magic augmented cannons still rely on the augmentation of magic to be effective. only you added the huge manufacturing and maintenance costs of a cannon on top of it. the cannon itself might seem powerful, but it has a long manual reloading time, a poor rate of fire, cannot move, reload, or fire under its own power, is really expensive, doesn't use the most renewable of resources, has a poor range increment, and deals less damage per hit than a martially inclined adventurer with a 2handed weapon is capable of. and hitting a wall is only like AC 5. at highest. and i don't think cannons have the ability to ignore hardness.
any magical augmentations you place on a cannon can supplied more cheaply on a cheaper weapon.
magic augmented cannons still rely on the augmentation of magic to be effective. only you added the huge manufacturing and maintenance costs of a cannon on top of it. the cannon itself might seem powerful, but it has a long manual reloading time, a poor rate of fire, cannot move, reload, or fire under its own power, is really expensive, doesn't use the most renewable of resources, has a poor range increment, and deals less damage per hit than a martially inclined adventurer with a 2handed weapon is capable of. and hitting a wall is only like AC 5. at highest. and i don't think cannons have the ability to ignore hardness.
+5 Adamantine CannonBalls?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah so in your world you sat down and figured out exactly how much of this material component was around, then by happen stance it was to little for firearms to work? Of course not, the only reason there isn't 'enough' is because you have up and decided there isn't enough.This isn't an issue of "A few guns can't fit in this world." this is an issue of "I don't want guns in this world." two very different things.
No, it's not. The issue is that I understand that you really can't have fancy old west handguns in a world without an entire industrial base to support them, and conversely you can't have guns that advanced in a world without them fundamentally changing the way wars are fought. Both of those points should be fairly obvious if you have any understanding of the history of warfare. I guess you could fudge your way around it with "a wizard did it" type of explanations, but not without a lot of twisting your neck.
It's not that "I don't want guns in this world", it's just that I want a world to make sense, not to have giant plot holes you could drive a truck through.
In no way will guns or gunpowder or cannons alter warfare in any significant way in a world that has individuals that can create fireballs, command lightning, bring about earthquakes to swallow armies, summon demons and devils and angels and more, influence gods and borrow their powers, and do a thousand other powerfully magical things. In a world where gods and devils and monster and magic exists, the ability to fire a single small metal bead at high speeds won't alter the face of war.
magic augmented cannons still rely on the augmentation of magic to be effective. only you added the huge manufacturing and maintenance costs of a cannon on top of it. the cannon itself might seem powerful, but it has a long manual reloading time, a poor rate of fire, cannot move, reload, or fire under its own power, is really expensive, doesn't use the most renewable of resources, has a poor range increment, and deals less damage per hit than a martially inclined adventurer with a 2handed weapon is capable of. and hitting a wall is only like AC 5. at highest. and i don't think cannons have the ability to ignore hardness.+5 Adamantine CannonBalls?
53,000 per cannonball before factoring the cost of the cannonball itself. and any weapon can already be made of Adamantine.
In no way will guns or gunpowder or cannons alter warfare in any significant way in a world that has individuals that can create fireballs, command lightning, bring about earthquakes to swallow armies, summon demons and devils and angels and more, influence gods and borrow their powers, and do a thousand other powerfully magical things. In a world where gods and devils and monster and magic exists, the ability to fire a single small metal bead at high speeds won't alter the face of war.
Ah so in your world you sat down and figured out exactly how much of this material component was around, then by happen stance it was to little for firearms to work? Of course not, the only reason there isn't 'enough' is because you have up and decided there isn't enough.This isn't an issue of "A few guns can't fit in this world." this is an issue of "I don't want guns in this world." two very different things.
No, it's not. The issue is that I understand that you really can't have fancy old west handguns in a world without an entire industrial base to support them, and conversely you can't have guns that advanced in a world without them fundamentally changing the way wars are fought. Both of those points should be fairly obvious if you have any understanding of the history of warfare. I guess you could fudge your way around it with "a wizard did it" type of explanations, but not without a lot of twisting your neck.
It's not that "I don't want guns in this world", it's just that I want a world to make sense, not to have giant plot holes you could drive a truck through.
such a perfect way of saying it. i agree with this. no matter how fast firearms advance, magic will always be ahead and always the superior option. black powder will never catch up to magic. and magically augmented cannons are always a financially impractical and inferior choice compared to hiring more casters.
53,000 per cannonball before factoring the cost of the cannonball itself. and any weapon can already be made of Adamantine.magic augmented cannons still rely on the augmentation of magic to be effective. only you added the huge manufacturing and maintenance costs of a cannon on top of it. the cannon itself might seem powerful, but it has a long manual reloading time, a poor rate of fire, cannot move, reload, or fire under its own power, is really expensive, doesn't use the most renewable of resources, has a poor range increment, and deals less damage per hit than a martially inclined adventurer with a 2handed weapon is capable of. and hitting a wall is only like AC 5. at highest. and i don't think cannons have the ability to ignore hardness.+5 Adamantine CannonBalls?
Would that be classified as ammunition? Get them in a batch of 50?
such a perfect way of saying it. i agree with this. no matter how fast firearms advance, magic will always be ahead and always the superior option. black powder will never catch up to magic. and magically augmented cannons are always a financially impractical and inferior choice compared to hiring more casters.In no way will guns or gunpowder or cannons alter warfare in any significant way in a world that has individuals that can create fireballs, command lightning, bring about earthquakes to swallow armies, summon demons and devils and angels and more, influence gods and borrow their powers, and do a thousand other powerfully magical things. In a world where gods and devils and monster and magic exists, the ability to fire a single small metal bead at high speeds won't alter the face of war.
Ah so in your world you sat down and figured out exactly how much of this material component was around, then by happen stance it was to little for firearms to work? Of course not, the only reason there isn't 'enough' is because you have up and decided there isn't enough.This isn't an issue of "A few guns can't fit in this world." this is an issue of "I don't want guns in this world." two very different things.
