Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually all I have seen form him is a bold claim that its was absolutely better than the core pally at these levels I would have gladly taken his actual played character if he would provide it. I would assume if He has in fact played one he could have laid out when he got what, what gear he has, etc. But yea I suppose since you appear not to have read his original post you might not see where my question began. But i'm sure you are aware of all that right?
Maybe he could also drive over to your house, read the post out loud to you, put the pencil in your hand, and roll the dice.
Sheesh.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
B) His experience and analysis is no way definitive either way. His experiences are due to variance/chance and so judgement cannot be drawn from such a small sample. Another "play-tester" could just as easily conclude that the grit-mechanic sucks because he played for 7,000 hours and never got a crit or killing blow. Both posters fail to prove anything.
I completely agree - his experience and analysis are not definitive. If someone else has played the holy gun and wants to relate how it played at their table, I'd love to hear it, even if their conclusion is "grit never gets replenished, the class sucks as compared to the paladin."
But, to dismiss the playtest experience based on a vacuum sealed logical exercise is unwarranted.
Actually all I have seen form him is a bold claim that its was absolutely better than the core pally at these levels I would have gladly taken his actual played character if he would provide it. I would assume if He has in fact played one he could have laid out when he got what, what gear he has, etc. But yea I suppose since you appear not to have read his original post you might not see where my question began. But i'm sure you are aware of all that right?Maybe he could also drive over to your house, read the post out loud to you, put the pencil in your hand, and roll the dice.
Sheesh.
No, just provide me what I asked for originally his played character would be more than sufficient and when he took what up to whatever level he played it to would be more than enough.
I mean if he's played it to be sure posting the character would be simpler than all the back and forth right?
Just curious how you know he's play-tested it and is stating anecdotal evidence rather than just opinion?
See this? This right here? This is what I meant about the math not applying:
Cartigan is right, the odds of either a crit (20x4) or a killing blow are low. So low as to be unreliable.This is important, so pay attention:
You have no way to know that.
Tell me how you can know what the odds of getting a killing blow are. Tell me how you might even get close to knowing.
I freely admit my evidence is anecdotal. It is nonetheless entirely superior to simply making stuff up, which is what you just did, whether you are aware of it or not.
Actually yeah. The base chance that you have to threaten a critical hit is 5%. You must then confirm the critical hit. The confirmation pushes the chance of scoring a critical hit below 5%, assuming anything but a roll of 2+ hits the target. Furthermore, Pathfinder guns are notoriously poor for getting multiple attacks in a round, especially if you are using your smite ability (standard action only) so you have a less than 5% chance per shot of getting a critical and generally 1 shot per round.
As for killing blows, I noted previously that a CR 1 wolf has 13 hit points. It is strictly impossible for you to 1-shot it without a critical hit by virtue of your weapon's damage with a musket, even if you're rolling a 12 on a 1d12. The average damage of a musket is 6.5, a pistol is 4.5, and a blunderbuss is 4.5. Barring a critical hit, you literally cannot take down a creature that has an excess of 12 hit points with a musket without point blank shot or similar, and you cannot take down a creature with an excess of 9 hit points with a non-musket even with point blank shot.
You only have a 1/12 chance of bringing a standard CR 1/2 hobgoblin Fighter down on a successful hit. Of course, that is assuming you can reach him, since the standard CR 1/2 hobgoblin also comes equipped with a longbow with a +3 bonus, which means that he can probably ambush you, shoot you, and then run off before you can get into range to actually shoot him back.
It's not just about the fact the core Paladin is better at wielding guns than a Holy Gun. That much is pretty moot because even if they aren't, people have already pointed out that gunslinger 1 / Paladin 19 or some similar combination is even better. What disgusts me with the whole lot is the fact that it's so patently bad at what is supposed to be it's selling feature. You're a WARRIOR class. You're supposed to be killing stuff. Using junk he picks up off the ground the normal Paladin is better and doing what you have to have a 1,500 gp piece of trash and give up a decent class feature to do.
That alone tosses the Holy Gun into the category of "All the Extra Baggage in Archtypes".
B) His experience and analysis is no way definitive either way. His experiences are due to variance/chance and so judgement cannot be drawn from such a small sample. Another "play-tester" could just as easily conclude that the grit-mechanic sucks because he played for 7,000 hours and never got a crit or killing blow. Both posters fail to prove anything.I completely agree - his experience and analysis are not definitive. If someone else has played the holy gun and wants to relate how it played at their table, I'd love to hear it, even if their conclusion is "grit never gets replenished, the class sucks as compared to the paladin."
