Dogs and cats, living together, MASS HYSTERIA!!!*stuff*Cirtose...!
I agree. :P
Hahah. +1 for the reference. ^-^
Concept.I hate Ninjas and Samurai.The concept or the classes?
Nothing is cooler than a ninja, not even pirates. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing is cooler than a ninja, not even pirates. :)Concept.I hate Ninjas and Samurai.The concept or the classes?
I think the problem was that people were looking at the "finished" ninja, which would be a badass.
As all classes are around 10th level.
But a first level ninja isn't.
If they had just sat down for all three classes and said "What defines a ninja/samurai/gunslinger" and then made a class that would become those things in the same way a first level wizard isn't Gandalf.
Instead they tried to shoehorn the concept into archtypes, realized it wouldn't fit, but rather than going ahead and starting from scratch to make the concept they just kept squeezing it.
You could have a ninja archetype for the rogue. You could also have a ninja archetype for the ranger and fighter. You could have all three exist at once as ninja "clans" or variations.
Similarly you could make a Samurai archetype based off of fighters and/or paladin.
But instead they made "The" ninja and samurai into something that made no one happy.
Similarly with gunslinger, they started with fighter, realized it was too much and never stepped back from the table to decide if fighter was the right baseline to achieve the goal.
Personally I think if they weren't trying to shoehorn, the gunslinger would have been better suited as a 3/4 BaB class that gained the ability to use firearms with no misfire chance, rapid reloading, possibly incorporating increased accuracy and damage as a progression.
Instead it is a weird hybrid that doesn't feel like Clint Eastwood or Roland Deschain. Neither of whom need to have martial weapon proficiency or full BaB to be who they were.
Just a really disappointing effort, particularly after the excellently built Magus.
Of the non-standard classes, I think the Inquisitor, the Magus, and the Oracle were home runs, the Witch, the Alchemist and the Cavalier were decent, but flawed. The Summoner was a great idea which fell flat through no fault of the designers, but rather just due to the size of the concept. I respect the hell out of the effort.
The Gunslinger, Ninja and Samurai were failures of focus. The "how does it fit with exiting" overpowered the "what are we trying to make." and so neither occurred.
I think the ninja covers what the "historical ninja" (because there is no such thing) did fairly efficiently, they're sneaky, they make pretty good spies, they become really good assassins after about 10 levels, and they have a variety of weird powers, thankfully none of which have them becoming logs, certain bits of modern culture have made that unwanted to many of us ninja fans.
I do think some of their weird ninja powers could have been better, like a ninja should gain more shadow clones as they grow in level/power, I like the idea of their shadow clones being able to fight once you get past a certain point, and no one got the explosive paper things, which was disappointing.
They also suffer from the rogue's sneak attack limitations, as well as the rogue's general issues with hitting things. I also don't particularly think they got into the more fantastical elements of the ninja, but they definitely got the traditional idea down.
I'm unsure of the lore on samurai, other than they had the Bushido code, which is accurately represented by not being there, because a lot of samurai didn't follow -any- formal code or doctrine, other than "serve me". Samurai were jerks. There are only a handful of good archetypes for samurai, one of which is Jack, but he's closer to a paladin, including the use of a smite-style power he used once when he found himself overwhelmed.
If you have full plate in your games, then you are at the same level of technology as early firearms. So if you're using almost any heavy armor, don't whine about handguns being "historically inaccurate." For that matter, "traditional fantasy" is a genre defined by Tolkien, who does indeed include blackpowder bombs, if not guns, in his most famous story.
I'm not gonna lie, this is by far one of the most BUSTED classes I have ever had to deal with in Pathfinder, and it really does make me ill that I ever allowed it in my campaign to begin with.
What I currently have issues with, specifically, is the Signature Deed ability combined with Lightning Reload, which effectively allows a gunslinger to reload their gun as a FREE action with a single barrel weapon that does NOT provoke attacks of opportunity. Combined with other crazy ranged feats like Rapid Shot (or joy...a -2 penalty on a range TOUCH attack...what a penalty), and the 'Deadly Aim' feat. I mean, sweet Jesus, I have never seen anything so stupid before in my life. And to add even MORE insult to injury, the archtype known as the Pistolero just makes things even more ridiculous (Up Close and Deadly and Pistol Training make the friggin damage of this class simply INSANE).
