| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is turning into DnD vs Pathfinder.
What if the GM's bans every class(bag of mechanics) you want to use simply because he does not like Paizo's fluff, which is basically what this thread is about.
If so, and I imagine you would know, then it has wondered far afield. So you are complaining about overly restrictive DMs. I can understand that. Other people aren't.
And part of my question still stands. If someone wants to use the Ninja and the DM says "no", why not a Rogue? It's already been pointed out that even the Rogue can have supernatural talents. Why not use the Rogue mechanics for your Shinobi concept? Unless your concept is pinned on a very specific ability of the Ninja it should be easy.
*sigh* In the end I suspect this is about overly restrictive controlling GMs and players. I should just have told myself that. It's generally not one or the other in these cases, but both. Extremes which I'm glad to say I am not putting up with at the mooment :)
Thanks for the reply Wraithstike.
This thread is turning into DnD vs Pathfinder.
You would really have to be splitting hairs in that case...
Pathfinder wouldn't exist without D&D, just like Christians wouldn't really exist without the Jewish. Funny, that logic.
And part of my question still stands. If someone wants to use the Ninja and the DM says "no", why not a Rogue? It's already been pointed out that even the Rogue can have supernatural talents. Why not use the Rogue mechanics for your Shinobi concept? Unless your concept is pinned on a very specific ability of the Ninja it should be easy.
Maybe because I like the Ninja mechanics better? Because I find rogues underwhelming. Maybe because I don't care about trapfinding, but I like to use poison. Maybe I want my character to be effective and don't think rogues fit the bil.
And before calling me a power gamer because I want to use a more powerful class, remember I could be playing a Druid, Wizard, Cleric, Summoner, etc. Ninjas are hardly game breaking, they're merely better than rogues (which is not saying much, actually).
The points is that GMs are not even banning classes, they're banning names. What is the point? Refluff, call it something else.
I'm repeating myself here, but I feel it's a valid question.
If Clerics were named "Shinto Priests" instead, would they be any different? Would you ban the class? What if Druids were "Hippies" or "Tree-huggers"? Does that mean they are a whole different class? Can I call an Wizard a Mahou? or does it mean it's suddenly incompatible with your world, therefore, no more wizards?
If so, and I imagine you would know, then it has wondered far afield. So you are complaining about overly restrictive DMs. I can understand that. Other people aren't.
And part of my question still stands. If someone wants to use the Ninja and the DM says "no", why not a Rogue? It's already been pointed out that even the Rogue can have supernatural talents. Why not use the Rogue mechanics for your Shinobi concept? Unless your concept is pinned on a very specific ability of the Ninja it should be easy.
*sigh* In the end I suspect this is about overly restrictive controlling GMs and players. I should just have told myself that. It's generally not one or the other in these cases, but both. Extremes which I'm glad to say I am not putting up with at the mooment :)
Thanks for the reply Wraithstike.
As a DM/GM you have the power to veto Rogue talents, Ninja Tricks, Spells, etc...
Recreating Anime/Manga/Video Games/etc characters isn't that easy anyway, especially to newbies with lack of reading comprehension.
And part of my question still stands. If someone wants to use the Ninja and the DM says "no", why not a Rogue? It's already been pointed out that even the Rogue can have supernatural talents. Why not use the Rogue mechanics for your Shinobi concept? Unless your concept is pinned on a very specific ability of the Ninja it should be easy.
Because to a lot of people, the rogue class kinda sucks. I'm not saying it does or does not personally, but a lot of people genuinely prefer the mechanics of the ninja over the mechanics of the base rogue or any of it's archetypes. Now if someone wanted to play one in my world, I would have no problem allowing the mechanics, but ingame, the word ninja would never be used because none of the NPCs would have the slightest idea of what the heck you were talking about; the character would be a rogue variant, and treated as such.
Honestly, I think the biggest problem is that a lot of people think that the class name and official descriptions/names of mechanics always has to match up with their ingame description and title. Others prefer to tailor the descriptions a bit more personally. Personally, if a player wants to reskin a class to make it fit in my world, I have no problem with it. It's not that much extra work for me, since I would have had to look the character over anyway, and I like players that are willing to not just be part of the encounters, but part of the world as a whole.
In my experience it is because the concept itself is banned and not a specific class. The DM simply doesn't want Asian themes, or Clint Eastwood types in his game. Whether they go by Ninja, or a Rogue named Ninja, or a Gunslinger, even one who uses a cross-bow instead of guns, is irrelevant to the discussion. The answer is still no.
