Oh yes. I find the whole concept of gunslingers and guns to be counter not only to my own ideas of what a fantasy world is, but the actual implementation is so thoroughly illogical that it makes my head hurt.
I haven't officially banned gunslingers in my world, but nobody has taken one yet and I haven't introduced them as NPCs. In fact that's true of our entire pathfinder group. We all find the gunslinger to be distasteful and counter to our notions of fantasy role playing.
Of course the difference between you and me appears to me that I don't think it's an incredibly cool concept, and I don't think it should work and most importantly I don't want to like the use of them.
There are games that work with guns and gunslingers. They are totally superfluous on the fantasy game settings that I want to play and bring nothing to the table except a jarring collision of badly implemented "technology" and a world of dragons, swords and wizards.
Just my $.02.
Yah, steampunk settings would be a good place to start.
Iron Kingdoms (by Privateer Press) is one I've always had a fondness for.
I always jump Alan Quartermaine and some lost forgotten city, with magic traps and mad Jungle Wizards, that is how I see them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding Adamantine Dragon's comments:
There are a lot of players who really don't want any form of firearms in their fantasy. I'm fine with that and don't wish to dissuade them from their preference.
There are a lot of us who like a setting that implements it... especially if it's implemented well. I will also say, though, that I am generally intrigued by a lot of "nontraditional" fantasy settings. Ones where it doesn't feel like a dark ages or medieval equivalent european theater with magic to one degree or another.
But -- as I said before -- Iron Kingdoms seems to be a generally liked setting for people who like the idea of firearms in their fantasy.
Engineers with guns and boom and other explosive things.
Damn. I wish my laptop weren't slowly cooking its gfx card when trying to turn anything graphics intensive...
Eben, if the PF gunslinger and gun implementation were even remotely logically consistent and had even the faintest connection with actual world history, I might find it more palatable....
Ah, who am I kidding. If I want to get technology in my fantasy or fantasy in my technology, hey, that's what Star Wars is for.
I have no problems with guns in fantasy in general but I don't like their implementation in Pathfinder. Gunslinger seems clunky to me and gun rules make me react with 'meh'. I'd thought a few times (and will be doing so in future) how to tweak some rules palatable to me, but d20 in general is poor in supporting guns rules for me (in my opinion neither d20 modern nor SW solved that matter).
Eben, if the PF gunslinger and gun implementation were even remotely logically consistent and had even the faintest connection with actual world history, I might find it more palatable....
Ah, who am I kidding. If I want to get technology in my fantasy or fantasy in my technology, hey, that's what Star Wars is for.
That's fair. I didn't mean to argue with you or anything. I was just trying to give the other side of the argument. If I mis-represented your opinion, I apologize.
I do agree that the paizo firearm/gunslinger implementation leaves quite a bit to be desired. I mean, as is they're mechanically weaker than crossbows (other than some specific rogue builds I've seen).
I mean, guns should be dangerous! Let's have some seriously front-loaded damage with some equally serious back-fire repercussions and some equally serious reload times!
But that's just me. :D
That's fair. I didn't mean to argue with you or anything. I was just trying to give the other side of the argument. If I mis-represented your opinion, I apologize.
Hmm.... not sure where you thought I was arguing with you. I was just doing what the OP asked and presenting my opinion about guns in the Pathfinder universe.
I could go into great detail about how completely ridiculous I find the PF implementation of guns to be, but there's no point and it would just open up a whole new line of derisive commentary from those who disagree, so instead I'll just say the following.
In my opinion adding guns to a fantasy world like Pathfinder would totally change the way that almost everything worked. It would completely transform the battlefield and make most ranged weapons obsolete. Armor would be of dubious value, unless seriously magically enhanced.
A world of guns and magic can exist, and could be a lot of fun. But that world would not look like a totally illogical mishmash of sword and sorcery with some anachronistic and historically implausible "firearms" just popping up without much of anything else changing at all.
It's just so freakishly illogical that my mind rebels from it. That's all.
|
The best treatment of guns in medieval fantasy that I've seen was the old PC game Darklands. Guns were heavy, super-slow, two-handed, required heavy maintenance, and punched right through plate armor. Bows were superior against most enemies, but a gunner really helped against heavily armored knights.
Unfortunately, I don't see this model working in D&D or Pathfinder, where you don't really have time for a 3-minute load. The best I've heard of is carrying a brace of slow-loading pisols. Fire off each of six pistols, then close for melee. Reload after the battle.
Regarding "argument". Lol. Fair enough. Poor choice of words on my part.