No, it's not. The issue is that I understand that you really can't have fancy old west handguns in a world without an entire industrial base to support them, and conversely you can't have guns that advanced in a world without them fundamentally changing the way wars are fought. Both of those points should be fairly obvious if you have any understanding of the history of warfare. I guess you could fudge your way around it with "a wizard did it" type of explanations, but not without a lot of twisting your neck.
It's not that "I don't want guns in this world", it's just that I want a world to make sense, not to have giant plot holes you could drive a truck through.
Don't get me wrong; I'm sure some people will find ways to make it useful for war, especially augmented by magic. More importantly, cannons and gunfire give commoners who can't cast the ability to do massive damage. The same way the crossbow did. It can definitely be useful, but I really don't see it altering warfare the way guns did in our non-magical world here on Earth.
Would that be classified as ammunition? Get them in a batch of 50?53,000 per cannonball before factoring the cost of the cannonball itself. and any weapon can already be made of Adamantine.magic augmented cannons still rely on the augmentation of magic to be effective. only you added the huge manufacturing and maintenance costs of a cannon on top of it. the cannon itself might seem powerful, but it has a long manual reloading time, a poor rate of fire, cannot move, reload, or fire under its own power, is really expensive, doesn't use the most renewable of resources, has a poor range increment, and deals less damage per hit than a martially inclined adventurer with a 2handed weapon is capable of. and hitting a wall is only like AC 5. at highest. and i don't think cannons have the ability to ignore hardness.+5 Adamantine CannonBalls?
i don't think that rule applies to seige weapon ammunition.
magic augmented cannons still rely on the augmentation of magic to be effective. only you added the huge manufacturing and maintenance costs of a cannon on top of it. the cannon itself might seem powerful, but it has a long manual reloading time, a poor rate of fire, cannot move, reload, or fire under its own power, is really expensive, doesn't use the most renewable of resources, has a poor range increment, and deals less damage per hit than a martially inclined adventurer with a 2handed weapon is capable of. and hitting a wall is only like AC 5. at highest. and i don't think cannons have the ability to ignore hardness.
+5 Adamantine CannonBalls?
+5 and plenty of other effects. Besides why not build your cannon to be self loading? Have arms built on; an automated Golem-Cannon :) Mobile artillery, legs and all. Range increment; magically enhanced. Damage; really, you don't think magic could outpower a solid cannon ball? If you're going to mix magic and technology, the skys the limit. Expensive? Yes. So is a modern M-109 SPA.
*edit* Oh, and what's the WBL for a nation? :)
+5 and plenty of other effects. Besides why not build your cannon to be self loading? Have arms built on; an automated Golem-Cannon :) Mobile artillery, legs and all. Range increment; magically enhanced. Damage; really, you don't think magic could outpower a solid cannon ball? If you're going to mix magic and technology, the skys the limit. Expensive? Yes. So is a modern M-109 SPA.
magic augmented cannons still rely on the augmentation of magic to be effective. only you added the huge manufacturing and maintenance costs of a cannon on top of it. the cannon itself might seem powerful, but it has a long manual reloading time, a poor rate of fire, cannot move, reload, or fire under its own power, is really expensive, doesn't use the most renewable of resources, has a poor range increment, and deals less damage per hit than a martially inclined adventurer with a 2handed weapon is capable of. and hitting a wall is only like AC 5. at highest. and i don't think cannons have the ability to ignore hardness.
+5 Adamantine CannonBalls?
Yes! This is fantastic! Might be able to have a few (and they would just as dangerous as any other golem with an equivalent cost to create) in an army, and they certainly would be a problem, but cost is prohibitive for warfare. And like nekogami says, they'd be equivalent to siege engines. Don't spellcasters already have ways of handling siege engines, or are they the powerhouses of the game?
*edit* Oh, and what's the WBL for a nation? :)
not enough to make even one of these without drastically weakening their military's resources. the cheapest golem you could mount the cannon on costs 250K gold pieces and the cannon costs 6K. so one of these golems is 256K and this is assuming a mithril golem with a steel cannon. even the richest of imperial armies wouldn't dare use this. you can conscript a few thousand wizards for cheaper.
Cannons existed before handheld firearms iirc.
Despite the fact that nothing requires you to have cannons in a world with guns.
Yes/no, technically the first gun-like weapon was hand-held. The Fire Lance was the earliest ancestor of the firearm and it was handheld. Though the first solid-projectile weapon we know of was a cannon, I suspect those two came about the same time, the inventor logically thinking "I've got to make this small enough for a single person to use.", and then it was made.
*edit* Oh, and what's the WBL for a nation? :)
not enough to make even one of these without drastically weakening their military's resources. the cheapest golem you could mount the cannon on costs 250K gold pieces and the cannon costs 6K. so one of these golems is 256K and this is assuming a mithril golem with a steel cannon. even the richest of imperial armies wouldn't dare use this. you can conscript a few thousand wizards for cheaper.
How many of those wizards are resistant to magic the way a golem is? And what's the WBL for a single high level character? It would be prohhibitively expensive for an individual yes, but so is an M-109. A single M-1A1 Abrams tank is over $2 million these days. Beyond my WBL for sure :) Not so the US or even Bill Gates. Or Mitt Romney. Some feudal monarch is going to rely on his barons to provide the infantry etc. He's going to be bringing the big guns. Literally in this case. He might not have hundreds, but he'd have some. Think about Spell Completion items, munitions with Stone to Mud. Stuff like that. There essentially isn't any maintenance on magical gear either. Maybe some peasants to dust it off, keep it clean and shiney. I doubt magic rusts. Just keep stockpiling. For half cost I'm sure. Taxes and feudal services you know.