But, to dismiss the playtest experience based on a vacuum sealed logical exercise is unwarranted.
I never dismissed his experience, I dismissed his conclusion. There is a difference.
This is why science uses averages and control, to negate variance. His experience is part of a data set testing a theory that the Holy Gun paladin does not work. The data set is too small to definitively accept/reject this hypothesis.
It is an equal mistake to assume the prediction is 100% right, but unless someone wants to go through a huge data collection process with defined methodology, we only have theory. In a contest between theory and anecdotal evidence, many people (especially here) will choose theory.
|
See this? This right here? This is what I meant about the math not applying:
Cartigan is right, the odds of either a crit (20x4) or a killing blow are low. So low as to be unreliable.This is important, so pay attention:
You have no way to know that.
Tell me how you can know what the odds of getting a killing blow are. Tell me how you might even get close to knowing.
I freely admit my evidence is anecdotal. It is nonetheless entirely superior to simply making stuff up, which is what you just did, whether you are aware of it or not.
You just proved our point by admitting that a killing blow cannot be quantified. I cannot and do not need to calculate the likelihood of a killing blow to prove my point. However, you assert that one can remain "grit-neutral" through crits/kills. So the burden is on you to prove that kills are common. It cannot be proven by either of us (I'm not that great at probability math myself) so it must fall under anecdotal.
It is a fallacy to state a conclusion based on anecdotal evidence, so both parties must throw out killing blows (since we cannot quantify them) and rely on the other half of grit: critical hits. We can mathematically prove that crits with firearms are not reliable. It is safe to deduce that regaining grit is not reliable. It most surly occurs, but it is not reliable.
Wait. Did you seriously just say that if we don't have math for something, we have to pretend it doesn't exist? And you're accusing me of logical fallacy?
Nope, sorry, my friend. Either you accept my anecdotal evidence or present something to put up against it. Because wherever you are headed is nowhere that the game is actually played.
As another argument, beyond levels 1-3, I find the notion of the HG pally aiming or the weak to score a kill ludicrous. Other than a spell, how is one to know whether the enemy is close to death? You can guess and infer from what you and the party has done to the enemy, but it is once more an unreliable tactic. You may very well leave the enemy with 1 HP and your ally gets the kill. Assuredly the situation will sometime be reversed, but it is a big gamble.
Sure it's a guess. That's part of why it's impossible to quantify. But it's hardly pure chance; there are a number of data sources you can turn to to try to determine whether now is a good time to try for a smite. The GM's description of the target, keeping general track of how much damage you and your allies have done already, a guesstimate of how many hit points it might have had to start with - these all factor in. And the error range is pretty broad. The 5th level holy gun I described before does 1d8 + 14 on a typical smiting shot; that's a possible drop range of 15-22 points, not counting crits. Yes, sometimes it doesn't work. Other times, it works even without meaning to, or you crit, or both - and the end result is, you get grit back roughly as fast as you spend it. You can do yourself a favor by filling up to your max before going to town, however. I usually wait till I have a really obvious drop target or have already picked up a grit point during a fight before I try taking someone out deliberately.
|
|
Actually yeah. The base chance that you have to threaten a critical hit is 5%. You must then confirm the critical hit. The confirmation pushes the chance of scoring a critical hit below 5%, assuming anything but a roll of 2+ hits the target. Furthermore, Pathfinder guns are notoriously poor for getting multiple attacks in a round, especially if you are using your smite ability (standard action only) so you have a less than 5% chance per shot of getting a critical and generally 1 shot per round.
As for killing blows, I noted previously that a CR 1 wolf has 13 hit points. It is strictly impossible for you to 1-shot it without a critical hit by virtue of your weapon's damage with a musket, even if you're rolling a 12 on a 1d12. The average damage of a musket is 6.5, a pistol is 4.5, and a blunderbuss is 4.5. Barring a critical hit, you literally cannot take down a creature that has an excess of 12 hit points with a musket without point blank shot or similar, and you cannot take down a creature with an excess of 9 hit points with a non-musket even with point blank shot.
You only have a 1/12 chance of bringing a standard CR 1/2 hobgoblin Fighter down on a successful hit. Of course, that is assuming you can reach him, since the standard CR 1/2 hobgoblin also comes equipped with a longbow with a +3 bonus, which means that he can probably ambush you, shoot you, and then run off before you can get into...