I definitely don't disagree with you on your perspective on how firearms and firearms technology would change the way the world (and the battlefield) worked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there's one thing that I do hate, it's fantasy settings where the author of the firearms rules, through some combination of loathing of firearms in fantasy settings and a very localized desire for historical realism in firearms development decided to just make firearms suck so bad that they become all but not-an-option for players. (You also gotta make firearms a jillion times more complicated than any other option, because firearms are the grappling of weapons.) Many systems' firearms rules feel like the DM that doesn't want to outright ban anything, but who instead just sideways nerfs any option he doesn't like into the ground.
Pathfinder is blessed with reasonable firearm rules, and a system that emulates an extraordinarily common fantasy version of early firearms. I don't want historically accurate firearms rules. Several attempts at those were made at various points during 3.5. They sucked really bad. Pathfinder guns are nonmagical fantasy-technology, like (practical) airships, double weapons, spring-loaded wrist sheathes, and anachronistic social and governmental systems. "Fantasy", to some people, includes but isn't simply synonymous with "magic". If someone wants their fantasy to be just "perfect historical realism, but also elves and magic", then yeah, guns are problematic, but it's hard for me to see it that way.
Well. We just completely banned them in our group's version of Golarion and pretend they never existed.
In the days of 3.5, we mostly played the default fantasy version, but we also had a homebrew-7th-sea-d20-modern that we played once in a while, when people wanted to blow things up and do crazy stuff they weren't allowed in the main round.
If we decide we want to play with guns for some time, we'll probably update that to PF.
Bu always paying such a fantasy with guns stuff just isn't most of our folks' type of cake.
I don't have problem with guns in my D&D, I just don't think it should be easier to get a gun than a fireball wand.
I read the excellent Dark Tower series by Steven King which features as main character a "paladin" gun slinger in an apocalyptic parallel Earth. There it works because the setting is both low-magic and low-tech and fire-arms are at the high end of the power curve.
In a game, I would only consider fire-arms if they as good or bad as archery.
I have no problem with guns in my fantasy. Especially not because of the diverse technological levels in the world we live in.
And for all the people that say the gunslinger is clunky: have you played one yet? I'm playing one right now, Musket Master 6, and I'm loving it. My first shot of the first combat was a crit for 64 damage. My rolling has been notoriously bad, so I am gifted in that I haven't had a misfire yet with Mustache McGraw. When I do though, It's going to suck.
Guns really aren't a clunky system. Some of the rules could be tweaked a bit, but it is balanced out pretty well once you play one. I'm powerful, hit often but not too hard, but I only get two shots a round. And I have missed before. Gunslingers don't always hit every shot. Now the archer of the group has 3.5 (I count manyshot as a half a shot), 4.5 if she gets hasted and can still out-damage me. She has spells, can use wands, favored enemy, etc. You just have to watch money at lower levels. Even crafting alchemical cartridges, they aren't cheap.
Has anyone else had similar issues? Can anyone point me in the direction of some good concept art of firearms combined with fantasy?
Thanks
Personally, it has always bothered me that a setting like Eberon could have the magical equivalent of a bullet train, but never invented firearms.
Also, other settings that go into more of a modern twist on fantasy, an occult WWI or WWII game, Savage World Wierd West, a Pathfinderized d20 Modern Game (with pathfinder magic allowed), and Shadowrun's setting would all be examples of fantasy with firearms. Also, any contempory fantasy/alternate history route could mix guns with magic.
Concept art below:
http://huntersinsight.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/charrgunner1.jpg
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/279/a/4/wizard_with_a_gun_by_steelwo olmustache-d4c0arf.jpg
And the obligatory joke:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/Clan_Riffster/Space%2520Coast%252 0Pics/WizardGun.jpg
Guns in fantasy should kind of suck. Percussion and flintlock weapons were not very accurate, short range and took forever to reload. You would actually have to make them ridiculously better in game to justify their use. Cartidge weapons on the other hand would rock socks but they are only believable in post apocalyptic or alternate reality type settings.
As to the question in the OP no they don't really rustle my jimmies, but they don't really mesh with my idea of a traditional fantasy setting either.
...a jarring collision of badly implemented "technology" and a world of dragons, swords and wizards.
I don't see why they can't mix- Imagine a dragon with levels in Gunslinger! O_O
My problem with gunslingers isn't that they don't work in the fantasy genre at all- but rather that they don't work in Golarion. Other settings can have a kind of 'late fantasy' feel, where the world used to be kind of LOTR or PF, but that was a couple hundred years ago. All of the technology has had time to grow up, not just guns. So you have magic-powered boilers and trains and such.
