one yourself easily, since it exists.
Sometimes, "rare and wondrous" means it's only ever found as "treasure". This means, no gun shoppe to buy one, and the theories and techniques involved in creating it are more advanced than anyone has figured out yet (hence the Numeria reference).
Finding one as a macguffin weapon for an AP or campaign arc is extremely different from "every high level PC will have access to getting one if they want".
This is the disconnect. Straight from the Dev's mouth: advanced firearms are okay at breaking the game, because the game assumes they aren't going to be used. They are there for people who want to play a Golarian that has advanced beyond the tech it is currently portrayed.
I think there are going to be super advanced weapons in Numeria.
But that isn't going to have an entire class in the campaign setting built around it.
If there is a gunslinger class, unless you outlaw the class your players are going to be aware firearms exist.
And that is fine, firearms did exist in the times we are discussing as the generally perceived backdrop of Golarion parallels. Saying the players don't know about them or can't access them at a certain level makes no sense unless you are also outlawing the gunslinger class itself and having knowledge Geography and Bardic Knowledge excluded Alkenstar.
If firearms are better than other weapons in the hands of gunslinger, that is fine in the same way that swords in the hands of fighters doesn't mean the wizard can dive into melee effectively. It is as it should be.
And if guns were either equal to, or sub-optimal (my preference) vs existing weapons when not in the hands of a gunslinger, it would be a great new addition for flavor. Adding flavor is a good thing.
But so far that doesn't seem to be the goal. The goal seems to be to create something new and powerful that people will want, and that will replace and functionally obsolete existing weapons.
And the solution to that seems to be proposed on here is "don't let your players have it".
If there is a better way to do things, people will want to do it. It isn't wrong for players to want to use things that are available in the book to make their characters better.
Making new things that are more powerful than the old, functionally making them obsolete, is power creep. Power creep, IMHO, is bad.
I think all of this could have been solved rather easily by making the new features of firearms gunslinger exclusive. Hell you could have a machine gun wielding Gunslinger if he was the only one who knows how to work the machine gun and his power is balanced according to level.
If we want a cowboy, we can have a class that can become one. But unless we are creating a Wild West setting, you shouldn't be able to make all classes be a cowboy.
I actually think the biggest flaw in the Gunslinger class so far is the decision not to make them into the gunslinger we all visualize, and rather to give them weird grit "powers" as their buff. If they simply were great with guns, could auto-reload them without misfire chance with some bonuses to damage, they would be mechanically balanced, simple and straight forward. You wouldn't need the bells and whistles, it would be as straightforward as Clint Eastwood in a serape.
But when everyone can use the guns just as well, some better...Clint starts to need to be a gunsmith and trick shot artist, with weird supernatural gun-powers, rather than just a bad-ass here to hurt stuff.
I dislike how pazio always takes the ask your DM approach. That's like them saying "You should go play 3.5, it has way way more character options (feats, classes, prestige classes, settings, etc) a there's nothing broken about it"
Name one thing you think is broken about 3.5 or what makes pathfinder better and I can Rule Zero you into being wrong every time. Anything paizo changed from 3.5 could have been rule zero'd right from the begining.
It should absolutely not be the DM's job to balance the game, the DM is the story teller and NOT well.... A GAME DESIGNER.
I feel better :)
I dislike how pazio always takes the ask your DM approach. That's like them saying "You should go play 3.5, it has way way more character options (feats, classes, prestige classes, settings, etc) a there's nothing broken about it"
Name one thing you think is broken about 3.5 or what makes pathfinder better and I can Rule Zero you into being wrong every time. Anything paizo changed from 3.5 could have been rule zero'd right from the begining.
It should absolutely not be the DM's job to balance the game, the DM is the story teller and NOT well.... A GAME DESIGNER.
I feel better :)
Giving GMs options is not insisting they be game designers. There is also an openness about RPGs that allows a GM to make the game whatever he or she wants. Because of that, we sometimes have to give them the freedom the freedom that game designers enjoy.
I dislike how pazio always takes the ask your DM approach. That's like them saying "You should go play 3.5, it has way way more character options (feats, classes, prestige classes, settings, etc) a there's nothing broken about it"
Name one thing you think is broken about 3.5 or what makes pathfinder better and I can Rule Zero you into being wrong every time. Anything paizo changed from 3.5 could have been rule zero'd right from the begining.
It should absolutely not be the DM's job to balance the game, the DM is the story teller and NOT well.... A GAME DESIGNER.
I feel better :)
And if the system fails to meet the needs of the story? What does the GM do then? Quit? or play amateur game designer?
Be honest with yourself.
The only reason to hate the idea of "ask the GM" is because then the power as to what can and cannot be done in a game is in the GMs hands not the players.
But I ask you.
Is that really such a bad thing? A GM wanting to ensure that everyone at the table has fun? What fun is it if the GM and the other players have to watch as one player dominates the game through rules lawyering?
None.
I say.
It is the attitude that if it is in a book then the GM allow it that drove me away from most 3.x games.
The books are not chiseled in stone.
They are ink on paper.
Giving GMs options is not insisting they be game designers. There is also an openness about RPGs that allows a GM to make the game whatever he or she wants. Because of that, we sometimes have to give them the freedom the freedom that game designers enjoy.
This is a very healthy attitude for a game designer. I find it encouraging.