*edit* If you travel down that road of "magic = technology" and it's easy once you admit "modern" technologies like guns / gunpowder you'll get to this stage.
|
Because a specific substance is known to the gunslinger and his very common in his/her world, that doesn't mean it is as well known and common in the world s/he ended up in. Hell, a particular world might give laws of physic and what we know of the Periodic Table of Elements the finger.
here is the hole in your theory. they have rules that say "you know how to make ammo" reguardless about the periodic table, or if its called sulfer or jibblets, your character still has the knowledge of how to make ammo. if the gm goes against the RAW of skills or feats that another issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only blanket ban in my gaming group is the Synthesist Summoner, although there is a restriction on pet using classes and the leadership feat due to group size (8 summoners, druids, cavaliers all with the leadership feat will make the DM not want to show up for the game)
Somewhat unrelated to the thread, but this reminded me that my Monday D&D game has about 10 players, and is set in the Baldur's Gate campaign from the PC game (in celebration of the BG:EE release). Not only are some of them classes with pets, but each of them is allowed to recruit one of the BG NPCs as a cohort (currently they have Khalid and Jaheira with them). Yet I am super psyched about it, and can't want for the next game. Maybe they will get Garrick the bard to join them. :P
not enough to make even one of these without drastically weakening their military's resources. the cheapest golem you could mount the cannon on costs 250K gold pieces and the cannon costs 6K. so one of these golems is 256K and this is assuming a mithril golem with a steel cannon. even the richest of imperial armies wouldn't dare use this. you can conscript a few thousand wizards for cheaper.How many of those wizards are resistant to magic the way a golem is? And what's the WBL for a single high level character? It would be prohhibitively expensive for an individual yes, but so is an M-109. A single M-1A1 Abrams tank is over $2 million these days. Beyond my WBL for sure :) Not so the US or even Bill Gates. Or Mitt Romney. Some feudal monarch is going to rely on his barons to provide the infantry etc. He's going to be bringing the big guns. Literally in this case. He might not have hundreds, but he'd have some. Think about Spell Completion items, munitions with Stone to Mud. Stuff like that. There essentially isn't any maintenance on magical gear either. Maybe some peasants to dust it off, keep it clean and shiney. I doubt magic rusts. Just keep stockpiling. For half cost I'm sure. Taxes and feudal services you know.
Not to mention that golems and the like are easily dismantled by completely mundane peons with a few splash weapons. I showed a long time ago that some 1st level warriors with some acid flasks can crush an adamantine golem for pennies on the gold brick. The cost to create an iron golem is 150,000 gp and a 150 days worth of work. The cost to destroy an iron golem is about 400-800 gp, 40 1st level NPCs, and 1 round.
Golems aren't even difficult to destroy by casters. Anything that doesn't allow spell resistance pretty much ruins a golem. A 3rd level caster with invisibility and create pit can mess up a golem's day. If your nation has even 1 13th level wizard, then you could commission 6th level wizard simulacrums from the wizard who each cost about 3,000 gp, and come with the ability to cast 3rd level spells (which means they can fly around a battlefield and spam acid arrow and magic missile to destroy things like golems or other creatures with heavy defenses).
One of the most awesome aspects of magic as a weapon is the option to have x/day charged items. Imagine how amazing it would be to suddenly get a resupply on artillery shells, or medical supplies, every 8 hours or so. A single greater magic weapon rod that functions 5/day would be expensive, but you could use it to create 250 +2 arrows each day that last 5 hours with no problems. Cast it on a few quivers, pouches, quarrels, and so forth before a large scale battle and divide up the shots between your troops. Crushes protection from arrows.
|
|
Before the gunslinger class came about, before pathfinder was ever a hint of an idea in anyone's mind, before 3rd edition was ever thought of, I had players design guns for a game in a world where gunpowder didn't exist.
One was a water pressure system which used magic to supply and heat up the water in order to fire high pressure steam through a small tube, firing a small projectile at high speeds.
The other idea was to use force magic to bring the small projectile in a tube up to high speeds.
Not...
you know i did this also. i had a gun that used catrages filled with alchemist fire, has a bullet projectile and a large cannon type gun that i used for the delivery system. i had schematics and everything, i could have actually built it in real life, if it wouldnt have been super illegal and potentially put me in prision for 5 years or more, my gm was so impressed he let me play that character.
it was awesome.
Not to mention that golems and the like are easily dismantled by completely mundane peons with a few splash weapons. I showed a long time ago that some 1st level warriors with some acid flasks can crush an adamantine golem for pennies on the gold brick. The cost to create an iron golem is 150,000 gp and a 150 days worth of work. The cost to destroy an iron golem is about 400-800 gp, 40 1st level NPCs, and 1 round.Golems aren't even difficult to destroy by casters. Anything that doesn't allow spell resistance pretty much ruins a golem. A 3rd level caster with invisibility and create pit can mess up a golem's day. If your nation has even 1 13th level wizard, then you could commission 6th level wizard simulacrums from the wizard who each cost about 3,000 gp, and come with the ability to cast 3rd level spells (which means they can fly around a battlefield and spam acid arrow and magic missile to destroy things like golems or other creatures with heavy defenses).
Assuming that you let 40 1st level Warriors run up to that big expensive artillery thingy unmolested. And that you just didn't hit them with a Fireball, frying them and healing the Golem in the process (given the range of a flask). And assuming no one casts Protection From Energy (Acid) on the Golem. 2nd or 3rd level spell depending on who casts it I believe. 120 points of protection for 100 rounds assuming a 10th level caster iirc. A wand of that could be nice. Pretty much any magical or mundane attack has a theoretical counter. You could go on all day like this. The point wasn't specifically that a standard Golem would be some type of perfect weapon. Just that you could build magical weapons adding to technology (cannon / powder) that would be very destructive.
Anyway, I've finsihed grading 42 AP Government FRQs and I'm off to bed. I'll check back on this tommorow. A good night to all.
Castles are not a real defense in PF, not when a mid level mage can just ignore the walls, and being assassins with him*.Telaporting in small groups of assassins during a siege is a cool tactic, but it's probably not going to win you the war by itself, and it forces you to put your army's wizard into direct danger as he telaports into the enemy castle. Try that once a day for a few days and you're likely to have a wizard with Dimension Anchor waiting for you when you get there the last time.
I do think the assumption in most D&D-style campaigns is that high-level wizards are very rare. If you have one or two mid-level wizards with an army, they're going to be very useful, but I can't think offhand of any third or fourth level spells that can easily destroy a castle wall.