That's the odds of one-shotting someone. I'm talking about the odds of dropping someone. What you're describing is only a very small subsection of what would need to be modeled.
Wait. Did you seriously just say that if we don't have math for something, we have to pretend it doesn't exist? And you're accusing me of logical fallacy?
Nope, sorry, my friend. Either you accept my anecdotal evidence or present something to put up against it. Because wherever you are headed is nowhere that the game is actually played.
I didn't say to pretend it doesn't exist, but it can be safely left out of consideration. You can omit variables as long as it is assumed they cancel each other out. For example, in regression analysis, y=a+xb+xb...+error. Error is every variable left out of the equation, they are assumed to cancel one another. In this case, your variable (killing blow) is assumed to be canceled by variable (uncertainty) and variable (party interference).
So killing blow is part of the error variable, leaving critical hit chance as the only valid variable we can work with.
EDIT: you are of course free to disagree with my assumption that the missing variables cancel one another.
I can't help but wonder whether a lot of the controversy about the Holy Gun would have been lost if they had named it "Holy Gunslinger" instead. Holy Gun implies a paladin with a gun, but the truth is more like a "Gunslinger" (the class) who went religious. It uses Gunslinger mechanics with paladin mechanics and fluff. Holy Gun makes people expect a paladin with a gun, not a paladin who plays to be a Gunslinger.
Likewise, Dragon Shaman would not got as much heat if named "Lizard Shaman". "Dragon" implies something different than lizard.
I can't help but wonder whether a lot of the controversy about the Holy Gun would have been lost if they had named it "Holy Gunslinger" instead. Holy Gun implies a paladin with a gun, but the truth is more like a "Gunslinger" (the class) who went religious. It uses Gunslinger mechanics with paladin mechanics and fluff. Holy Gun makes people expect a paladin with a gun, not a paladin who plays to be a Gunslinger.
Likewise, Dragon Shaman would not got as much heat if named "Lizard Shaman". "Dragon" implies something different than lizard.
Entirely possible. it wouldn't be the first time that labeling something created differing expectations than what was intended.
Wasn't there an american car form the 70's who's name was slang for feces in some south american countries, as an example of poorly chosen names? I will admit I certainly have no proof and this may be urban legend.
The shamans never get to do draconic stuff(or even linnorm stuff, which would have been a more apt thing considering linnorms are natural and dragons aren't).
They're not? They're a part of the world and the Material Plane, and have been more or less as long as there's been a world. They have a natural life cycle and ecology. They weren't created in a lab. They're innately magical, sure, but magic is a natural part of existence in most settings, excluding the likes of Athas.
I can see why the standard druid might not be interested in dragons, but I really don't see any thematic reasons there shouldn't be a druid archetype focusing on true dragons, and actually getting dragon related powers. Or for that matter, a magical beast shaman...
|
But it's a resource that is insanely easy to recover at this level. Even without smiting, if you hit a target, you're likely to get grit back. Particularly if you pick targets that are already wounded.
At 4th level, the straight paladin picks up a second smite/day. I rarely manage to get more than one off a day at this level, but it's still nice to have. The fundamentals haven't changed much, however. The biggest difference is that even mooks don't typically drop in one shot now; the end result, however, is that the holy gun just goes for targets of opportunity to finish off wounded bad guys. The grit continues to flow. (Like the spice!)
This is where I see a problem with the mechanics not matching the flavor.
When you say the word 'paladin', even to a non-gamer, it conjures up certain associations; honor, chivalry, bravery, self-sacrifice, etc.
When you take a paladin into your party, your expectation is that the guy will be searching out the biggest, baddest, most dangerous threat on the battlefield, and trying to bring it down as fast as possible, drawing attacks from that creature to protect his fellows.
With this archetype, the paladin essentially orders his comrades to lead the charge, do the majority of the work, paint a target on their own heads, bear the brunt of the retaliation, and then he steps in to steal their kill, purely for the sake of replenishing an abstract mechanic.
The Core archer paladins also face accusations of hanging back, but at least when the boss monsters show up, they rise to the occasion, declare a challenge to the toughest foe they can see, and start killing them, from round one. And when the enemy does close the distance, to destroy the annoying thorn in their side, they can draw a melee weapon, and continue to smite, each attack, each round, every round.
What they don't do, is actively avoid facing the leader of the diabolical forces, leaving them to tear through the squishy members of the party, so they can go harass some henchmen, mooks, goons and guard dogs.
What you also don't see a regular paladin doing, is lurking in the bushes, taking potshots at the wounded, and the demoralised troops, fleeing the battlefield.
