hmmm
i honestly cant see why this archetype is so bad. If you decide to wield a musket u will only get a standard action to fire anyway, as you will use the move for reloading it. The fact is that unless you decide to use pepperboxes or something like it, its almost impossible to get a full attack off with a firearm anyway.
I also have a suggestion. How about just using the dubble barreled musket at later levels? Then it should be possible to actualy fire two shots with both of them gaining the grit power. Combined with manyshot that would be 3 bullets, with a lot of damage, and he can use it quite often becouse of the regaining grit thing.
hmmm
i honestly cant see why this archetype is so bad. If you decide to wield a musket u will only get a standard action to fire anyway, as you will use the move for reloading it. The fact is that unless you decide to use pepperboxes or something like it, its almost impossible to get a full attack off with a firearm anyway.
That's why you don't decide to wield a musket. Limiting yourself to one attack per round for 2 extra damage per attack is a stupid idea.
It's debatable whether that works at all, and you cannot use Manyshot with anything but a Bow. You certainly can't use it to fire three bullets out of a gun that only holds two.I also have a suggestion. How about just using the dubble barreled musket at later levels? Then it should be possible to actualy fire two shots with both of them gaining the grit power. Combined with manyshot that would be 3 bullets, with a lot of damage, and he can use it quite often becouse of the regaining grit thing.
Oh yah, i forget the manyshot thing was with bows only.
But while i agree that the gunslinger should use dual pepperbox for best possible DPR, you cant claim a certain archetype is underpowered becouse he cant use that combination, as he seems completely fine wielding muskets. That would be the same as just declaring every gunslinger who dosnt wield dual pepperboxes, to be "purposefully" gimping their chars.
Probably the equivalent of saying that choosing any barbarian other than the mounted rager using pounce, is purposefully gimping yourself.
Probably the equivalent of saying that choosing any barbarian other than the mounted rager using pounce, is purposefully gimping yourself.
I'd rather put it this way:
Notice that the Billy Gibbons Barbarian in Example 2 gets MORE STUFF, but it's stuff that doesn't synergize at all together, it's stuff that doesn't scale with level, and it's stuff that's all demonstratively inferior to what the pounce guy gets.
Notice also that I'm not blaming Billy's player for gimping himself; I'm blaming the designer for forcing the player to gimp himself in order to get the flavor he wants.
ok with you blaming the designers for bad design.
But i think u misunderstood my point, so i will have to try and see if i can explain it right this time.
What im saying is that a dirty min max'er (yes i am included in that too), can break the system with certain combinations of classes and feats, and i think its wrong to say that all other choices are "gimping".
I think we can all agree, that if the paladin is using a musket to fight, then the holy gun would be atleast as good an option as the regular paladin. So the question comes down to this, is the pepper box dual wielding combo so much better than the musket, that u are literally gimping yourself when picking it?
pepperbox dualwielding (there is - for cons and + for pros):
20 ft range (-)
heavy feat tax (-) (you need atleast 2wp fighting and imp 2wp fight to really have an advantage)
Higher DPR (+)
Cost of 6000 gp (-) (and a bunch more ammo than the musket, but lets ignore that for now)
musket wielding:
40 ft range (+)
no feat tax (+) (meaning ability to spend them on other shooting feats, or fluff)
Less DPR (-)
Its free (+) (you can start with it, meaning more gp for gear)
So maybe the pepperboxes are better weapons, but to use them instead of the musket requires quite a bit of sacrifice, and you also lose the range advantage of the musket.
This means we are not in the old crossbow vs regular bow diskussion. Where the crossbow is just plain worse in any scenario.
So my point is that, yes if your paladin (who will lack feats like crazy now)just wants to dualwield pepperboxes, then he should choose the regular edition and just give hell to the BBEGs. But if he prefers the advantages of the musket, then even the great min maxer would probably pick the holy gun. So i disagree that the archetype is just plain worse in all instances.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if you don't want to give those things up, don't take the archetype!
I posted earlier about my player who took the archetype. I talked to him about it at last night's session. He told me that sometimes it's not always about making the optimum choice. Sometimes it's just about having fun.
And he is having fun playing his holy gun paladin.
I don't expect to convince anyone of anything. The forums are so full of experts on this subject and that subject looking to dissect any responses they receive to the glorification and edification of themselves and their 'point' that it becomes more and more 'pointless' to post responses here. It's like dealing with elves in that regard, and as Fizban summed up the belief of elves, '..... because I'm right, all others are wrong.'
Has the game really devolved to the point that the only thing that matters is optimization, or more to the point.... that the only way to have fun is to play a character that as fully optimized as it can be? I say no, of course, but then I've always been something of an optimist as well as a romantic. My players have the choice of point-buy or dice-rolling yet even though they can optimize their characters through point-buy, they prefer dice-rolling because, for them, 'it's more fun.' And as long as they're having fun, that really is only thing that matters as far as I'm concerned.