I have to ask, is there ANY errata, or is this class just that damn good?
Moreover, is anyone else having issues with this class (I mean, hell...imagine a Pistolero DUAL WIELDING their weapons...which only gives them a -4 penalty of course...but who cares...they are shooting with RANGED TOUCH ATTACKS with a FULL BaB AND they have an insane amount of DEX).
But yea...if anyone else understands this issues, please post your comments. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.
No. I don't hate it.
If you have full plate in your games, then you are at the same level of technology as early firearms. So if you're using almost any heavy armor, don't whine about handguns being "historically inaccurate." For that matter, "traditional fantasy" is a genre defined by Tolkien, who does indeed include blackpowder bombs, if not guns, in his most famous story.
TOM BOMBADILLLLLL!
TOM BOMBADILLLLLL!
-O!
The fact of the matter is that it is not a different time period at all.
Ah, I do remember posting that. And now I also remember why your response was so contrary to mine! I said that the Gunslinger CLASS is representative of a different time period. I didn't say anything about guns. And if you think that a Wild West-themed class are from the same time period as the prominently medieval time period from which D&D hails, well then sir, I'm afraid I have no more comments to make either way.
The fact of the matter is that it is not a different time period at all.Ah, I do remember posting that. And now I also remember why your response was so contrary to mine! I said that the Gunslinger CLASS is representative of a different time period. I didn't say anything about guns. And if you think that a Wild West-themed class are from the same time period as the prominently medieval time period from which D&D hails, well then sir, I'm afraid I have no more comments to make either way.
Fair enough on the gunslinger class, although it doesn't HAVE to be straight Eastwood. Grenadiers and Muskateers were famous for the insane courage, which can just as easily be represented by grit, and although not medieval they are much closer to standard fantasy.
The fact of the matter is that it is not a different time period at all.Ah, I do remember posting that. And now I also remember why your response was so contrary to mine! I said that the Gunslinger CLASS is representative of a different time period. I didn't say anything about guns. And if you think that a Wild West-themed class are from the same time period as the prominently medieval time period from which D&D hails, well then sir, I'm afraid I have no more comments to make either way.
I disagree, I believe there are gunslingers prior to that, look at Andrew Jackson:http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_the-5-most-badass-presidents-a ll-time.html That man was a gunslinger, and by all odds the class predates him by quite a bit, considering how old guns are.
I disagree, I believe there are gunslingers prior to that, look at Andrew Jackson:http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_the-5-most-badass-presidents-a ll-time.html That man was a gunslinger, and by all odds the class predates him by quite a bit, considering how old guns are.
Read my response again. Andrew Jackson = / = Medieval. You can bump the class out of the Wild West and into the 1800s if you want (which, to be fair, is when immigrants started moving out to California in the first place to settle. That is the West. And while it may not always be Clint Eastwood's Wild West, it was certainly wild in the sense that there was little to no governmental influence at the time.
But again, you're basically arguing against a small part of my argument (when in the 1700s / 1800s the concept of the modern "Gunslinger" appeared) when even your arguments fail to disprove the fact that the Gunslinger class is very much based in a different time period then most of D&D (which is Medieval fantasy).
I disagree, I believe there are gunslingers prior to that, look at Andrew Jackson:http://www.cracked.com/article_15895_the-5-most-badass-presidents-a ll-time.html That man was a gunslinger, and by all odds the class predates him by quite a bit, considering how old guns are.Read my response again. Andrew Jackson = / = Medieval. You can bump the class out of the Wild West and into the 1800s if you want (which, to be fair, is when immigrants started moving out to California in the first place to settle. That is the West. And while it may not always be Clint Eastwood's Wild West, it was certainly wild in the sense that there was little to no governmental influence at the time.
But again, you're basically arguing against a small part of my argument (when in the 1700s / 1800s the concept of the modern "Gunslinger" appeared) when even your arguments fail to disprove the fact that the Gunslinger class is very much based in a different time period then most of D&D (which is Medieval fantasy).
I'm well-aware that he isn't medieval but what he is, is a gunslinger before the times of the old west, the implication I'm making is that gunslingers existed before the wild west did, and that records of the time aren't accurate enough to say whether or not the class is genuinely Medieval or not. They are called "The Dark Ages" for a reason, it's because the records of that time basically ceased existing in comparison to the time before, and the time after it.