I hope not. It's not hard to play a Ninja type character (or Assassin if you prefer) with the Rogue or a "Samurai" with the Cavalier. The Gunslinger is more of a stretch. It's difficult to employ the cost balancing factors of a Gunslinger to crossbows without restricting other classes from using crossbows (due to cost, rarity etc.). I think I could manage Eastwood attitude with a sword and Quickdraw :)
What if the GM's bans every class(bag of mechanics) you want to use simply because he does not like Paizo's fluff, which is basically what this thread is about.
If so, and I imagine you would know, then it has wondered far afield. So you are complaining about overly restrictive DMs. I can understand that. Other people aren't.
And part of my question still stands. If someone wants to use the Ninja and the DM says "no", why not a Rogue? It's already been pointed out that even the Rogue can have supernatural talents. Why not use the Rogue mechanics for your Shinobi concept? Unless your concept is pinned on a very specific ability of the Ninja it should be easy.
*sigh* In the end I suspect this is about overly restrictive controlling GMs and players. I should just have told myself that. It's generally not one or the other in these cases, but both. Extremes which I'm glad to say I am not putting up with at the mooment :)
Thanks for the reply Wraithstike.
Others have gone on to related subjects which is why I bring up what I bolded in my last post. If the GM says no ninjas, as in the ninja concept, I understand that the player should not play a ninja in any form. If the GM says he does not allow the ninja class because he does not like the ninja concept that is something I don't understand.
edit:Just explaining. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder wouldn't exist without D&D, just like Christians wouldn't really exist without the Jewish. Funny, that logic.
We all know that, but some reasoning come close to "I don't allow it because it wasn't in DnD" and things like that.
Actually, from some of the things I read in different threads, I wonder why some play Pathfinder in the first place (or claim they do anyway).
I actually have never banned a class based on flavor, and in fact do all I can to try and expand player options as far as I can so as to cover as many concepts as I can.
In my opinion, if a player likes anime/manga/video games, and wants to try and recreate a character concept seen in such materials, through the rules for Gunslingers or Ninja's, then who am I as a DM to declare they are having wrongbadfun? More importantly how does me allowing such an idea somehow make me less of a DM as a result?
Personally, I always was taught by my DMs that the DM's job was to facilitate the fun of the players, and if the players are having fun and enjoying the game, then I as the the DM should be happy as a result.
Why is that mindset such a scandal?
Edit for wording
This is my favorite post so far.
|
in the end a ninja can be re falvored to be a rogue that uses ki to do wierd things, a smaurai can be a fighter with a 18-20 bastard sword, a gunslinger can be a x-bow wielding mad man, ect.. if you want to play a ninja because "i want to be able to turn invisible as a swift action" and the gm says no because he doesnt like ninja star throwing anime characters, then all you need do is compromise.
dm: i dont like ninjas
player: why not
dm: because pirates are better
player: if i played him as a normal theif, or gutter snipe, type character, would you allow me to use the mechainics of the ninja?
dm: sure, i have no issues with the ninja class. i just dont want ramin in my blood pudding. i dont want eastern themes in my game.
player: deal!
this seems like a mature compromise for both player and gm. now if the gm didnt like the mechanics of the ninja saying "ninjas are to broken" then the player should be able to play a ninja by renaming the rogue to a ninja.
now a gm that wont allow either, well his game shouldnt last to long. because if hes not willing to compromise and budge to let a player be happy, then hes most likely the same in other aspects of his gming... and most, if not all players ive met hate that quality in a gm.
This is my favorite post so far.I actually have never banned a class based on flavor, and in fact do all I can to try and expand player options as far as I can so as to cover as many concepts as I can.
In my opinion, if a player likes anime/manga/video games, and wants to try and recreate a character concept seen in such materials, through the rules for Gunslingers or Ninja's, then who am I as a DM to declare they are having wrongbadfun? More importantly how does me allowing such an idea somehow make me less of a DM as a result?
Personally, I always was taught by my DMs that the DM's job was to facilitate the fun of the players, and if the players are having fun and enjoying the game, then I as the the DM should be happy as a result.
Why is that mindset such a scandal?
Edit for wording
Gotta agree with that.
Gotta agree with that.This is my favorite post so far.I actually have never banned a class based on flavor, and in fact do all I can to try and expand player options as far as I can so as to cover as many concepts as I can.
In my opinion, if a player likes anime/manga/video games, and wants to try and recreate a character concept seen in such materials, through the rules for Gunslingers or Ninja's, then who am I as a DM to declare they are having wrongbadfun? More importantly how does me allowing such an idea somehow make me less of a DM as a result?
Personally, I always was taught by my DMs that the DM's job was to facilitate the fun of the players, and if the players are having fun and enjoying the game, then I as the the DM should be happy as a result.
Why is that mindset such a scandal?
Edit for wording
Technically, both side must have fun; if the DM/GM having fun stop the players from having fun, the players having fun stop the DM/GM (and other players?) from having fun, or both, maybe you need to switch to a different game, system, hobby, group, etc...