And if you don't want to give those things up, don't take the archetype!
I posted earlier about my player who took the archetype. I talked to him about it at last night's session. He told me that sometimes it's not always about making the optimum choice. Sometimes it's just about having fun.
And he is having fun playing his holy gun paladin.
I don't expect to convince anyone of anything. The forums are so full of experts on this subject and that subject looking to dissect any responses they receive to the glorification and edification of themselves and their 'point' that it becomes more and more 'pointless' to post responses here. It's like dealing with elves in that regard, and as Fizban summed up the belief of elves, '..... because I'm right, all others are wrong.'
Has the game really devolved to the point that the only thing that matters is optimization, or more to the point.... that the only way to have fun is to play a character that as fully optimized as it can be? I say no, of course, but then I've always been something of an optimist as well as a romantic. My players have the choice of point-buy or dice-rolling yet even though they can optimize their characters through point-buy, they prefer dice-rolling because, for them, 'it's more fun.' And as long as they're having fun, that really is only thing that matters as far as I'm concerned.
Thank you. That's more or less what I was trying to say upthread, but you said it much better.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So is your stance that you cannot have fun with a character who is mechanically sound? Or that it is more difficult to have fun with a character who is mechanically sound?
No, he's not saying that.
I'm saying you should not have to sacrifice effectiveness for fun.
Why the hell not? I see no problems with that. As Sean K himself said in another thread very similar to this one, "If you want every choice to have the exact same balance, you need to play a different game". There are plenty of games out there that are addressing the issue you are talking about (for example, 4th edition). Pathfinder isn't, so why are you asking it to be something that it isn't?
So is your stance that you cannot have fun with a character who is mechanically sound? Or that it is more difficult to have fun with a character who is mechanically sound? Because otherwise your statements are nonsensical with regard to this discussion. There is no flavor difference between a Holy Gun and a normal Paladin who uses a gun, so that can't be the source of the increased fun.I'm not saying that your player shouldn't be having fun with the Holy Gun, or that either of you are wrong for saying it's fun. I'm saying you should not have to sacrifice effectiveness for fun. Why does that simple...
But there is a flavor difference between the holy gun, and the normal gun wielding paladin. One uses grit, the other dosnt. Even if you want to multiclass the normal paladin to gunslinger and gain grit, there is still a huge flavour difference between their smites.
One smites the biggest meanest guy, and keeps going at him with the smite untill he is dead. The other runs around trying to hit the bad guy, but just as importantly trying to kill the minions too, to regain the grit. If that isnt 2 different flavour playstyles, then i dont know what should be.
I dont think anyone is arguing that u cant have fun with a fully optimized character, just that a minor suboptimal choice, but with different flavour, is not necesarily the devil.
And the holy gun is better than the normal paladin, not at taking out the big bad MOFOs, but is smiting the helpers and minions, and if used right, he should be able to smite on more actions than the normal paladin. Even if he dosnt do the same amount of damage to the bbeg.
So is your stance that you cannot have fun with a character who is mechanically sound? Or that it is more difficult to have fun with a character who is mechanically sound?No, he's not saying that.
I'm saying you should not have to sacrifice effectiveness for fun.Why the hell not? I see no problems with that. As Sean K himself said in another thread very similar to this one, "If you want every choice to have the exact same balance, you need to play a different game". There are plenty of games out there that are addressing the issue you are talking about (for example, 4th edition). Pathfinder isn't, so why are you asking it to be something that it isn't?
+1
|
|
... then some people want effectiveness to have fun. You can have an awesome concept, you'll still feel bad when you will suck at your job or be a lot less effective that your pal.
Nobody is asking for perfect balance for Pathfinder (and I hate how it seems that asking for balance these days has become the new "powergamer love it or quit it" trend), and a lot less for power bloat ; but overwhelmingly bad options in comparison to vanilla powers is not what people are waiting -and giving money- for.
Right now, there are some archetypes (Titan Mauler, Holy Gun) that could do with a simple one-liner errata which would make them playable or more interesting to take, instead of a silly multiclass combo that would be better at the job. Paizo always fixes things when they are actually problematic and this is one of their greatest qualities.
Note that some options are particularly intended for NPCs (Vow of poverty) and thus don't have to be especially balanced. But when a Mysterious Stranger 1/Paladin 1 kicks asses and takes names better than the holy marshal, it's just a design mistake.
One, that's a straw man. I'm not asking for the exact same balance. I'm asking for one choice not to be obviously inferior to another. Totally not the same thing.
How is "look, maybe you are looking for a game with a different design philosophy" a strawman.