Medieval fantasy?
Could we get a defination on this one please. i mean how medieval and How fantastical and even what locations on the planet earth?
You don't have to create stupid rules to try and make people want to play a class that already has issues. Seriously, why do you have to have a special class to use firearms anyway? Is every member of a militia in a firearms nation a 1st level gunslinger? Seriously?I'm not sure if that question was rhetorical or sarcastic, or what? You do know that there are plenty of gun rules for non-gunslingers in Pathfinder, right? Feats, and such? So no, not every character using guns is a gunslinger.Stupid rules. Say it with me! :P
You should not have to have an archtype and a lot of feats to use a weapon that is supposed to be simple in its use, just to make it somewhat feasible compared to existing weapons. In fact, that's kind of an oxymoron because giving up your class features and feats to use these terrible firearm rules isn't feasible at all.
Imagine it! The new fighter archtype! Club-guy! A fighter that wields a club! Of course, a club is also an exotic weapon now, and occasionally splinters and breaks when you try to whack things with it. To properly use this club, you need to give up some of your existing class abilities, so that you can slightly offset the suckiness of your favorite weapon by not taking the -4 and only having your favorite weapon shatter sometimes. Now let's also have you take a feat so you can make iterative attacks with your club. Finally, your club begins broken but you duck-tapped it, and that duct-tape doesn't work for anyone else but you.
But that's OK, because clubs are cooler than swords, amiright!? :D
These club rules are teh bombzors!
You know, being overly insistent about it will neither make you right, nor convince me of something with which I simply fundamentally disagree.
Whenever I wrote up my own extended firearms rules, whether for 3.5 or for Pathfinder, I also made them exotic weapons. I did it because after years and years of working with the system, it intrinsically, intuitively made sense to me to do so. The balance felt more right that way.
If I can pull out of my butt a well-balanced system that has proven itself at the table over and over just from my own intuition and experience, I am not prone to worry that the people who actually designed the core game can also do so. Now, my intuition is not proof, of course.
But I say what I say to preface an observation that the majority of the people who think something is wrong with these rules seem to be the same ones who insisted from before they ever played them that there was, and thus may have assumed a position they feel they must prove and defend.
I did not make those snap judgments, so I have nothing to prove. The rules work fine at my table, which tells me that maybe having nothing to prove and no prejudgments was the right way to go. After all, I am the happy one here. And so are my players.
You don't have to create stupid rules to try and make people want to play a class that already has issues. Seriously, why do you have to have a special class to use firearms anyway? Is every member of a militia in a firearms nation a 1st level gunslinger? Seriously?I'm not sure if that question was rhetorical or sarcastic, or what? You do know that there are plenty of gun rules for non-gunslingers in Pathfinder, right? Feats, and such? So no, not every character using guns is a gunslinger.Stupid rules. Say it with me! :P
You should not have to have an archtype and a lot of feats to use a weapon that is supposed to be simple in its use, just to make it somewhat feasible compared to existing weapons. In fact, that's kind of an oxymoron because giving up your class features and feats to use these terrible firearm rules isn't feasible at all.
Imagine it! The new fighter archtype! Club-guy! A fighter that wields a club! Of course, a club is also an exotic weapon now, and occasionally splinters and breaks when you try to whack things with it. To properly use this club, you need to give up some of your existing class abilities, so that you can slightly offset the suckiness of your favorite weapon by not taking the -4 and only having your favorite weapon shatter sometimes. Now let's also have you take a feat so you can make iterative attacks with your club. Finally, your club begins broken but you duck-tapped it, and that duct-tape doesn't work for anyone else but you.
But that's OK, because clubs are cooler than swords, amiright!? :D
These club rules are teh bombzors!
You know, being overly insistent about it will neither make you right, nor convince me of something with which I simply fundamentally disagree.
Whenever I wrote up my own extended firearms rules, whether for 3.5 or for Pathfinder, I also made them exotic weapons. I did it because after years and years of working with the system, it...
At the risk of sounding like a bit of a b+%~~, I do feel the need to say that she has a point about how the gun is being treated as more complicated than it is. I have no opinion on the balance of the rules themselves, but they really do sound like something that should be a simple weapon.