That's not really the case in certain areas of Golarion, especially in Nex and Geb as well as some parts of Varisia. All three regions have had mythic-level Wizards running around, and the first two are still some of the biggest places for mages of all kinds to gather around in. It's likely that Kyonin has a whole army, if not a few elite squadrons, of Wizards as well as Arcane Archers around. Forgotten Realms was a whole different story, since it had far too many high level wizards running around.
I know it's way late in the discussion, but to the OP's question; I guess it depends upon what you mean by 'flavor' as the reason for banning.
I will be doing that some for a future campaign I am working on.
In the new campaing I will be working on there are some diffences with the way magic works. Some examples:
Summoning creatures from a 'elsewhere' is much more difficult. So I would have to completely rewrite the summoner class and all its archtypes. I do not want the hassle, so it is gone.
The gods do not like/approve of arcane spell casters (all power should be under their control). So anyone that has any arcane spell casting capability will not get any divine abilities. So that eliminates the mystic theurge.
In this world creating undead is evil. Period. It just is. So no neutral julu zombie oracles or whatever they are.
I just can not suspend my disbelief enough to buy into the drunken monk. Sloshed does not instantly make you more skilled. Sorry, but I just can't go there. It would be different if someone wants to rewrite it with an expensive hard to get battle drug, that amps up physical abilities, and has negative side effects.
Guns and black powder have not been invented. (Actually I'm thinking there might be a secret group that hunts down and kills anyone that seems to be getting getting close, like in Gor.) So none of the gun using classes are allowed. Similar for the alchemist.
Players can't be elves since they have been hunted to almost extinction and have specific role in the campaign.
Are these what you would call 'flavor' reasons? Maybe.
People like guns, so paizo put in the gunslinger. It might not work with most of the setting thematically or technologically, the gun tech of the gunslinger may be all over the place and confusing, but paizo aims to please. Thus we arrive at a predicament.
I laughed at the gunslinger though. Not in my games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's way late in the discussion, but to the OP's question; I guess it depends upon what you mean by 'flavor' as the reason for banning.
Banning because of flavor means that you are banning a class and its entire mechanics because you do not like how piazo wrote the fluff. For example, some people don't like the ninja because they don't want oriental stuff in their campaign. That's all fine and dandy, but the problem occurs when they also refuse to allow a refluff of the mechanics (such as a "gypsy" using the ninja mechanics), simply because they cannot let go of the idea that ninjas are from japan.
In the new campaing I will be working on there are some diffences with the way magic works. Some examples:
Summoning creatures from a 'elsewhere' is much more difficult. So I would have to completely rewrite the summoner class and all its archtypes. I do not want the hassle, so it is gone.
You're changing the rules/mechanics of the game here, not the flavor of a class, so this doesn't count as banning because of class flavor.
The gods do not like/approve of arcane spell casters (all power should be under their control). So anyone that has any arcane spell casting capability will not get any divine abilities. So that eliminates the mystic theurge.
Again, rules/mechanics are being changed.
In this world creating undead is evil. Period. It just is. So no neutral julu zombie oracles or whatever they are.
Again, rules/mechanics change. Will you be allowing evil juju zombie oracles? Probably not as a player, but would they still be in your world?
I just can not suspend my disbelief enough to buy into the drunken monk. Sloshed does not instantly make you more skilled. Sorry, but I just can't go there. It would be different if someone wants to rewrite it with an expensive hard to get battle drug, that amps up physical abilities, and has negative side effects.
This is similar to banning because of fluff. You just don't like the idea of alcohol making one stronger. But you're not banning it completely, because you'd let the player use the same mechanics if they came up with a different fluff idea, such as a drug instead of alcohol. This is good.
With that, here's my counter argument: Drunken boxing is a real martial arts style (I've even played around with it during my studies when I was younger and fitter). And with all the drunk people I've seen during my college days, alcohol definitely makes one more courageous and resistant to pain. People believe it also makes them stronger (not sure about the truth of it, but they certainly believe they are). Alcohol can be used to create fire breath (I've seen it done, especially at ren faires). The only true suspension of reality with the Drunken Master archetype is gaining ki, and well, if you can suspend reality enough to have ki in your magical fantasy game, why do you have problems with the rest?
Guns and black powder have not been invented. (Actually I'm thinking there might be a secret group that hunts down and kills anyone that seems to be getting getting close, like in Gor.) So none of the gun using classes are allowed.
This is banning for fluff, but you're not actually banning the class, you're just having those who partake hunted down in your world. So not a true ban - I bet that if the players really wanted the style of game of constantly being hunted for being gun heretics, you might actually let them play gunslingers. Or conversely, have them be part of the group that hunts the 'slinger down.
Additionally, small metal beads can be accelerated through a small metal tube via means other than explosions of gunpowder. High pressure steam or force spells might also accomplish the same idea. In a world of magic, one does not have to rely on gunpowder to make guns.
If there are no gunslingers because the tech hasn't been invented, then that's all fine and good (in your own world, not true Golarian). But if the tech exists and there are people who actively hunt them down (maybe they fear - rightly or not - the potential devastation that can be cause, or maybe they fear it will bring down the current regime), then the class might be available to a very few special individuals. And PCs are nothing if not special and unique.
Similar for the alchemist.
This is a bit confusing. Why is the alchemist banned, exactly? Is he being hunted or because alchemy hasn't been invented yet (seems odd in a magical world). If it's because he is hunted for making potions, then all potions would have to be banned as well, right (I know you can also use spellcraft to make potions, but would a person hunting an alchemist really make that distinction)? Also, acid flasks, thundersticks, antitoxins, and anything else that can be made with the alchemy skill.
If it's because alchemists are hunted down, then all those items would simply be rare (there would probably be a black market for them). Likewise, players should be able to play one with the realization that they'll be hunted for doing so.
If it's a secret organization that hunts them, what's the public perception of alchemists or potion brewers? If it's only one deity that hunts them, is there another deity that tries to protect them? Is it a country that hunts them (causing political strife when they cross borders to kill other countries' alchemists)? There's lots of roleplay and adventure that can be created from this idea without completely banning the class.