In PF, on the other hand, we have a regular fantasy setting with one and only one place which makes guns (for a rather poor story reason) and then hordes them. It doesn't fit in the world because the designers made an effort to make it feel foreign. That way, instead of embracing the concept and the storyline opportunities which come along with the creation of firearms they are relegated to 'an expansion you don't have to acknowledge if you don't like it.'
I thought about this more and I think for it to work for me the following has to be true (ie my world has these rules/characteristics)
1) Firearms are flintlock weapons both rifles & pistols
2) Firearms are expensive/difficult to craft but not rare. Using them requires about the same training as a crossbow and is easier than a bow
3) They are more powerful than bows & crossbows however getting hit with a bullet is not as bad as getting hit by say a two handed sword all things being equal
4) They are less accurate at greater distances (boring doesn't exist)
5) Gunpowder is more expensive than arrows/bolts and cannot be reused (obviously) It also more dangerous to carry in large quantities
6) Guns are obviously loud and this can carry consequences
7) A loaded gun can be fired quicker than a bow but takes longer to reload
8) gunpowder doesn't work when wet, guns must be cleaned
I think the above allows the existence of firearms without rendering all of the other things I love (swords,bows,spears, armor) obsolete.
Agree?
You know the difference between a musket and a rifle, right? (Sorry I had to.)
Seriously, those all strike me as workable ideas.
@ hitdice, :) well I understand they are different but would not be able to go into great detail. I would say I mostly use the term interchangeably. Are there single shot rifles that do not have bored barrels? That's what I'm talking about.
The way it was explained to me (not an expert) anything with a rifled barrel (imparts spin to the bullet) is a rifle, whereas anything smooth-bore is a musket or a shotgun. Not to confuse the issue, but it's like the difference between pistols and revolvers.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really want to like the use of gunslingers within pathfinder. I think it's an incredibly cool concept and should work. I mean this with absolute sincerity. However for some reason I have this mental block that is preventing my imagination for completely embracing the idea. It's like I can't picture it like I can picture other more typical fantasy stuff. And because of this I can't fully enjoy it. Logically I completely understand this makes no sense. It's fantasy first of all! Also I love star wars for crying out loud!
Has anyone else had similar issues? Can anyone point me in the direction of some good concept art of firearms combined with fantasy?
Thanks
There were rules for guns in first edition AD&D, in the original DM's Guide.
"fantasy" is a rather broad term.
I can see some fantasy worlds/settings where guns would be quite upsetting. I can imagine other fantasy worlds/settings that only come into their own with guns, cannons and other boomies.
I have similar sentiments about ninjas and samurais. Or divine casters. Or full plate armours...
'findel
No mental block, just outright loathing.
Nothing gets banhammered quicker or harder in my games than the introduction of firearms. You wanna shoot stuff? Find a different game. Deadlands, GURPS, dust off an old copy of Boot Hill... but not in Pathfinder. At least, not in a Pathfinder game I'm in...
Knights using gatling guns to fight dragons with rocket launcher breath weapons are the only thing that gets me hot anymore.
Have you tried knights with rocket launchers fighting dragons with gatling guns?
For me, it's not the presence or absence that bugs me. It's the sheer game breaking ability (legit rules, fudged, and or simply missing the full description)of players. In a homebrew campaign of mine, the character carries around 8 pony kegs of powder, shot, etc in a bag of holding. He deals between 80 and 160 damage in a round. this is the first session the character's been played, starting at lvl 9. the session had one encounter requiring us to face two frost giants, with a stipulation that we must slay them (killing blow) with a specific dagger for their hearts, to work some magic.
this 'difficult' undertaking was finished in one full round (it may have been two, but the rest of the party saw how it was going to go right off.) with a rogue wrecking the first one from stealth wielding said dagger, and the gunslinger taking the other one low enough for a direct strike from said rogue.
As far as i know all rules applied to the characters are legit, and obtained from the srd or these boards for reference, but come on. why even put the mini's out on the mat. the next highest player to deal similar damage is a barbarian, only if he crits.
For me it is a matter of setting. If it's a very "classic" fantasy that's inspired by mythic lore, I find firearms jarring (I even find some "advanced" non firearm weapons or armor jarring, depending, again, on the specifics of the setting).
But if it's inspired by anything mid-Renaissance onward (and especially inspired by later time periods)--and it makes clear from the get-go that firearms are de-facto a part of the world, then I'm fine with it. Especially since then presumably the world's designers have thought thoroughly about how firearms interact with the other elements of the universe--how it competes with or complements magic, how it affects the development of other weapons, etc.