"The enemy leader wants to negotiate a surrender."
"He'll have to wait. Our glorious leader is busy in the hospital, shooting the patients."
|
The shamans never get to do draconic stuff(or even linnorm stuff, which would have been a more apt thing considering linnorms are natural and dragons aren't).They're not? They're a part of the world and the Material Plane, and have been more or less as long as there's been a world. They have a natural life cycle and ecology. They weren't created in a lab. They're innately magical, sure, but magic is a natural part of existence in most settings, excluding the likes of Athas.
I can see why the standard druid might not be interested in dragons, but I really don't see any thematic reasons there shouldn't be a druid archetype focusing on true dragons, and actually getting dragon related powers. Or for that matter, a magical beast shaman...
This was actually a Golarion-specific point. My mistake. In Golarion, the Linnorms are the true dragons, while the children of Apsu are originally extraplanar. And perhaps "natural" was a misnomer in this case. Nature-specific? Druidically oriented as dictated by genre? Something to that effect.
Is this satisfactory?
|
|
If gunslinging characters need more grit, then give them more grit. Don't ration it out in miserly quantities, then force it to be regained via unreliable acts of dubious tactical worth, that fly in the face of what most people would expect from a martial code of honour.
If the reason stated for rationing grit is that most deeds are too good to be allowed multiple times per day (which I'm not convinced is the case), then tone them down, to a level where you aren't afraid to let them be used as often as other class abilities (rage, bardic music, arcane school powers, domain powers, etc), which increase at a faster rate, or start at 3+stat mod/day.
Isn't it the case that 'running out of class abilities after one or two uses, totally sucks' was the main justification for adding clerical domain powers, arcane school powers, and infinite cantrips/day?
I can't help but wonder whether a lot of the controversy about the Holy Gun would have been lost if they had named it "Holy Gunslinger" instead. Holy Gun implies a paladin with a gun, but the truth is more like a "Gunslinger" (the class) who went religious. It uses Gunslinger mechanics with paladin mechanics and fluff. Holy Gun makes people expect a paladin with a gun, not a paladin who plays to be a Gunslinger.
Likewise, Dragon Shaman would not got as much heat if named "Lizard Shaman". "Dragon" implies something different than lizard.
Entirely possible. it wouldn't be the first time that labeling something created differing expectations than what was intended.
Wasn't there an american car form the 70's who's name was slang for feces in some south american countries, as an example of poorly chosen names? I will admit I certainly have no proof and this may be urban legend.
You're probably thinking of the Chevy Nova.
An urban legend claims that the vehicle sold poorly in Spanish-speaking countries because its name, spaced no va, literally translates to "it doesn't go." This has since been debunked.[19] As noted by Snopes.com, the legend would be akin to an American not buying a dinette set called Notable, because they thought it meant they had no table.[19]
The same has been said of the British General Motors product, the Vauxhall Nova, which had to be sold as an Opel Corsa in Spain. In fact this too is a myth, with the Spanish market offering being known as a Corsa from the outset.
I have no doubt that's what it was. Thank you for the info.
The shamans never get to do draconic stuff(or even linnorm stuff, which would have been a more apt thing considering linnorms are natural and dragons aren't).They're not? They're a part of the world and the Material Plane, and have been more or less as long as there's been a world. They have a natural life cycle and ecology. They weren't created in a lab. They're innately magical, sure, but magic is a natural part of existence in most settings, excluding the likes of Athas.
I can see why the standard druid might not be interested in dragons, but I really don't see any thematic reasons there shouldn't be a druid archetype focusing on true dragons, and actually getting dragon related powers. Or for that matter, a magical beast shaman...
This was actually a Golarion-specific point. My mistake. In Golarion, the Linnorms are the true dragons, while the children of Apsu are originally extraplanar. And perhaps "natural" was a misnomer in this case. Nature-specific? Druidically oriented as dictated by genre? Something to that effect.
Is this satisfactory?
Huh, yes it is. Clearly, I need to reread the Dragons of Golarion article. That was somewhere in Rise of the Runelords, right?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
and the end result is, you get grit back roughly as fast as you spend it. You can do yourself a favor by filling up to your max before going to town, however.
How does one 'fill up' with grit?
Hiding in an alley, shooting drunks in the back of the head, as they stumble out of the tavern?
"Good shot, Your Holiness!"