Two, are you seriously claiming that it's perfectly legitimate for archetypes to be balanced based on how "fun" the designers think they are? That only "no-fun" archetypes can meet the mechanical challenges that form the heart of the way the game is balanced? That only "no-fun" archetypes can scale well into higher levels? That's what you're saying, by responding, "I see no problems with that" to the statement, "you should not have to sacrifice effectiveness for fun".If so, I'd like to sell you a book full of Holy Baker-style archetypes. It'll take me about 5 minutes to write, since balance is irrelevant to you, and it'll be more fun than you can possibly imagine, because all the classes will be worthless mechanically!
Wow, I tought that you misquoting, being upset for everything you don't agree with and implying things that weren't said more than once was just a coincidence. I see now that's an habit, an habit that make it kinda pointless to argue with you about anything. I was wrong in thinking that I could get into this discussion again. My mistake, sorry.
Now THAT's a strawman!
|
|
And the holy gun is better than the normal paladin, not at taking out the big bad MOFOs, but is smiting the helpers and minions, and if used right, he should be able to smite on more actions than the normal paladin. Even if he dosnt do the same amount of damage to the bbeg.Level 6 normal Paladin: can take out 3 (2 iteratives, rapid shot) minions a round.
Level 20 Holy Gun Paladin: can take out 1 minion a round (uses standard action to smite).Yeah, way better at clearing minions.
Your actually looking at that wrong, at the same levels they both get about the same amount of attacks and clear the same amount of Minions the difference is smite, for the first attack only on a full attack your getting Smitex2 one super evil stuff, otherwise its just level, with Holy gun which is level+ Cha and as they are both pallies who use guns so stats wont be that different either... Holy gun just trades Deflection for Damage..one of which becomes overshadowed by an item.
The thing Im seeing is just the fact that.. As a Holy gun if your gonna full attack, and the creature isnt evil you both have the same attack routine..except you have extra feats... the difference is that you have Grit and can use it for other stuff more often and your smite isnt going away anytime soon. At 20th level there will be much more than 7 things in the day you want to smite...a regular pally has to save them a holy gun doesnt... Holy also has the ability to get reliable and distance for free at 5th level..which is awesome so a musket user would hit at 80 ft away.
The Holy gun like the Sohei and some other archetypes are also part of the few that double up on abilities when they multiclass..sohei actually gets Weapon Training while also getting it from Fighter; Holy gun doubles up on max Grit (Even better with Mysterious Stranger which then doubles up on Cha to damage).
Your actually looking at that wrong, at the same levels they both get about the same amount of attacks and clear the same amount of Minions the difference is smite, for the first attack only on a full attack your getting Smitex2 one super evil stuff, otherwise its just level, with Holy gun which is level+ Cha and as they are both pallies who use guns so stats wont be that different either... Holy gun just trades Deflection for Damage..one of which becomes overshadowed by an item.OK, fine.
Level 8 Paladin with Deadly Aim, Point Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot: 1d8+7 damage x 3 attacks = 35 average damage
Level 8 Holy Gun with 20 Cha, Deadly Aim, and PBS, smiting an evil foe: 1d8+20 x 1 attack = 24 average damage
Level 8 Holy Gun as above, smiting an undead foe: 1d8+28 x 1 attack = 32 average damageFor comparison's sake, level 8 Paladin as above smiting an evil foe: 1d8+15 damage x 3 attacks = 58 average damage
As above, smiting an undead foe: 1d8+23 damage x 1 + 1d8+15 damage x 2 = 66 average damage
are you not using guns? becouse firing a musket more than one time in a round is impossible (barring the musket master gunslinger arch type).
So in essense we end up with the normal paladin doing 1d12+7 dam against normal monions and stuff, and the holy gun with smite doing 1d12+20.
Im not saying any of them are awsome characters. But it has its place to pull out a musket instead of the handguns, use the weapon enchant to get distance, and suddenly attack things 80 feet away. At that distance the dualwielding pepperbox paladin wont hit anything (he will have -6 distance and -2 rapid shot, and -5 additional for the second bab attack).
we might as well start arguing that targeting is an unusable grit power, becouse it also requires a standard action. While i would claim that it has its uses, even if you dont want to use it all the time. On top of that he recieves more grit, and combined with mysterious stranger 1 he would gain even more grit.
The way i see it, is that holy gun is more about different options. Just like a fighter taking different CMB feats, just for the occasional use of trip/sunder or bullrush during combat. Sorry but i really have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing, even if he is worse at dealing damage to the BBEG.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if you don't want to give those things up, don't take the archetype!
I posted earlier about my player who took the archetype. I talked to him about it at last night's session. He told me that sometimes it's not always about making the optimum choice. Sometimes it's just about having fun.
And he is having fun playing his holy gun paladin.