Players can't be elves since they have been hunted to almost extinction and have specific role in the campaign.
There's an old rule in RPGs that I've always tried to go by: "Don't say no; determine difficulty." If you let up to one player play an elf (or two, siblings?), then you have a fantastic way of introducing to the players the plight of the elves, and you give them reasons to try and free the elves from their persecution. Just make sure the players know they'll always be hunted or targeted first by certain people, and in some places they won't be able to enter towns.
There's lots of ideas that can be used without fully banning classes or races.
Btw, sounds like an interesting world you've created.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... You're changing the rules/mechanics of the game here, not the flavor of a class, so this doesn't count as banning because of class flavor ...
I have had several people tell me that since I am the one changing the rules for the world I've set up that I am am banning them for the flavor of my world. {shrug}
... Will you be allowing evil juju zombie oracles? Probably not as a player, but would they still be in your world? ...
Yep.
... here's my counter argument: Drunken boxing is a real martial arts style (I've even played around with it during my studies when I was younger and fitter). And with all the drunk people I've seen during my college days, alcohol definitely makes one more courageous and resistant to pain. People believe it also makes them stronger (not sure about the truth of it, but they certainly believe they are) ...
If they had some of the actual penalties in place, I wouldn't have had as much problem with it. Say it gave you temporary +4 on con, a +4 on saves vs fear or spells with the pain decriptor, a temporary -2 on int and wis, a penalty of 2 on to hit rolls/initiative/reflex, etc... I could go with that. But to only give it the bonuses (including the imaginary ones) without any of the penalties, I just can't get behind that.
... I bet that if the players really wanted the style of game of constantly being hunted for being gun heretics, you might actually let them play gunslingers. ...
In my experience, players will say they want that then complain about being persecuted?!?
... have them be part of the group that hunts the 'slinger down. ...
I actually never thought of that. It could be fun.
... Additionally, small metal beads can be accelerated through a small metal tube via means other than explosions of gunpowder. High pressure steam or force spells might also accomplish the same idea. In a world of magic, one does not have to rely on gunpowder to make guns. ...
I'm not playing steampunk in this world. But yes, they could do it with magic. But then it wouldn't be a class that can instantly and cheaply do it from level 1. If someone wanted to be a caster that started working on magic items that throw metal, I would allow it once he is capable of casting the spells.
... This is a bit confusing. Why is the alchemist banned, exactly? ...
Honestly, I'm not as set on this one. If someone has description that isn't a 1900's Jules Verne mad scientist, I would probably allow it.
... There's an old rule in RPGs that I've always tried to go by: "Don't say no; determine difficulty." ...
Normally I agree.
... If you let up to one player play an elf (or two, siblings?), then you have a fantastic way of introducing to the players the plight of the elves, and you give them reasons to try and free the elves from their persecution. Just make sure the players know they'll always be hunted or targeted first by certain people, and in some places they won't be able to enter towns. ...
In this world, Elves are literally almost gone. Like only dozens left. The only ones left alive are the few that were so superpowerful that no one has succeeded in murdering them yet. And maybe just a small number that those powerful ones are protecting. A point of the campaign will be that there is currently a single youngster that they are all protecting. This won't allow for a couple of 2nd level elves wandering around the countryside in the nation that hunted them down.
... Btw, sounds like an interesting world you've created.
Thx, still a work in progress. That often feels like it will never be actually ready for the light of day.
If you are interested, there is more info here:
GOW
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they had some of the actual penalties in place, I wouldn't have had as much problem with it. Say it gave you temporary +4 on con, a +4 on saves vs fear or spells with the pain decriptor, a temporary -2 on int and wis, a penalty of 2 on to hit rolls/initiative/reflex, etc... I could go with that. But to only give it the bonuses (including the imaginary ones) without any of the penalties, I just can't get behind that.
Well, they are losing other abilities in order to gain these. They lose, as a monk class: Still Mind (a saving throw bonus), Purity of Body (immunity to diseases), diamond body (immunity to poison), diamond soul (spell resistance 10 + monk level), and empty body (ability to turn ethereal).
So if you're going to give them additional penalties for using this archetype, then you have to give them back the other abilities they would normally be losing. Otherwise, you're creating massive penalties for a relatively weak bonus simply because you can't imagine it working the way the fluff is written. However, you get bonus points for allowing the mechanics if the fluff is changed. :)
I'm not playing steampunk in this world. But yes, they could do it with magic. But then it wouldn't be a class that can instantly and cheaply do it from level 1. If someone wanted to be a caster that started working on magic items that throw metal, I would allow it once he is capable of casting the spells.
Eh, I'm not opposed to allowing steam tech just because it's associated with the word steampunk. When my players first designed the steam-based gun, they used magic to supply and heat up the water. For pathfinder, Create Water is a 0 level spell and prestidigitation (a 0 level spell) could be used to heat the water up. There are 0 level spells that do 1d3 damage (which require a ranged touch attack); I don't see why we can't make up a 0 level spell that requires a metal tube (and a metal tube wrapped in wood shaped like a handle makes it easier to hold and aim) and a metal bead (ammo) and can do 1d6 damage. Requires a standard action to reload. The spell cannot be cast without those extra components. Now we have a gunslinger with magic using spells a first level character can cast. Might have to make slight modifications to the class based on this idea, but it's still a gunslinger without gunpowder technology.
In this world, Elves are literally almost gone. Like only dozens left. The only ones left alive are the few that were so superpowerful that no one has succeeded in murdering them yet. And maybe just a small number that those powerful ones are protecting. A point of the campaign will be that there is currently a single youngster that they are all protecting. This won't allow for a couple of 2nd level elves wandering around the countryside in the nation that hunted them down.