(But by the same token, I don't think post-medieval fantasy societies HAVE to have firearms. My homebrew setting is probably--giving or taking for accounting how magic's affected the world's development--roughly Age of Reason in its advancement, but has no firearms. But that's because I specifically wanted a world where technological advancements are directly tied into magic, and no one ever felt a need to design firearms or similar weaponry because the magic equivalents are less dangerous to use and easier to make, at around the same relative cost.)
I think what can be really bothersome about firearms-in-fantasy is not whether firearms are included or not, but whether they are added. Like I said, if a setting is presented as having firearms, then fine--that's what it does. But if a setting is presented as NOT having firearms, but then the game developers decide to add them in a supplement later on, THAT I find problematic because it may well upset how the world works as originally written versus "revised."
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No mental block for me. We have a game where Dragons the size of jumbo jets should not fly and a monster that is essentailly a Dalek with many different death rays (beholder). As well as bazooka launcers and taser disguised as wands. So no real problems for me.
At the same time I also allow them in a world where it makes sense. Galorian, Steampunk, Iron kingdoms or any other approriate setting. Otherwise if one character has guns then you have to rewrite it so that everyone else does.
I do very dislike how they implemented the gun rules. Unless I'm a gunslinger i'm not touching or wasting feats to use guns.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Two words: Solomon Kane!
|
|
a monster that is essentailly a Dalek with many different death rays (beholder).Mind. Blown.
Beholder are even as xenophobic as Daleks if not even more.
I see so much real world stuff in D&D sometimes. Charm Person = Mind Control. Delayed Blast Fireball = grenade. Adding guns in the right context is just another option.
Guns don't bother me, but then I had guns in my 3.5e FR game. They were very rare and in order to function both the gun and the ammunition had to be masterwork quality.
I originally gave them to an "PC" I created in an exercise to see if I could make a character to my father's specifications. He told me to make Abraham Van Helsing, the old man from the book Dracula and related films, NOT the travesty Hugh Jackman played (who was named Gabriel Van Helsing). So I equipped an old human archivist with exotic weapon proficiency [firearms] and two masterwork pistols, as well as a big knife, stakes, and other paraphernalia Dr. Van Helsing would carry. The archivist actually had a DEX penalty, but the matched pair of masterwork revolvers he carried did 2d6 damage if he managed to hit with them. They were using the rules for guns from the 3.5e DMG. I planned to use him as a minor cameo NPC in the FR campaign I was running. (Not named Dr. Van Helsing, of course.)
FR had a minor precedent for firearms in that it mentioned somewhere that gnomes had invented them, so I felt OK with handing that NPC over to a friend of mine when he came over to play the campaign one time. I didn't expect my friend, who had never played D&D before, to keep playing but he played that guy for the rest of the campaign. In the campaign, the archivist became Archibald, scholar archivist and undead hunter of Kelemvor. He actually managed to shoot something with his gun once by scoring a natural 20. It was undead so he didn't do additional damage (3.5e rules), but the damage he did was enough to blow the undead lizardfolk away. I ruled that firearm bullets, which were always at least materwork quality, could only be purchased in cities with a certain population size, or cities known for their armories. He horded those bullets like they were going out of style. He might fire two shots a session if he as feeling wasteful.
So the guns in Golarion doesn't bother me. I don't know that I like their implementation, but I haven't seen them in play yet. I liked the Exploding Dice rule for firearms that was in the OGL 3.5e Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, but it didn't get carried over to the Pathfinder rules. (Basically it said if you rolled the maximum on your gun's damage die, you got to add another of the same type of die to the damage, and if you rolled another max roll on that die too, you could add a third die, and so on.)
I don't have an issue, but then, that's probably due to my love of the Wild Arms series.
I love Gunslingers, and I love guns. I have complaints (Two weapon fighting with pistols? Sorry pal, better upgrade to Pepperboxes or Revolvers, because you can't reload them while you're holding them both)...
Honestly though, I think the Pathfinder gun rules are fair, and relatively balanced. I mean, they're basically weapons that START with the Brilliant Energy ability. And anyone who complains about Gun Damage has never seen someone Crit with that x4. And anyone who's ever seen the Rogue/Ninja sneak attack a Fighter with a pistol (Ignore Dex/Ignore Armor/Ignore Shields, their AC is 10, here comes the pain) has probably been happy with the result.
If you've got the feats to support them, Guns are amazing. If you don't have the feats to support them, they're a good fight starter or surprise weapon.
As for setting? Depends on the GM. Personally, I love my steampunk settings, so they work for me. I love that they've given us the OPTION to use guns if we want it. And I love the fact that if I ever got into a PFS group, I could walk in with a pepper-box packing pistolero. :D