"Let us scarper, young squire, and try behind The Lusty Duck. One more inebriated sot should see me ready to go forth on my goodly quest!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shisumo, I wanted to say thank you for stepping up and answering the challenge of why you thought that in play that Holy Gun works out better... might have worked better if you just started with "in my experience the grit recovery works a lot faster than you would expect." rather than some other assertions, but I do appreciate the answers, I hadn't considered that... I am more on the fence now.
Sean Mahoney
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one tired of looking at archetypes that look really interesting and flavorful on the surface, but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?
Here are a few examples that have stood out to me recently:
Part of it I think, is that Pathfinder just inherited an incredibly complex system. This is something that--think back to trying to find a rule. How many places do you have to look?
Okay, maybe you found the main one?
...but what about the subsets? The subsets of the subsets?
...still looking?
In an environment like this, it could be they're pushing out content too quickly. Pathfinder's complexity requires plenty of error-checking...and it will still end up being picked apart. How many of us have ever written something that's error-free in Pathfinder?
Perhaps, in part, it points to really looking forward to a 2.0 down the line.
I view the archetypes as part of the step towards that eventual 2--they're designers testing out new ideas, concepts. They're getting feedback from us, the users.
They're gamers, too. They're playing for fun, working for us, and doing so with tools rooted in a complex and error-prone system. They're trying new things instead of sticking to the "same old, same old."
Does it excuse errors? No, but new ground, new ideas, and a complex background makes them more understandable. And, down the line, it gives us a way to improve on them as Paizo and their community gains experience.
Holy Gun would be fine if the smiting shot would not be specified as a standard action but just as part of an attack up to once per round. Otherwise there is really nothing wrong with the archetype.
Back to the Separatist. I'll give that there are soem combinations that are difficult to find. But I don't find too many combinations that are worth the cost. And beyond that it still doesn't make sense to lose the favored weapon. And still the concept of "a separatist cleric" can be done without it. I just think it could have been done better. Heck I'd write one myself right now if I didn't have to be back at work in like 8 hours and need to go to bed.
|
Separatist
Concept: You are part of a heretical order to your god.
Where it went wrong: You essentially turn into a normal cleric minus. You lose the weapon proficiency which doesn't make sense since you're a heretic of the god not an unbeliever. Then you get a weaker domain. You're better off jsut being a cleric of another god to get the domains you want.
How it should have been:Keep the weapon proficiency and the domain should keep the same power but add some other form of penalty perhaps diminished spellcasting or a penalty to rolls against non separatists of the same faith. I can think of a couple of campaigns where this would have been cool.
Its probably something of an edge case but it does allow you to play a cleric of a God that really appeals to you together with a domain that really appeals to you.
For example, I'm thinking of a Barbarian/Dawnflower Dervish (from Inner Sea Magic)/Cleric of Saranrae
I really want the Travel domain for the extra movement but the character has to worship Sarenrae.
|
|
Its probably something of an edge case but it does allow you to play a cleric of a God that really appeals to you together with a domain that really appeals to you.
Separatist
Concept: You are part of a heretical order to your god.
Where it went wrong: You essentially turn into a normal cleric minus. You lose the weapon proficiency which doesn't make sense since you're a heretic of the god not an unbeliever. Then you get a weaker domain. You're better off jsut being a cleric of another god to get the domains you want.
How it should have been:Keep the weapon proficiency and the domain should keep the same power but add some other form of penalty perhaps diminished spellcasting or a penalty to rolls against non separatists of the same faith. I can think of a couple of campaigns where this would have been cool.
Desna and the Darkness domain go together perfectly for one example.
Its probably something of an edge case but it does allow you to play a cleric of a God that really appeals to you together with a domain that really appeals to you.
For example, I'm thinking of a Barbarian/Dawnflower Dervish (from Inner Sea Magic)/Cleric of Saranrae
I really want the Travel domain for the extra movement but the character has to worship Sarenrae.
Exactly. Which god a cleric is worshiping ends up being an overriding factor in the character's development and goals. It's great that they've provided options for players who are in deity-only campaigns a way to choose better/more favorable domains without playing into the cheese factor.
Exactly. Which god a cleric is worshiping ends up being an overriding factor in the character's development and goals. It's great that they've provided options for players who are in deity-only campaigns a way to choose better/more favorable domains without playing into the cheese factor.Its probably something of an edge case but it does allow you to play a cleric of a God that really appeals to you together with a domain that really appeals to you.
For example, I'm thinking of a Barbarian/Dawnflower Dervish (from Inner Sea Magic)/Cleric of Saranrae
I really want the Travel domain for the extra movement but the character has to worship Sarenrae.