I hope not. It's not hard to play a Ninja type character (or Assassin if you prefer) with the Rogue or a "Samurai" with the Cavalier. The Gunslinger is more of a stretch. It's difficult to employ the cost balancing factors of a Gunslinger to crossbows without restricting other classes from using crossbows (due to cost, rarity etc.). I think I could manage Eastwood attitude with a sword and Quickdraw :)
In my experience it is because the concept itself is banned and not a specific class. The DM simply doesn't want Asian themes, or Clint Eastwood types in his game. Whether they go by Ninja, or a Rogue named Ninja, or a Gunslinger, even one who uses a cross-bow instead of guns, is irrelevant to the discussion. The answer is still no.
I think that my next character is going to be Clint Eastwood as an Aldorie Swordlord. :)
p.s.-I agree that re-skinning such things is more than simple enough, but it does become difficult when the DM wants to stick to a Medieval European themes.
in the end a ninja can be re falvored to be a rogue that uses ki to do wierd things, a smaurai can be a fighter with a 18-20 bastard sword, a gunslinger can be a x-bow wielding mad man, ect.. if you want to play a ninja because "i want to be able to turn invisible as a swift action" and the gm says no because he doesnt like ninja star throwing anime characters, then all you need do is compromise.
dm: i dont like ninjas
player: why not
dm: because pirates are better
player: if i played him as a normal theif, or gutter snipe, type character, would you allow me to use the mechainics of the ninja?
dm: sure, i have no issues with the ninja class. i just dont want ramin in my blood pudding. i dont want eastern themes in my game.
player: deal!this seems like a mature compromise for both player and gm. now if the gm didnt like the mechanics of the ninja saying "ninjas are to broken" then the player should be able to play a ninja by renaming the rogue to a ninja.
now a gm that wont allow either, well his game shouldnt last to long. because if hes not willing to compromise and budge to let a player be happy, then hes most likely the same in other aspects of his gming... and most, if not all players ive met hate that quality in a gm.
Technically, it would be a fighter with an 18-20 longsword.
</sticklerfordetail>
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, both side must have fun; if the DM/GM having fun stop the players from having fun, the players having fun stop the DM/GM (and other players?) from having fun, or both, maybe you need to switch to a different game, system, hobby, group, etc...
This is why I don't separate the DM from the players. The DM is just the first player.
So when I say 'the DM must make sure the players have fun' I am NOT excluding the DM from that statement.
Even in custom worlds. If your campaign setting can't find room for 4 firearms or what have you then its probably just more you don't like them.Eh. Most classes, you can kind of work them into a campaign even if they don't really fit ("Ok, you're a samurai who got transported here from another universe, fine. I would recommend you not take any feats specializing in Eastern weapons because you're not going to find them unless you're planning on making them yourself.") With guns, though, that doesn't really work, because ammo becomes a huge problem. If there are no guns in your world, how can you justify the gunslinger being able to buy bullets in every town? And "making your own bullets" doesn't really work, either. Even if you have the gunsmithing feat and a gunsmithing kit, you still can't make bullets without "access to the raw materials", and I don't know how you're going to get that. And heaven help you if your character loses your gunsmithing kit. For that matter, what happens if someone sunders your gun and there just aren't any other in the world?
What is it you imagine the raw materials for bullets to be?
And for black powder? If a wizard can find his spell components, and or if there is any kind of alchemy in this world a gunslinger should be able to purchase the ingredients he needs for gunpowder. Afterall the ingredients were never much of an issue in real life, the trick was in the precise mixture of them.
i was going to put long sword, but back in 3.5 they were alternate skins of bastard swords.Technically, it would be a fighter with an 18-20 longsword.
</sticklerfordetail>
Technically, Katana were reskin of Bastard Sword in Pathfinder too, then Ultimate Combat came along.
|
|
Eh. In a society without guns or gunpowder, is there really going to be large quantities of bat guano for sale in the local stores? I guess you could go get it yourself.Ok, you can be a gunslinger. Once a month or so, your character has to miss an adventure the rest of the party is going on so you can hike 100 miles to the nearest cave system in order to collect bags full of bat guano so you can then head home and make your own bullets. And of course now you're walking alone into large, deep cave systems in a fantasy world, places that are likely to have tons of monsters, and you're out of bullets when you do it. Good luck with that.
Basically, if you could make it work at all, it would be a huge pain and a huge distraction for the rest of the party. If a wizard can't find a certain rare spell component, he can make do with the rest of his spells; but if you can't get large quantities of potassium nitrate and sulfur every single time you stop in the town, and then spend the next few weeks making bullets for yourself, you are going to be completely helpless.
salt peter, carbon, sodium, all things you can get from your local alchemy shop. unless alchemical items also dont exsist, then the issue of spell casters not exsisting as a result of that decision.