I don't expect to convince anyone of anything. The forums are so full of experts on this subject and that subject looking to dissect any responses they receive to the glorification and edification of themselves and their 'point' that it becomes more and more 'pointless' to post responses here. It's like dealing with elves in that regard, and as Fizban summed up the belief of elves, '..... because I'm right, all others are wrong.'
Has the game really devolved to the point that the only thing that matters is optimization, or more to the point.... that the only way to have fun is to play a character that as fully optimized as it can be? I say no, of course, but then I've always been something of an optimist as well as a romantic. My players have the choice of point-buy or dice-rolling yet even though they can optimize their characters through point-buy, they prefer dice-rolling because, for them, 'it's more fun.' And as long as they're having fun, that really is only thing that matters as far as I'm concerned.
One, this makes no sense. Literally, zero sense.
Let's go by what you said. The player doesn't care about optimization and just wants to play a cool paladin with a gun. Ok, I can dig it.
But if this is the case, why would you get mad at people who want the Holy Gun to be better? Surely if you think "I don't care about optimization" then if anything you should agree that there shouldn't be bad choices designed to trick you, and yes that is what it comes down to. 3e was built under the concept of Ivory Tower Game Design - that the "good" players would recognize bad decisions, while the "bad" players, the ones who didn't care about optimization, would make bad characters. Literally this was a part of 3e's design philosophy.
So yeah, your answer doesn't work. It doesn't. If you TRULY didn't care about optimization, as you claim, then you'd be complaining too. You'd be just as pissed that a cool idea was made to be awful. But the thing is, I think you do care about optimization. You try to skirt around it and make bad characters because you think you're some kinda edgy roleplayer. And if that's the case just fess up to it and don't make dumb excuses.
Two, this is bad game design.
"Hurrr it's a roleplaying choice" is a f@*+ing cop-out. It's admitting: "I am a bad game designer. Do not take these feats." You can roleplay any choice. There is absolutely zero things stopping you from making a normal paladin and taking up a gun. Zero. The reason you should take a Holy Gun is to have a paladin that takes the "paladin with a gun" concept and improves on it, and if it fails to do so, then the archtype has failed.
The very last thing we should be doing is excusing bad game design. Especially in a game that advertises it fixes 3e's flaws.
Stop making excuses for them.
Edit: Paizo has ten years of third edition to learn from. Failure to do so is...well, it's a failure! What more could be said?
|
|
No, I'm not saying you have to sacrifice effectiveness for fun.
'Effective' in my mind is being able to do what needs to be done. And in that regard, my player still has an effective character and the other players agree. He doesn't do it in the exact same way as before, but he knew that would be the case when the archetype was taken. Remember, he voiced the same concern as you did. He too was worried about how effective his character was going to be. All I asked was that he try it out to see if he liked it. If he didn't, then we'd do away with it and go on as before.
And I didn't mean to imply that he wasn't having fun before. He was having fun before he took the archetype, and he's still having fun after taking it.
I've looked at your recent example and I think your math is off.
Deadly Aim at 8th level adds +3 to damage, Point Blank Shot adds only +1. Divine bond only grants a +2 bonus at 8th. I can't figure where the extra point of damage comes from. Even so, that means it's 1d8+6 x3. I get an average per attack as so: 10, 11, 10 which equals 31 damage. The Holy Gun smiting an evil foe is doing an average of 4/5 plus 19 that equals 23/24. With one shot (and with every shot used to smite). Against the undead foe, the Holy Gun is doing an average of 4/5 plus 27 which equals 31/32. Again, with one shot (and again with every shot that s/he uses to smite with).
The paladin smiting an evil foe would get 18, 19, 18 for a total of 55. Against undead it becomes 26, 19, 18 for a grand total of 63 (remember, only the first attack gets the double bonus).
Looking at numbers, the paladin is pretty devastating, using a firearm. But to continue using that, the paladin is pretty much stuck facing one target. The Holy Gun is not so limited in that regard as the smite begins and ends with each shot made. In other words, if the Holy Gun is using a scatter weapon loaded with pellets to make a scattering shot (say, a musket), s/he actually gets to benefit fully from smiting shot against multiple targets that qualify for smiting. The base paladin does not, as s/he must pick one target and focus on that target to continue being able to inflict that kind of damage. Sure, the paladin still can use the same weapon to make a scattering shot, but only the target of the smite takes the massive damage, all others take the weapon's base damage and bonus, even if they would normally qualify for smiting. So in other words, the Holy Gun from above using a blunderbuss would be doing the same damage against multiple evil targets and against multiple undead. The paladin does 18 to the evil target, but only 11s and 10s against the rest if they're evil or 26 against the undead target of the smite, but any other undead would only be taking 11s and 10s as well. And it gets more complicated against groups with both evil and undead in them. The paladin is designed to effectively deal with foes one-on-one. The Holy Gun is effectively freed from that restriction thanks to Smiting Shot.
|
|
And if you don't want to give those things up, don't take the archetype!