Again the concept is fine. It was the approach I hated.
Exactly. Which god a cleric is worshiping ends up being an overriding factor in the character's development and goals. It's great that they've provided options for players who are in deity-only campaigns a way to choose better/more favorable domains without playing into the cheese factor.
Concept clerics aren't cheesy. Getting to pick your domains isn't going to make the world collapse.
In fact, to me, deity-specific limitations on domains are not a balance concern at all. It's a restriction which exists purely for building the flavor of the deity. So I would allow full access to an alternate domain without any of the restrictions of the Separatist archetype, as long as I found it thematically appropriate to some particular sect/schismatic movement/mystery cult/what have you. And in a world where the actual existence of the deities is in question, or one where a cleric might believe he worships Tash, but in fact be serving Aslan--in such cases I would make all domains available to every cleric.
In fact, to me, deity-specific limitations on domains are not a balance concern at all. It's a restriction which exists purely for building the flavor of the deity. So I would allow full access to an alternate domain without any of the restrictions of the Separatist archetype, as long as I found it thematically appropriate to some particular sect/schismatic movement/mystery cult/what have you. And in a world where the actual existence of the deities is in question, or one where a cleric might believe he worships Tash, but in fact be serving Aslan--in such cases I would make all domains available to every cleric.
This really is the best way that I have found for doing stuff. Balance wise there is no issue. Likewise, such things should be a roleplaying choice. Also makes for better options that are cross-campaign appropriate. For example, the Complete Divine had a lot of prestige classes that were useless because they required you to worship a particular deity, so you ended up having to homebrew stuff anyway (even if it was just homebrewing an alternate version of the class) to use them in Golarion or Faerun.
Noting deities, a description of those deities, and their domains should be enough of a cue for detailing a believable follower of that deity. It's also nice to be able to have specialists within a given order. For example, if you have a few scholarly clerics in a temple who have the Knowledge domain in addition to a domain commonly kept by the deity in question.
In short the separatist pretty much is the exact same flavor you can already have in the core rules, only not as good. :P
Anyway, more attention could be paid to getting archetypes right and having less of them, or having a freer range of swap out options.
Cat's out of the bag... there isn't any going back at this point.
Now, I am not saying that I think they should stop archetypes, they are kind of committed at this point, but I think better reviews of the material to compare it to other options would go pretty far.
While I do consider myself a min/maxer, I have no desire to just see powerful archetypes, rather an archetype should be a choice between two fairly equal options. What I am looking for is to have players read through the book, see a name or concept that strike their fancy and play it while not dragging down their group not knowing it wasn't a good option (many/most players don't have a good feel for that... I am betting designers in general do).
Just make sure the mechanics reflect the concept and let it live up to the potential of the cool ideas without over balancing (tough thing to do, it is and I hope and believe the designers are trying).
Sean Mahoney
Hi Guys
More anecdotal experience for the HG argument. I have been running a game recently and one of my players has been testing an HG. In fact she had the best creation rolls of the group (something like a +9 stat bonus total across 6 stats).
In terms of regaining grit she has had poor luck. Party members even tried to help her out by holding actions so she could get killing blows on critters that were on low health. This ended badly as eventually the extra damage the party took or loss of actions to support one character's need to get killing blows led to a PC death and almost a TPK. Needless to say it wasn't an effective way to play.
Later she tried to focus on smiting low health enemies opportunistically without group support (so normal party play style) sadly this has not been working out well either, normally because her attacks would be better spent shooting at strategic enemies, not the mook that the rogue would finish of on their next attack. She has also run into problems with finishing off low health enemies to maintain grit that won't give her the double damage bonus as opposed to big bads so that she could regain grit.
Basically, it has been a very unsatisfying experience for her and the party as a whole even when party members were changing playstyles to try to support low grit mechanic.
I do not have anecdotal experience, I can say I like the flavor of the Holy Gun but you might want to try making smiting shot usable once per round as part of an attack instead. After looking through it that seems what I would change.
As a player you should look out to steal some kills all over the place to keep your grit level up, the HG becomes much more viable if you can just attack freely, extra grit and deadly aim seem good feats to have, rapid reload and rapid shot as well, improved crit and possibly effects and feats improving crit chance might help. A multi-class in gunslinger (MS) might help getting your grit up early and get an additional spare gun along with added charisma damage and keep in mind the smiting shot can pierce DR against any target.