On a side note, guns explode more often than they critically hit. Sometimes far more often. You have a 5% of rolling a 1, or a 10% of rolling a 1 or 2, while you technically have less than 5% of landing a critical hit, since you must also confirm the roll.
Also, as a friend of mine who is actually playing a gunslinger that uses the Pathfinder rules (because he wanted to try them) is learning, the more attacks you have, the more likely your stuff explodes and becomes more and more useless.
That's not even counting the cost of guns, which will probably make him a very, very sad Panda when someone pulls a sundering on his weapon, or he fails a saving throw vs shatter.
Edit:
At the risk of sounding like a bit of a b&**%, I do feel the need to say that she has a point about how the gun is being treated as more complicated than it is. I have no opinion on the balance of the rules themselves, but they really do sound like something that should be a simple weapon.
Thank you Vinland. ^-^
My my it's like fumble rules all over again but with exploding guns.
Indeed. >.>
This is why when ever we do get either psionics or epics or a book on numerian super science that people dont spend time crying and whining about there dislike of it and blowing bits and peices of it out of proportion until it becomes another split the baby issue.
|
Gunpowder is something the chinese invented a very long time ago. it's older than some of the greatest mediterranian empires.
if they have had fireworks before the invention of the bible. whose to say that they didn't also have guns and a primitive variation of the repeater rifle.
i'm sure a double barrel flintlock would qualify.
all it takes for a Rifle to be considered a repeater is that it has the capacity to hold, fire and load multiple shots (at least 2 shots)
Gunpowder is something the chinese invented a very long time ago. it's older than some of the greatest mediterranian empires.
if they have had fireworks before the invention of the bible. whose to say that they didn't also have guns and a primitive variation of the repeater rifle.
i'm sure a double barrel flintlock would qualify.
all it takes for a Rifle to be considered a repeater is that it has the capacity to hold, fire and load multiple shots (at least 2 shots)
Because I'm pretty sure they would have used them.
I don't know what the date on it is but on of the Asian countries had a three barrel gun that was on an episode of Ultimate Warrior.
Look lets make this easy:
Citation or you're a sock puppet.
Look lets make this easy:
Citation or you're a sock puppet.
The Ming Warrior Season 2 Episode 10 of Deadliest Warrior (not ultimate) Had a three barrel hand held that was fired and rotated between shots.
There were many advances and new designs in gunpowder weapons during the beginning of the dynasty, but by the mid to late Ming the Chinese began to frequently employ European-style artillery and firearms.[178] The Huolongjing, compiled by Jiao Yu and Liu Ji sometime before the latter's death on May 16, 1375 (with a preface added by Jiao in 1412),[179] featured many types of cutting-edge gunpowder weaponry for the time. This includes hollow, gunpowder-filled exploding cannonballs,[180] land mines that used a complex trigger mechanism of falling weights, pins, and a steel wheellock to ignite the train of fuses,[181] naval mines,[182] fin-mounted winged rockets for aerodynamic control,[183] multistage rockets propelled by booster rockets before igniting a swarm of smaller rockets issuing forth from the end of the missile (shaped like a dragon's head),[184] and hand cannons that had up to ten barrels.
Though these aren't to massivly ahead of the mainstream use of the fire arm they were being used during what we refer to as the middle ages.
heck, they had guns in the orient far longer than they did in the west. the chinese had a variation of the repeater rifle by the time the trojan horse was built.
What on earth are you talking about? The Trojan War was in somewhere around 1180 BC, the Chinese invented gunpowder a couple of hundred years before the Mongols arrived, around 1044AD. That is 2000 years difference in history? That is invented it, not even invented firearms for it. 'Rifles' as in firearms that create a spin on their projectiles to give range and accuracy, came around in 18th century Europe. Repeaters we are talking mid 19th century. Where on earth did you hear this information?
Gunpowder is something the chinese invented a very long time ago. it's older than some of the greatest mediterranian empires.
if they have had fireworks before the invention of the bible. whose to say that they didn't also have guns and a primitive variation of the repeater rifle.
i'm sure a double barrel flintlock would qualify.
all it takes for a Rifle to be considered a repeater is that it has the capacity to hold, fire and load multiple shots (at least 2 shots)
Wrong on all counts except the Chinese invented it.