I posted earlier about my player who took the archetype. I talked to him about it at last night's session. He told me that sometimes it's not always about making the optimum choice. Sometimes it's just about having fun.
And he is having fun playing his holy gun paladin.
I don't expect to convince anyone of anything. The forums are so full of experts on this subject and that subject looking to dissect any responses they receive to the glorification and edification of themselves and their 'point' that it becomes more and more 'pointless' to post responses here. It's like dealing with elves in that regard, and as Fizban summed up the belief of elves, '..... because I'm right, all others are wrong.'
Has the game really devolved to the point that the only thing that matters is optimization, or more to the point.... that the only way to have fun is to play a character that as fully optimized as it can be? I say no, of course, but then I've always been something of an optimist as well as a romantic. My players have the choice of point-buy or dice-rolling yet even though they can optimize their characters through point-buy, they prefer dice-rolling because, for them, 'it's more fun.' And as long as they're having fun, that really is only thing that matters as far as I'm concerned.
One, this makes no sense. Literally, zero sense.
Let's go by what you said. The player doesn't care about optimization and just wants to play a cool paladin with a gun. Ok, I can dig it.
But if this is the case, why would you get mad at people who want the Holy Gun to be better? Surely if you think "I don't care about optimization" then if anything you should agree that there shouldn't be bad choices designed to trick you, and yes that is what it comes down to. 3e was built under the concept of Ivory Tower Game Design - that the "good" players would recognize bad decisions, while the "bad"...
So you think I'm angry at the people who want the archetype to be better.
How did you come to that decision? I'm just asking because at no time have presented myself as angry here at all. If anything, I've been a gentleman and a scholar in the face of overwhelming vitriol and sarcasm.
I don't have a problem with the archetype. I don't have a problem with those that do have a problem with the archetype. I don't even have a problem with you. All I did was read the title of the thread, read the posts within, and responded. No anger involved. I responded again with the observation from the player. I responded once more to another post. And I'm responding to your post. All done with no anger.
Yet I'm the angry one.
You, sir, know me better than I know myself.
Take a bow. You've earned it.
"I don't really care about this subject, so here's multiple several paragraph posts about it."
I'm not buying it.
Alternately, if it is as you said and you just blind posted without reading the thread, my advice is to read the thread before you post in it.
|
|
I've looked at your recent example and I think your math is off.
Deadly Aim at 8th level adds +3 to damage
Deadly Aim is -1 to hit, +2 to damage, -1/+2 additional per 4 BAB. At level 8, that totals to -3 to hit, +6 to damage. I wasn't using Divine Bond at all, because it's a strictly limited uses-per-day resource that is unlikely to be used against minions, which was the scenario being used. I also didn't bother with enchanted guns because that would just further skew things towards the normal Paladin and I knew I wouldn't need it.
Even so, that means it's 1d8+6 x3. I get an average per attack as so: 10, 11, 10 which equals 31 damage.Plus three more for the correct math and you're at 34. I rounded up instead of down, which is an error, but I made the same error on all three initial examples so it doesn't actually matter.
The Holy Gun smiting an evil foe is doing an average of 4/5 plus 19 that equals 23/24. With one shot (and with every shot used to smite). Against the undead foe, the Holy Gun is doing an average of 4/5 plus 27 which equals 31/32. Again, with one shot (and again with every shot that s/he uses to smite with).Correct. Which is less than 34 in either case.
The paladin smiting an evil foe would get 18, 19, 18 for a total of 55. Against undead it becomes 26, 19, 18 for a grand total of 63 (remember, only the first attack gets the double bonus).
if the Holy Gun is using a scatter weapon loaded with pellets to make a scattering shot (say, a musket), s/he actually gets to benefit fully from smiting shot against multiple targetsMuskets cannot be loaded with pellets. It's also arguable whether Smiting Shot can be used with scatter weapons, because it specifically calls out a single target ("the target of the smiting shot").
Even allowing it, however, it still presents a significant mechanical roadblock: becoming the best at taking out the weakest enemies by sacrificing your ability to take out the...
Thank you for the clarification. I did forget that Deadly Aim's initial bonus to damage was +2. And I did forget to change that musket to blunderbuss, which I used in the rest of the example. I'm doing this mostly from memory while dealing with bruised ribs. But I still think you're wrong about the wording of the Smiting Shot deed.
'A holy gun can spend 1 grit point to make a smiting shot with a firearm attack as a standard action. If the target is evil , the holy gun adds her Charisma bonus and her paladin level to the damage of the firearm attack. If the target of the smiting shot is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature , the bonus to damage increases to the Charisma modifier plus 2 points of damage per level the paladin possess. Regardless of the target, smiting shot automatically bypasses any DR the creature might have.
This ability replaces smite evil.'