In my opinion there are relatively few 'failed' archetypes, some are a bit bland, a few are subpar and a few have errors in them that need fixing, but I do not see a big problem. As of the archetype bloat I do not think that there will be a massive turn out of archetypes after UC and I think many purist players appreciate having the options the number of archetypes provide. It would be nice for the developers to give their view on a few of the archetypes that seem to fail in the scale of power and suggest a possible fix or errata. Not a problem for me since I am used to houseruling alot of things from spells to core classes and the Archetypes have actually helped with the latter to find replacement powers/archetypes I like more to replace the standard.
If the idea is to play a paladin who uses a gun in Pathfinder with the rules we are given, the holy gun is arguably-but-probably better than the straight paladin at level oneAt level 1, a warrior is arguably better than a holy gun at being a paladin, so whatever.
Player: I want to play a paladin with a gun.
DM: There's an option for this: holly gun. It allow you to be a paladin with a gun from level 1.
Player: Great! Then from level 1 I will detect evildoer and shot them in the head!
DM: Huh, no, you can't detect evil.
Player: ... At least I will smite them with my gun!
DM: No, you can't smite at level 1.
Player: ... Well, what can I do at level 1?
DM: You have a gun.
Player: like the new class, the gunslinger?
DM: Yes. Actually, you have exactly the same class abilities, except you're weaker.
Player: ... Hum, since one of the design goal of Pathfinder is to encourage mono-classing, I suppose that a holy gun X is better than a gunslinger 1/paladin X-1 at subsequent level?
DM: actually... No. The multiclass character can use is Cha for grit, and the smite-like ability of the holy gun deals less damage than a full attack without smite.
Player: But what why would I chose the holy gun for?
DM: you can write "paladin" on your character sheet from level 1.
Player: And I have as many pallysh abilities as a gunslinger 1 at this level?
DM: Yes.
Player: Then, what prevent me to play a level 1 gunslinger who pretend he's a paladin?
DM: Nothing. Actually, the holy gun is made for retarded peoples who can't do that, or who are unable to add flavor themselves just by playing the character.
Holding one-sided dialogues with yourself while calling 'other' people retarded is not going to convince anyone.
There are different ways to play a gunslinger character, the Holy Gun isn't the one true road to a paladin with a gun, there is more to the archetype than that.
It is quite a nice archetype for a gunshooting paladin, the only thing really bothering me is the standard action required for the smiting shot, which is too restrictive at higher levels in particular. At lower level it has some coolness factor going for it in that you can smite zombies and ghouls into infinity every round as long as you keep killing them, the smiting shot should be part of a normal attack and the archetype is pretty sweet though not necesarily superior or equal to a normal paladin with a gun.
Back to the Separatist. I'll give that there are soem combinations that are difficult to find. But I don't find too many combinations that are worth the cost.
I think the cost is pretty small (just like the benefit is pretty small). Weapon proficiencies are worth very little most of the time, and a slight delay in your domain powers is pretty harmless too.
And beyond that it still doesn't make sense to lose the favored weapon.
Ah, now "making sense" is a different matter. I would argue that it doesn't really make sense for a character with 5 Str to be trained in a 2-handed melee weapon, for instance, but it doesn't particularly bother me.
though not necesarily superior or equal to a normal paladin with a gun.That's the problem, you know: why would anyone ever chose an archetype which is not even equal to the base class at being the archetype? If you simply enjoy weak characters, there are many way in the core rules to be weaker than a baseline character; eg, play an aristocrat instead of a paladin.
Well I consider a wizard or a fighter to be more powerful than a rogue but I might still play a rogue, mostly because it is considered fun to play different characters.
Now I am not saying it should be so terrible to be weaker than any other playable class just that it is ok to be a bit less strong in most situations as long as there are situations in which you can pull your weight and have an edge over the normal version.
Personally I like the Holy Gun and would be interested in playing it if my GM was ok with the smiting shot being part of an attack action, it gives me a reason to smite mobs with impunity, and seriously there are nearly always mobs, that single BBEG is toast even if you put in a little less weight and if that is an undead, evil outsider or evil dragon you can still do fairly well. It is an alternative playstyle not per definition an inferior one.
Ah, now "making sense" is a different matter. I would argue that it doesn't really make sense for a character with 5 Str to be trained in a 2-handed melee weapon, for instance, but it doesn't particularly bother me.