Fair enough. Alternatively, the characters could be the children of the super powerful elves, which would explain their low level. And if elves are that rare (and they do live for a long time), perhaps they were hunted down three or four human generations ago, and are nearly forgotten about now (everyone alive has only heard stories about them). Perhaps the people who exterminated all the elves thought they accomplished their goals. Perhaps their parents sent them on missions to gain powerful magical items that would allow them to teleport out of this world and settle elsewhere. Or they have to find ancient elven artifacts (not necessarily magical artifacts, but perhaps cultural art or the crown of the last king) in old elven territories or in dwarven museums or on display at some rich nobleman's home or locked up in a kings treasury so that their parents can rebuild their rich elven heritage and culture. Maybe they're working with political activists who want to save the elves ("Free Tibet"?), and that's why the entire party is not elves. Or maybe the elves are vindictive, and want revenge on the descendants of their previous hunters, and send their kids out to gather information and eventually wage war, recruiting other races to help them fight against their old oppressors.
I'm not trying to modify your game, I'm just trying to give ideas about why a banned class or race might not actually be banned in a storytelling sort of way. There's lots of great opportunities here. You might even use these ideas for your next campaign in the same world. Perhaps the first campaign involved your characters actively hunting the elves for their perceived evil ways, and your next campaign is all elves coming back generations later (with stories of the vicious villains in the elven culture - aka the PCs from the last campaign; and in the human lands those same PCs have stories of them being heroes).
Honestly, I'm not as set on this one. If someone has description that isn't a 1900's Jules Verne mad scientist, I would probably allow it.
Considering alchemy has been around since at least the ancient Greeks, with use in ancient China, Egypt, Persia, and Europe (even described and used in the stories of Chaucer and Shakespeare) finding a non Jules Verne alchemist shouldn't be difficult.
In my experience, players will say they want that then complain about being persecuted?!?
Heh. Not I. And if the players say they feel like they're being persecuted, a simple reminder that they chose the game should quell their concerns. It's like playing a horror game and complaining that it's scary, or playing a magic-heavy fantasy game and complaining that it doesn't match reality.
Regardless of any of it, though, the game is supposed to be fun. As long as all the players (GM included) are having fun, then it doesn't really matter what the rules are or what is banned.
Keep up the good work and happy gaming. :)
|
And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.Sounds to me like the real answer behind this is the fact that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. They want nothing banned and they want the option of just re-skinning their character to go with the class that has the best mechanics.
If you want to play a ninja in my game and I don't allow ninja's then you play a rogue. I don't care if you want the ninja's mechanics, you either abide by my restrictions or you don't play the game.
DM's have just as much right to ban things in their games as a player has of playing a specific class.
Since when does "your" fun take precedence over mine and the rest of the people at the table?
... Eh, I'm not opposed to allowing steam tech just because it's associated with the word steampunk. When my players first designed the steam-based gun, they used magic to supply and heat up the water. For pathfinder, Create Water is a 0 level spell and prestidigitation (a 0 level spell) could be used to heat the water up. There are 0 level spells that do 1d3 damage (which require a ranged touch attack); I don't see why we can't make up a 0 level spell that requires a metal tube (and a metal tube wrapped in wood shaped like a handle makes it easier to hold and aim) and a metal bead (ammo) and can do 1d6 damage. Requires a standard action to reload. The spell cannot be cast without those extra components. Now we have a gunslinger with magic using spells a first level character can cast. Might have to make slight modifications to the class based on this idea, but it's still a gunslinger without gunpowder technology. ...
I'm not opposed to steampunk because of the word, but because it wouldn't work without a lot of magic backing it up. Well beyond a couple of zero level spells.
I can't see a zero level spell heating enough water fast enough to launch metal at deadly speeds. { We did some calculations for a project back in college. You either need a pretty high volume, a lot of time, or a whole lot of heat to really launch something. } I would say that would require at least 2nd if not 3rd level spells.And unless it is very large and cumbersome the standard early tech steel would not be an adequate pressure vessel. It would require magic to reinforce the vessel so it wouldn't burst. Although, I might let someone make it out of adamntine. But again not affordable by 1st level PC's.
So I think it would be beyond 1st level abilities. But it could be a spell casting prestige class that makes/uses this equipment.
... Fair enough. Alternatively, the characters could be the children of the super powerful elves, which would explain their low level. And if elves are that rare (and they do live for a long time), perhaps they were hunted down three or four human generations ago, and are nearly forgotten about now (everyone alive has only heard stories about them). Perhaps the people who exterminated all the elves thought they accomplished their goals... Maybe they're working with political activists who want to save the elves ...
The elves were hunted down longer ago than that, but they are not forgotten. They are still being hunted. They are known as the source for powerful but cursed magic weapons. The elves are definitely vindictive, that's why they are handing out these cursed items.
The PC's are supposed to be trying to find the elves and aquire some of these items for their patrons. One of the ways they might be able to 'prove' themselves is to save an elf. It would kind of kill most of the plot if it's just a trip back home and Uncle Jim these guys saved me from the danger that I got into by leaving home.Also, I should mention that the prohibition is basically at low levels. IF the campaign survives to high level (like 15+), someone's PC dies, and he wants to bring in one of the hunted elves at that point; I would probably allow it.
... Considering alchemy has been around since at least the ancient Greeks, with use in ancient China, Egypt, Persia, and Europe (even described and used in the stories of Chaucer and Shakespeare) finding a non Jules Verne alchemist shouldn't be difficult. ...
I think the key word there is shouldn't. =) Every one that I've seen has been a combination of Dr Jekyl, Captain Nemo, and Dr Moreau. But yeah, if they play it is a witch doctor or greek alchemist, I probably wouldn't have a problem.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.Since when does "your" fun take precedence over mine and the rest of the people at the table?
I don't see what your question has to do with his reply. He has already said he would excuse himself from the game so the DM could have his fun while he found another game that would allow him to have fun. He has made no judgement about anyones fun taking precedence.
I don't see what your question has to do with his reply. He has already said he would excuse himself from the game so the DM could have his fun while he found another game that would allow him to have fun. He has made no judgement about anyones fun taking precedence.And I would be more than happy to leave such a game. I really don't feel like dealing with an antagonistic and uncompromising DM in what is supposed to be a fun game.Since when does "your" fun take precedence over mine and the rest of the people at the table?
Because righteous indignation, dammit!