Compared to
'Once per day, a paladin can call out to the powers of good to aid her in her struggle against evil. As a swift action, the paladin chooses one target within sight to smite. If this target is evil, the paladin adds her Cha bonus (if any) to her attack rolls and adds her paladin level to all damage rolls made against the target of her smite. If the target of smite evil is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage on the first successful attack increases to 2 points of damage per level the paladin possesses. Regardless of the target, smite evil attacks automatically bypass any DR the creature might possess.
In addition, while smite evil is in effect, the paladin gains a deflection bonus equal to her Charisma modifier (if any) to her AC against attacks made by the target of the smite. If the paladin targets a creature that is not evil, the smite is wasted with no effect.
The smite evil effect remains until the target of the smite is dead or the next time the paladin rests and regains her uses of this ability. At 4th level, and at every three levels thereafter, the paladin may smite evil one additional time per day, as indicated on Table: Paladin, to a maximum of seven times per day at 19th level.
Obviously, the emphasis made is mine, but, it does go to my point. As written, the base paladin has to choose one target (and get's to do so as part of the smite as a swift action). The Holy Gun is limited to a standard action, but is not limited to 'just one target.' So a Holy Gun with a scatter weapon (the blunderbuss, just to be clear) making a scattering shot is actually more effective than a base paladin with the same weapon when it comes to smiting multiple opponents that qualify for smiting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"I don't really care about this subject, so here's multiple several paragraph posts about it."
I'm not buying it.
Alternately, if it is as you said and you just blind posted without reading the thread, my advice is to read the thread before you post in it.
Just so that you will know, I wasn't even going to respond to this post. But obviously, I've changed my mind on that because here I am doing so.
I don't have to justify myself to you (or anyone else, for that matter). I posted that my player, who had his doubts about the archetype when he first read it, tried it and liked it. The point was that he is actually playing a Holy Gun. The impression that I get from some of you is that you sat down, crunched some numbers, and made your decisions based on that. Have any of you who are complaining about this actually tried using it? I'm not trying to start a war here, this is just honest curiosity on my end. If not, then you've got no real reason to complain. And even less reason to come down on someone that is using it. Especially if they like the archetype as is.
And ever since then I find myself having to defend his choice. That's not so bad.
But now the Prof comes along and tries to make it personal. Why? I don't know him from Adam, and he doesn't know me, but if you were to go by what he wrote, you'd think that was the case.
I call him on it...
....and he gets even more hostile. I'd even go so far as to say rude.
I'm not asking for an apology. Truth is, I know I won't get it. So why bother?
I'm not trying to make this thread hostile. I've been nothing but civil. And yet I find myself having to defend my feelings on the game I love to play.
I'm told that I don't care.
So here I am posting a response to a response that I should just be able to ignore.
I really didn't address your previous post to me so let's get right to it:
Let's go by what you said. The player doesn't care about optimization and just wants to play a cool paladin with a gun. Ok, I can dig it.
Glad you can dig it.
But if this is the case, why would you get mad at people who want the Holy Gun to be better? Surely if you think "I don't care about optimization" then if anything you should agree that there shouldn't be bad choices designed to trick you, and yes that is what it comes down to. 3e was built under the concept of Ivory Tower Game Design - that the "good" players would recognize bad decisions, while the "bad" players, the ones who didn't care about optimization, would make bad characters. Literally this was a part of 3e's design philosophy.
Not every choice is going to be good for everyone. That isn't just design, my boy. That's no cop-out.
That's life.
So yeah, your answer doesn't work. It doesn't. If you TRULY didn't care about optimization, as you claim, then you'd be complaining too. You'd be just as pissed that a cool idea was made to be awful. But the thing is, I think you do care about optimization. You try to skirt around it and make bad characters because you think you're some kinda edgy roleplayer. And if that's the case just fess up to it and don't make dumb excuses.
So the best way for me to prove that I don't care about optimization is to carry on like a lunatic, taking my frustration out on anyone with an opinion that doesn't coincide with mine? No thanks, not my style.
Two, this is bad game design.
"Hurrr it's a roleplaying choice" is a f+!@ing cop-out. It's admitting: "I am a bad game designer. Do not take these feats." You can roleplay any choice. There is absolutely zero things stopping you from making a normal paladin and taking up a gun. Zero. The reason you should take a Holy Gun is to have a paladin that takes the "paladin with a gun" concept and improves on it, and if it fails to do so, then the archtype has failed.
The very last thing we should be doing is excusing bad game design. Especially in a game that advertises it fixes 3e's flaws.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Pathfinder fixed some of 3e's flaws, not all. To do that would make it an entirely new game altogether.
Stop making excuses for them.
Edit: Paizo has ten years of third edition to learn from. Failure to do so is...well, it's a failure! What more could be said?