If you made your bayonet brilliant energy, could you shoot through it?
If you made your bayonet brilliant energy, could you shoot through it?How would you secure it?
Only the blade is brillent not the whole thing.
If you don't like it or it doesn't fit your campaign don't use it. I don't allow Monks in my game as they don't fit the setting. Just because something is in one of the books doesn't mean you have to use it. Make the game your own. :)
If you don't like it or it doesn't fit your campaign don't use it. I don't allow Monks in my game as they don't fit the setting. Just because something is in one of the books doesn't mean you have to use it. Make the game your own. :)
+1 if your not running organized play this is great advice even if the lack of monks makes me a very sad person.
So.... why is the blade in the way of the bullet? I was assuming he was talking about a barrel-inserted bayonet.Only the blade is brillent not the whole thing.If you made your bayonet brilliant energy, could you shoot through it?How would you secure it?
........ yeah that is a bit of a connundrum. maybe its an axe blade?
or maybe the gun barrel is made of living material?
|
|
EDIT: There's also the fact that guns are supposed to be simple to use. Large groups of soldiers could quickly be trained to fire them in volleys. Guns should be simple weapons so that warriors
"Supposed to be simple"?
No; guns were used because there were effective at, primarily, breaching armor (whether cannon versus fortifications, or musket volleys versus heavy infantry and cavalry).
Black-powder is emphatically not "simple" -- there's are lots of things you can screw up handling the stuff, and you will blow your piece up in your hands if you're stupid. Or set your house on fire.
It just seems easy today because it comes in a can, all properly formulated and free of contaminants.
EDIT: There's also the fact that guns are supposed to be simple to use. Large groups of soldiers could quickly be trained to fire them in volleys. Guns should be simple weapons so that warriors"Supposed to be simple"?
No; guns were used because there were effective at, primarily, breaching armor (whether cannon versus fortifications, or musket volleys versus heavy infantry and cavalry).
Black-powder is emphatically not "simple" -- there's are lots of things you can screw up handling the stuff, and you will blow your piece up in your hands if you're stupid. Or set your house on fire.
It just seems easy today because it comes in a can, all properly formulated and free of contaminants.
Pretty sure he means to use them, guns are pretty simple.
It sounds like the complaint is less about guns and more about magic.
I mean sure, magic being present would screw up gunpowder. Magic being present would screw up lots of things, but we coat over those just fine.
EDIT: There's also the fact that guns are supposed to be simple to use. Large groups of soldiers could quickly be trained to fire them in volleys. Guns should be simple weapons so that warriors"Supposed to be simple"?
No; guns were used because there were effective at, primarily, breaching armor (whether cannon versus fortifications, or musket volleys versus heavy infantry and cavalry).
Black-powder is emphatically not "simple" -- there's are lots of things you can screw up handling the stuff, and you will blow your piece up in your hands if you're stupid. Or set your house on fire.
It just seems easy today because it comes in a can, all properly formulated and free of contaminants.
It's not rocket science either. I'm pretty sure it should be martial weapons at the very worst.
Matchlock Firearms, Flintlock Firearms, and A bit about the barrel. Now what happens when you've loaded the firearm can be explained, including the history behind the gun, and the mechanical applications, in 10 minutes as proven by this slow speaking gentleman).
Seriously, it would take more time to learn to accurately shoot a slingshot than it would be to learn how to fire the stupid gun itself. The actual firing of the weapon is point and shoot. How amazingly complex! Yeah! Hardcore! Good thing we studied at ITT Technical School of Pointing and Shooting to get that Exotic Proficiency. Yeah!
|
|
There are several issues.
First, as Mythbusters pointed out during the "Gorn Cannon" there is more to making usable gunpowder than just combining the ingredients.
Until the corning process was invented, the propellant was pretty much valued by how loud it was, because the primary use was scaring the horses and the poorly trained soldiers.
Additionally, because the ingredients would separate on transport, you would often have people mixing them at the battlefield.
Now, if you want to make the gunslinger someone with the secret to mixing powder, great. This way you have a mechanism for them to more effectively use firearms than other classes.
You could have had special mixes, blends, etc...and it wouldn't have effected the base gun, nor made the base gun need to have touch attacks (prior to corning, the projectiles just sucked).