I can't see a zero level spell heating enough water fast enough to launch metal at deadly speeds. { We did some calculations for a project back in college. You either need a pretty high volume, a lot of time, or a whole lot of heat to really launch something. } I would say that would require at least 2nd if not 3rd level spells. And unless it is very large and cumbersome the standard early tech steel would not be an adequate pressure vessel. It would require magic to reinforce the vessel so it wouldn't burst. Although, I might let someone make it out of adamntine. But again not affordable by 1st level PC's. So I think it would be beyond 1st level abilities. But it could be a spell casting prestige class that makes/uses this equipment.
Well, a zero level spell is the only one that can be cast an infinite number of times, and I was trying to use magic in a way that would make the gunslinger class viable without gunpowder. Notice that I also suggested using some sort of force spell, rather than the water idea. It is magic, after all. :)
Other than that, I really don't see a way to merge physics with magical force.
The prestige class idea isn't a bad idea, either, but you'd have to reconcile it with the fact that you can't cast as many 1+ level spells as you have ammo, as compared to 0 level spells.
On the idea of affordability, no first level character can afford a gun, which is why the gunslinger starts with one for free. Only exception is the fire lance (25 gp, targets AC not Touch AC, requires 2 cartridges and a javelin to fire, and always has the broken condition when determining misfire effects).
Elves
Yeah, I was just throwing out ideas. Take them or leave them as you like. :)
I think the key word there is shouldn't. =) Every one that I've seen has been a combination of Dr Jekyl, Captain Nemo, and Dr Moreau. But yeah, if they play it is a witch doctor or greek alchemist, I probably wouldn't have a problem.
Lol. I see a lot of those as well. People like Verne. I think it also has to do with the idea that Verne alchemists are more famous in popular culture than alchemists from Chaucer or Shakespeare or even Arabian Nights.
here is the hole in your theory. they have rules that say "you know how to make ammo" reguardless about the periodic table, or if its called sulfer or jibblets, your character still has the knowledge of how to make ammo. if the gm goes against the RAW of skills or feats that another issue.
Because a specific substance is known to the gunslinger and his very common in his/her world, that doesn't mean it is as well known and common in the world s/he ended up in. Hell, a particular world might give laws of physic and what we know of the Periodic Table of Elements the finger.
Where in DnD/Pathfinder RAW does it say that: Killing a wolf auto-grant you 50 GP, there is Bat-poo everywhere and that if the player want it, it must absolutely exist?
Assuming that you let 40 1st level Warriors run up to that big expensive artillery thingy unmolested. And that you just didn't hit them with a Fireball, frying them and healing the Golem in the process (given the range of a flask). And assuming no one casts Protection From Energy (Acid) on the Golem. 2nd or 3rd level spell depending on who casts it I believe. 120 points of protection for 100 rounds assuming a 10th level caster iirc. A wand of that could be nice. Pretty much any magical or mundane attack has a theoretical counter. You could go on all day like this. The point wasn't specifically that a standard Golem would be some type of perfect weapon. Just that you could build magical weapons adding to technology (cannon / powder) that would be very destructive.
Anyway, I've finsihed grading 42 AP Government FRQs and I'm off to bed. I'll check back on this tommorow. A good night to all.
Protection from energy requires a spell resistance check. so it does not work on a golem due to it's spell immunity factor. and resist energy autofails for the same reason.
so the acid flasks still take it down. and considering how much the ruler spent on this one powerful siege weapon. he has drastically less soldiers to protect the golem with. meaning that it is suddenly easier to set up a carpet bombing from 40 1st level warriors. and if the range increment of an acid flask is an issue, shoot the flasks from a sling. the sling is free and easily Pentuples your range.
here is the hole in your theory. they have rules that say "you know how to make ammo" reguardless about the periodic table, or if its called sulfer or jibblets, your character still has the knowledge of how to make ammo. if the gm goes against the RAW of skills or feats that another issue.
Because a specific substance is known to the gunslinger and his very common in his/her world, that doesn't mean it is as well known and common in the world s/he ended up in. Hell, a particular world might give laws of physic and what we know of the Periodic Table of Elements the finger.
Where in DnD/Pathfinder RAW does it say that: Killing a wolf auto-grant you 50 GP, there is Bat-poo everywhere and that if the player want it, it must absolutely exist?
does it really matter what creature you got the dung to make your gunpowder from? it can be made by just about anything with a digestive system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So now people are discussing the abundance of guano as an excuse to ban/allow the gunslinger? Really?
Can't they say "I don't like gunslingers" instead of "by my calculations, there in not enough guano in this world to supply ammo for firearms"?
This thread derailled into a very silly joke.
I do think some classes are more difficult to reflavor than others, but for the most part it can be done rather easily. The Gunslinger can be said to be using a bow or repeating crossbow with specialized bolts. The paladin, as stated up thread, is not so easy to reflavor.I'll politely disagree. It's really not that hard once you've gotten the gist of it down.It is somewhat more difficult to reflavor and integrate the Gunslinger class, for example, if firearms do not exist in a given game world or the Paladin class in a world where alignment does not exist and morality has no supernatural significance.Which presumes:
1) That the flavor of specialized crossbows or new types of bows are acceptable alternatives.2) That the DM does NOT mind rationalizing why such things are different from the mechanics for normal bows and arrows.
3) The DM does NOT mind considering what the broader implications for the new type of weapons might be in his or her gameworld (e.g. the "bat guano economy")
Or possibly 4) the DM does not mind considering game balance and/or world implications if certain mechanics are changed. For example - how the former Paladin's abilities mesh if there is no alignment on which Detect Evil or Smite might be based.
I agree.
I typically restrict class base on campaign flavor. This is not to say one of my players cannot play a "restricted" class, but that the player has to put in a little more effort. I expect a general idea of personality and a little background information for each character in a campaign. If a player choose to go with an option that does not thematically fit with the flavor, said player has to provide a more detailed background overview. If they put even a little bit of thought and creativity into it (which my players do regardless of my expectations), I allow it to be played.