Considering all characters have proficiency in several two handed weapons there really isn't a point being made here as one's strength score is irrelevant to what flavor of sharp pointy bits they were taught to use. For example every half orc ever is trained in axes or elves and bows etc. I also don't care for the weakened domain either. When I get home from work I'll explain better. I'm a bit less miffed about the weakened domain but again that feels like something only relevant in an edge case (i.e. PFS play and I amon others dont play it).
Now I am not saying it should be so terrible to be weaker than any other playable class just that it is ok to be a bit less strong in most situations as long as there are situations in which you can pull your weight and have an edge over the normal version.That's the part "at being the archetype": the archetype is weaker than the base class in most situation, and still weaker than the base class in situations in which he can pull his weight.
Otherwise, why would you houserule the holy gun?
Because mostly I agree that the Holy Gun as written is not good enough, I just don't think the archetype is a complete failure on account that the smiting shot should not be a standard action. I'd houserule it to make it a viable alternative, the smiting shot is different enough to make a notable difference in play style compared to the standard paladin.
|
|
How does one 'fill up' with grit?
Hiding in an alley, shooting drunks in the back of the head, as they stumble out of the tavern?
At lvl 1 sure this hyperbole could work, if it wasn't a willfully evil act that would have the paladin lose his powers (but lets ignore that shall we?) but at later levels, as you only regain grit from defeating foes with 1/2 your HD or higher, you have to be doing some fairly heroic kills.
So, you hide in an alley shooting the drunks in a rougher part of town?
My real point, which was missed, is that Shisumo declared he would restore his grit, before going off on his adventure.
Which means going on a shooting spree in his hometown.
As far as I was aware, there isn't a way to store grit over your starting quota.
So, whether you're lurking in an alley, blasting tramps inthe back of the head, or climbing the clock tower with your musket, it's an exercise in futility.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So, you hide in an alley shooting the drunks in a rougher part of town?My real point, which was missed, is that Shisumo declared he would restore his grit, before going off on his adventure.
Which means going on a shooting spree in his hometown.
As far as I was aware, there isn't a way to store grit over your starting quota.
So, whether you're lurking in an alley, blasting tramps inthe back of the head, or climbing the clock tower with your musket, it's an exercise in futility.
Suddenly, I have a hankering to play GTA...
|
|
My real point, which was missed, is that Shisumo declared he would restore his grit, before going off on his adventure.
Which means going on a shooting spree in his hometown.
As far as I was aware, there isn't a way to store grit over your starting quota.
So, whether you're lurking in an alley, blasting tramps inthe back of the head, or climbing the clock tower with your musket, it's an exercise in futility.
Did I say that?
I'm pretty sure I didn't say that.
With Amateur Gunslinger, you start out with 1 grit every morning. I'm assuming in this instance that you have a Wisdom bonus higher than +1 (the statline I offered before has a +2). Because grit recovery can be uneven, you should probably wait until you've picked up a point (or more, if you have Extra Grit or a good roll for your Wisdom or whatever) before you start smiting, because bad luck can hit and then you will wind up without any ability to smite at all for awhile. Just shoot the bad guys like everyone else until something falls down, and then start smiting.
So, you hide in an alley shooting the drunks in a rougher part of town?My real point, which was missed, is that Shisumo declared he would restore his grit, before going off on his adventure.
Which means going on a shooting spree in his hometown.
As far as I was aware, there isn't a way to store grit over your starting quota.
So, whether you're lurking in an alley, blasting tramps inthe back of the head, or climbing the clock tower with your musket, it's an exercise in futility.
No, you can't regain grit unless enemy is aware. So you can't surprise the target.
Confirming a critical hit on a helpless or unaware creature or on a creature that has fewer Hit Dice than half the gunslinger’s character level does not restore grit.
B) His experience and analysis is no way definitive either way. His experiences are due to variance/chance and so judgement cannot be drawn from such a small sample. Another "play-tester" could just as easily conclude that the grit-mechanic sucks because he played for 7,000 hours and never got a crit or killing blow. Both posters fail to prove anything.
Anecdote of my own: I ran the World's Largest Dungeon several years ago. It ran for around two years, and I had two players make it all the way from the entrance to the exit. Only one of those managed it with his original character - a spear-wielding half-dragon fighter, IIRC.
We had 4-5 hour games once a week for almost two years. Hundreds of encounters. Thousands of attack rolls. This character only successfully landed a single crit. EVER. Every other time he threatened (which was rare in and of itself), he missed or the monster was immune to crits. It became a running joke, and we all celebrated when he did finally land a crit.
This is certainly not proof that crits don't happen, but it is proof that really long runs of bad luck can happen.