Paizo doesn't need me to make excuses for them. They can defend themselves far better than I ever could. But if you're expecting gaming perfection from them every time, then I suggest that you dial back your expectations because the last time I checked, the people from Paizo were human beings. Flesh and blood. Not gods. Which means they can and will make mistakes. They are designing a game that they themselves play. I'm sure they had the same discussion that we're having now.
And yet they still chose to put the Holy Gun in anyway. Because for them, on some level that you can't seem to accept, it works.
Now, before this becomes a silly game of one-upmanship where feelings get hurt, lets just end this here and now. I've no real beef with ProfCirno. In the past, I've enjoyed reading his posts, whether I agree with them or not.
I hope to continue doing so.
But this hostility serves no one.
Which is why I'm withdrawing from this debate. I'll follow it still, I just won't be posting in it anymore.
If anybody's interested, I did a quick rewrite of the Holy Gun here. I'm open to suggestions and would love to see what you guys would come up with.
All in all, I like Holy Gun, I really do. I find it a little bit unsynergystic with the regular class, making the paladin have to worry about wisdom as well, but still, I love the Holy Gun. I'm actually going to run one in a campaign coming up.
But, back to the point, check out my rewrite, critique it, hell tell me it sucks if that's what you think, I'm up for any ideas.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not every choice is going to be good for everyone. That isn't just design, my boy. That's no cop-out.
That's life.
Do you seriously think this stuff just sprang from the ground on their own, spontaniously bursting into being?
No. A designer sat down and made it. And if it is a bad choice - not "bad for some people" but a flat out bad choice - then this is bad design. All you're doing is trying to find excuses for it.
Paizo doesn't need me to make excuses for them. They can defend themselves far better than I ever could. But if you're expecting gaming perfection from them every time, then I suggest that you dial back your expectations because the last time I checked, the people from Paizo were human beings. Flesh and blood. Not gods. Which means they can and will make mistakes. They are designing a game that they themselves play. I'm sure they had the same discussion that we're having now.
And yet they still chose to put the Holy Gun in anyway. Because for them, on some level that you can't seem to accept, it works.
You know what? I disagree. I don't think they've ever had this conversation. That they ever will have this conversation. The flippant attitude we saw before tells me they don't give a damn. They have their shield, and they have a fanbase frantic enough to accept anything they offer, regardless of the quality.
Look at the gunslinger. Two, not one but two, beta tests. And what did they take from the testers? Nothing! The gunslinger is a garbage class that we told them it would be and they printed it anyways. Death or Glory is one of the turdiest feats I've seen. Or we have Vow of Poverty which is bad on every single level that exists. Now, have they gone back and tried to fix this? Or have they thrown up a cloud of excuses?
This is pure, utter laziness. That's why it's upsetting. Because after ten years of third edition, not to mention the countless things that could be learned from other editions, or the countless things that could've been learned from other systems entirely, I get the feeling more and more that at least a few key employees at Paizo learned nothing. Because they can file the serial numbers off and resell it and people not only eat it up but make excuses for them. Yeah, they're flesh and blood. That means they should learn and progress. But we ain't seeing that.
What we're seeing is, more and more, hiding behind the shield of bad design in the guise of "roleplaying." If Paizo wants to be a first party player they need to start acting and designing like one. Throwing up the cloud of excuses doesn't fly. That's amateur crap. I've seen third party companies act far more professional then that.
So let's look at the Holy Gun. Your statement seems to be "My players have fun." Ok. That's a bit of an empty statement though! here's the thing - would they have just as much fun if someone made a paladin that wasn't a Holy Gun, but used a gun, and overshadowed them every step of the way?
See, "optimization doesn't matter" only works until the system rises up against you. It works until someone actually stops to do the math, and that's why it's such awful design. Because it is literally a player trap. It is a bad choice that looks like a good one.
I'm not saying your players will stop having fun or anything like that. But I think it's fairly clear that many people are not having gun with the class the way it is. Would Paizo alienate you if they made archtypes that weren't awful? Somehow, I doubt that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to sort of agree with Cirno. I love what Paizo did with the Core Rule Book, APG, and I really enjoy their adventure paths, but there are big junks of UC and UM that make you wonder, "WTF?!". I really, really love this company but I can't bring myself to spend money on UM or UC.
Because we love the company, we should be vocal about what doesn't work instead of trying to excuse their mistakes. There are mistakes, quite a few actually. Archetypes, feats, spells, vows, etc. A lot of stuff missed the mark. You should not throw the baby out with the bathwater but instead hope the developers learned from their mistakes with this phase of the game's life.