And as a limiting factor for the class, you could have had other classes unable to pour the right amount of powder into the gun, making it dangerous to impossible for them to use a gunslingers gun.
Instead...anyway as I said above I wish they would start from concept instead of starting from mechanics then forcing the concept in.
There are several issues.
First, as Mythbusters pointed out during the "Gorn Cannon" there is more to making usable gunpowder than just combining the ingredients.
Until the corning process was invented, the propellant was pretty much valued by how loud it was, because the primary use was scaring the horses and the poorly trained soldiers.
Additionally, because the ingredients would separate on transport, you would often have people mixing them at the battlefield.
Now, if you want to make the gunslinger someone with the secret to mixing powder, great. This way you have a mechanism for them to more effectively use firearms than other classes.
You could have had special mixes, blends, etc...and it wouldn't have effected the base gun, nor made the base gun need to have touch attacks (prior to corning, the projectiles just sucked).
And as a limiting factor for the class, you could have had other classes unable to pour the right amount of powder into the gun, making it dangerous to impossible for them to use a gunslingers gun.
Instead...anyway as I said above I wish they would start from concept instead of starting from mechanics then forcing the concept in.
Let's not forget that this is also a game of high fantasy where you can totally shoot like 6+ arrows at five different targets in five different directions in 6 seconds while walking 5 feet or riding a horse while doing so, and those arrows can destroy a wooden shield in a single shot (hardness 5, 7 hp for a small wooden shield).
It's not like guns really should conform to reality so well when literally nothing else does. :P
No one puts that much thought into their weapons Ciretose, you might as well require people using katanas to carry lots of oils on them, or to have tons of extra parts lying around for then the fiddly things inevitably chip.
|
|
No one puts that much thought into their weapons Ciretose, you might as well require people using katanas to carry lots of oils on them, or to have tons of extra parts lying around for then the fiddly things inevitably chip.
I didn't even get into care needed by firearms...
The fact is that usable gunpowder isn't a simple thing to make. Your analogy isn't equivalent unless you need to load an explosive into your sword every time you use it.
The reason we didn't use gunpowder weapons much was not because we didn't have them, but because they were impractical beyond scaring the horses until fairly late in the game.
|
|
There are several issues.
First, as Mythbusters pointed out during the "Gorn Cannon" there is more to making usable gunpowder than just combining the ingredients.
Until the corning process was invented, the propellant was pretty much valued by how loud it was, because the primary use was scaring the horses and the poorly trained soldiers.
Additionally, because the ingredients would separate on transport, you would often have people mixing them at the battlefield.
Now, if you want to make the gunslinger someone with the secret to mixing powder, great. This way you have a mechanism for them to more effectively use firearms than other classes.
You could have had special mixes, blends, etc...and it wouldn't have effected the base gun, nor made the base gun need to have touch attacks (prior to corning, the projectiles just sucked).
And as a limiting factor for the class, you could have had other classes unable to pour the right amount of powder into the gun, making it dangerous to impossible for them to use a gunslingers gun.
Instead...anyway as I said above I wish they would start from concept instead of starting from mechanics then forcing the concept in.
Let's not forget that this is also a game of high fantasy where you can totally shoot like 6+ arrows at five different targets in five different directions in 6 seconds while walking 5 feet or riding a horse while doing so, and those arrows can destroy a wooden shield in a single shot (hardness 5, 7 hp for a small wooden shield).
It's not like guns really should conform to reality so well when literally nothing else does. :P
We had been doing so well with the agreeing...I need to go to work so I'll save this war for another day...or at least until I get home.
No one puts that much thought into their weapons Ciretose, you might as well require people using katanas to carry lots of oils on them, or to have tons of extra parts lying around for then the fiddly things inevitably chip.I didn't even get into care needed by firearms...
The fact is that usable gunpowder isn't a simple thing to make. Your analogy isn't equivalent unless you need to load an explosive into your sword every time you use it.
The reason we didn't use gunpowder weapons much was not because we didn't have them, but because they were impractical beyond scaring the horses until fairly late in the game.
I'm well aware of that, the important part is that that's too much detail. There is a fine line for the amount of detail that goes into the game, you are blowing past it like it's the starting line at a marathon.