The gunslinger is the only class in the paizo books that I have outright barred. Guns & firearms (and all related mechanics) do not exist in my home campaign setting. This is a mechanic- and flavor-based decision.
So now people are discussing the abundance of guano as an excuse to ban/allow the gunslinger? Really?
Can't they say "I don't like gunslingers" instead of "by my calculations, there in not enough guano in this world to supply ammo for firearms"?
This thread derailled into a very silly joke.
with Gauno, you can make gunpowder. gunpowder doesn't need to be used for firearms. it could be used for cannons, which existed long before firearms, it could be used as a standalone explosive.
I know it's way late in the discussion, but to the OP's question; I guess it depends upon what you mean by 'flavor' as the reason for banning.
I will be doing that some for a future campaign I am working on.
In the new campaing I will be working on there are some diffences with the way magic works. Some examples:
Summoning creatures from a 'elsewhere' is much more difficult. So I would have to completely rewrite the summoner class and all its archtypes. I do not want the hassle, so it is gone.
The gods do not like/approve of arcane spell casters (all power should be under their control). So anyone that has any arcane spell casting capability will not get any divine abilities. So that eliminates the mystic theurge.
In this world creating undead is evil. Period. It just is. So no neutral julu zombie oracles or whatever they are.
I just can not suspend my disbelief enough to buy into the drunken monk. Sloshed does not instantly make you more skilled. Sorry, but I just can't go there. It would be different if someone wants to rewrite it with an expensive hard to get battle drug, that amps up physical abilities, and has negative side effects.
Guns and black powder have not been invented. (Actually I'm thinking there might be a secret group that hunts down and kills anyone that seems to be getting getting close, like in Gor.) So none of the gun using classes are allowed. Similar for the alchemist.
Players can't be elves since they have been hunted to almost extinction and have specific role in the campaign.
Are these what you would call 'flavor' reasons? Maybe.
What it boiled down to as pointed out by another poster is banning a class based on a name in some cases. In other cases such as the paladin it is difficult to seperate flavor from mechanics. The gunslinger might also be an issue for some. Your examples I can understand for many of them. I don't know how a summoner would have a more difficult time summoning, but I don't have the details on your world, but I can see how that might be an issue.
What I was more referring to was issues where the class name more than anything else was the reason for the ban, when the class name should not even matter. If a GM feels like sneak attack is broken I get that, even if I don't agree. If you ban a class just because you don't like the name "sneak attack" then I am lost.
So now people are discussing the abundance of guano as an excuse to ban/allow the gunslinger? Really?
Can't they say "I don't like gunslingers" instead of "by my calculations, there in not enough guano in this world to supply ammo for firearms"?
This thread derailled into a very silly joke.
It started as "I don't like it", it was the "I want to play it" group that (mainly) derailed it into that.
does it really matter what creature you got the dung to make your gunpowder from? it can be made by just about anything with a digestive system.
If wasn't in our world, probably one of those "exact science/quantity" thing.
It started as "I don't like it", it was the "I want to play it" group that (mainly) derailed it into that.So now people are discussing the abundance of guano as an excuse to ban/allow the gunslinger? Really?
Can't they say "I don't like gunslingers" instead of "by my calculations, there in not enough guano in this world to supply ammo for firearms"?
This thread derailled into a very silly joke.
Technically, THIS thread started as "you don't like it: why? Just the name? The mechanics? The fluff/flavor? explain plz", and then has gone three or four different ways.
So now people are discussing the abundance of guano as an excuse to ban/allow the gunslinger? Really?
Can't they say "I don't like gunslingers" instead of "by my calculations, there in not enough guano in this world to supply ammo for firearms"?
This thread derailled into a very silly joke.
The important thing is he already decided on the amount of Guano when the gunslinger just so happened to come along. So theres no way to fit it in in any way with out drastically altering everything!
Its not that he dislikes gunslingers! Thats not it at all!
Slow fall - controlled fall. Your brawler has learned how to master his physique to slow his descent given something to brace against. (If I'm remembering slow fall correctly it requires a wall or something similar be within arm's reach to use.)
Ki power - focus. Instead of channeling mystic energy, he's extensively trained and has mastered physical excellence. He's just so awesome that he can pull off seemingly-supernatural feats through sheer skill.
Change all the Ki stuff to (Ex) if you feel it necessary to better fit Focus.
Slow fall - controlled fall. Your brawler has learned how to master his physique to slow his descent given something to brace against. (If I'm remembering slow fall correctly it requires a wall or something similar be within arm's reach to use.)
Ki power - focus. Instead of channeling mystic energy, he's extensively trained and has mastered physical excellence. He's just so awesome that he can pull off seemingly-supernatural feats through sheer skill.
Change all the Ki stuff to (Ex) if you feel it necessary to better fit Focus.
Martial Artist archetype is less of an headache?
Well, the basic answer is that a well designed class isn't just a name and a collection of random abilites; all the abilites of the class should support the class flavor. When you're a monk, the abilies you get should make you feel like a monk. If I say "there aren't any monks in this world", and then you say "ok, I'll just be a professional boxer who uses the monk class and gets the monk abilities but I won't call myself a monk", then you lose that. Why does your boxer have slow fall? Why do you channel ki power?
I just don't think you can differentiate so easily between the "flavor" of a class and the "mechanics" of a class, and change one without thinking how it affects the other; ideally they should flow seamlessly into each other.
there is an archetype to fix that. it's called the martial artist. now you have your professional boxer without all those pesky Chi powers that you claim go against your flavor. i probably can't find a way to connect them, but i'm sure someone can.
Chi is life energy, every animate creature possesses it, few learn to harness it. maybe instead of being taught to use it at a monastery, you were taught to time your movements to give a little more oomph the moment you needed to (spending the point to make the extra attack.) you move quicker do to all that reflex training, which combined with your senses allows you to dodge before one normally would (speed bonus and AC bonus), and slow fall, well, you are trained in techniques meant to soften the impact of a fall. these techniques aren't as exclusive as you make them out to be and would likely be taught to professional boxers of sufficient experience as a means to minimize injury.