This applies to this discussion because instead of saying "my player loved the archetype despite its flaws", we should be saying, "my player loved the archetype but here's what's wrong and how to fix it".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The flippant attitude we saw before tells me they don't give a damn.Maybe they're just sick of arm chair game designers criticizing their work? I mean now that they're one of the top selling RPGs with a whole slew of ENnies naysayers have been coming out of the woodwork to try to tear them down. I for one remember a time when negative comments were a rarity on these forums but now it seems to be a fairly common occurrence. I suspect that there's just one too many arm chair game designers giving their opinions for the average person to deal with. I mean they do work long hours and put a lot of effort into books but it seems that lately all they're getting is complaints. Personally I think they've been far more kind and tolerant on these forums then I would have. They even still come in to these threads and answer questions or make comments. I suppose you think they should be on their best behavior when they comment in a thread that only seems to exist to criticize their work, that they somehow need to respect us because we're paying customers, but that's exactly the wrong attitude to have in any situation. The squeaky wheel doesn't always get the grease, sometimes the wheel is replaced, and I think you're smart enough to know that the customer isn't always right. People keep complaining about the Paizo employees having attitude and eventually they're going to stop posting here. It's that simple.
Tough shit.
If you want to be a first party producer, you get to deal with everything that comes with it. You think Paizo's the only one that deals with this?
I get that Paizo has one of the more fanatical fanbases, but they aren't special. If they release products they're going to have people who dislike those products who talk about it.
I think it's pretty funny that someone just got done saying "Paizo doesn't need me to defend them," followed by you saying "Literally Paizo is so thin skinned that if people criticize their products they will never post again." Come on.
When you publish something for the public to tear apart then you get to judge the attitudes of your fellow authors. When you try to give your defense of something you've spent hundreds of hours on only to be attack from all sides then you get to comment on another author being flippant. Your words are like so much vitriol in a vacuum of hate.
Please. I'm a teacher. Feel free to insert the witty comment of "Oh no children" or something similar here.
If you have an issue with what I say mechanically then comment on it. If you think the Holy Gun owns bones then back it up. If you have a comment to make about game design then lets hear it. But right now, all you're doing is whining that people are being mean to your religious icons.
stuff
I have not used the favourite post function until now since I didn't care for it. Your post is my first. :)
Well, to be blunt you're nether qualified nor experienced enough to pass judgment on them. When you publish something for the public to tear apart then you get to judge the attitudes of your fellow authors. When you try to give your defense of something you've spent hundreds of hours on only to be attack from all sides then you get to comment on another author being flippant. Your words are like so much vitriol in a vacuum of hate.
|
|
Well, to be blunt you're nether qualified nor experienced enough to pass judgment on them. When you publish something for the public to tear apart then you get to judge the attitudes of your fellow authors. When you try to give your defense of something you've spent hundreds of hours on only to be attack from all sides then you get to comment on another author being flippant. Your words are like so much vitriol in a vacuum of hate.By this logic, I'm not allowed to point out that a table only has three legs because I'm not a carpenter.
Depends on what kind of three-legged table we're talking about.
Also, a carpenter might consider something "nonsense", while an interior deisgner might consider the very same thing an "excellent addition". It all depends on the p.o.v.
What Cirno does is brown-beating people into accepting that only carpenter's opinion matters.
|
|
Well, to be blunt you're nether qualified nor experienced enough to pass judgment on them. When you publish something for the public to tear apart then you get to judge the attitudes of your fellow authors. When you try to give your defense of something you've spent hundreds of hours on only to be attack from all sides then you get to comment on another author being flippant. Your words are like so much vitriol in a vacuum of hate.By this logic, I'm not allowed to point out that a table only has three legs because I'm not a carpenter.
Also, how could I dare say a movie is terrible if I'm not Steven Spielberg ? How is it even possible -or allowed !- to say a book is bad if you're not able to write something better ? Preposterous !
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By this logic, I'm not allowed to point out that a table only has three legs because I'm not a carpenter.Also, how could I dare say a movie is terrible if I'm not Steven Spielberg ? How is it even possible -or allowed !- to say a book is bad if you're not able to write something better ? Preposterous !
I'll try to explain why it's not the same thing, and the examples cited are inappropriate. What follows is obviously my opinion, I hope you realize I'm not telling you how you should play the game, but how I would play it.
You see, unlike a table (which is already built) and a book/movie (which is already finished) you HAVE the power to reshape the game you play. Let's consider the following.
Then don't take it.
Then take it.
Then houserule it.
But the developers don't playtest everything and don't balance everything, since they have other things to do and since they kinda expect you to do it yourself anyway, adjusting the game as you like.
If you are not happy with how you spent your money, there are loads and loads and loads of other roleplaying systems to try. You should do it anyway because it's good to try lots of different things.
Then houserule it.
Oberoni Fallacy is the crappiest excuse ever to not get your hands a little dirty. If you encounter something that you don't like in a game and you decide to whine about it and call the whole system badly designed instead that just wind it and houserule the bloody thing already, that's not "enforcing the Oberoni Fallacy", it's "being lazy".