Eh. In a society without guns or gunpowder, is there really going to be large quantities of bat guano for sale in the local stores? I guess you could go get it yourself.Ok, you can be a gunslinger. Once a month or so, your character has to miss an adventure the rest of the party is going on so you can hike 100 miles to the nearest cave system in order to collect bags full of bat guano so you can then head home and make your own bullets. And of course now you're walking alone into large, deep cave systems in a fantasy world, places that are likely to have tons of monsters, and you're out of bullets when you do it. Good luck with that.
Basically, if you could make it work at all, it would be a huge pain and a huge distraction for the rest of the party. If a wizard can't find a certain rare spell component, he can make do with the rest of his spells; but if you can't get large quantities of potassium nitrate and sulfur every single time you stop in the town, and then spend the next few weeks making bullets for yourself, you are going to be completely helpless.
salt peter, carbon, sodium, all things you can get from your local alchemy shop. unless alchemical items also dont exsist, then the issue of spell casters not exsisting as a result of that decision.
asuming those are known/needed.
If the GM says no ninjas, as in the ninja concept, I understand that the player should not play a ninja in any form. If the GM says he does not allow the ninja class because he does not like the ninja concept that is something I don't understand.It is just a literal reading of the word. Some people see the word ninja it's a ninja, nothing else. Some of us don't agree with that but it's their game. The flavor wording is great to spark imaginattion, but it can also create false limitations in our minds.
In short they don't get the concept of reskinning. I guess I can understand that, even if I think the mindset is very limiting.
|
|
asuming those are known/needed.
to assume that of someone who has a feat and or skill ranks , implying a working knowledge of ammunition, is silly, and should be automatically assumed that they know those 3 materials would be needed.
anyway im digressing, i dont allow my world to have firearms. if i want to play with firarms then i would choose a system without swords and shields. on a side note i ouwn and use my firearm very often, i appreciate guns and how they contributed to humanities evolution, that doesnt mean i want to see then in my fantasy game.
this is the one case of something being banned from my games. two reasons, first i hate the mechanics of firearms in PF, and second i hate guns in my fantasy world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotta agree with that.This is my favorite post so far.I actually have never banned a class based on flavor, and in fact do all I can to try and expand player options as far as I can so as to cover as many concepts as I can.
In my opinion, if a player likes anime/manga/video games, and wants to try and recreate a character concept seen in such materials, through the rules for Gunslingers or Ninja's, then who am I as a DM to declare they are having wrongbadfun? More importantly how does me allowing such an idea somehow make me less of a DM as a result?
Personally, I always was taught by my DMs that the DM's job was to facilitate the fun of the players, and if the players are having fun and enjoying the game, then I as the the DM should be happy as a result.
Why is that mindset such a scandal?
Edit for wording
Technically, both side must have fun; if the DM/GM having fun stop the players from having fun, the players having fun stop the DM/GM (and other players?) from having fun, or both, maybe you need to switch to a different game, system, hobby, group, etc...
Then the question becomes how do both groups define fun?
If the DM's goal is to see the players accomplish goals they set for themselves while on their way to creating their own myths and legends within a fictional universe, then I would say that DM is going to be well on his/her way to having loads of fun with Pathfinder, or any rpg for that matter.
If the DM seeks to set the narrative themselves, and create an atmosphere of where it is the DMs world that the players just get to run around in, then the DM is probably not going to be having much fun as the players seek to get outside such a set narrative in order to set their own stories in motion.
On the other hand, players need to be willing and able to take ownership of such a story and create something worthy of myth and legend, and, more importantly, communicate such plans and desires to the DM so that the DM knows what direction the game should trend towards.
On the other hand, the players shouldn't create plans that amount to pissing on the world around them, and generally be a prick toward the DM's NPCs simply because they can.
Generally, if everyone is respectful, the players are willing to take some initiative, and the DM is willing to facilitate creative thinking, then everyone should be set for a joyous time. Of course, your mileage may very...
What is it you imagine the raw materials for bullets to be?And for black powder? If a wizard can find his spell components, and or if there is any kind of alchemy in this world a gunslinger should be able to purchase the ingredients he needs for gunpowder. Afterall the ingredients were never much of an issue in real life, the trick was in the precise mixture of them.
Eh. In a society without guns or gunpowder, is there really going to be large quantities of bat guano for sale in the local stores? I guess you could go get it yourself.
Does this world also not have the fireball spell? Does it also not have an alchemist class?
If you just don't want guns in your campaign just say it and don't have them. Don't go nitpicking for some superficial technical reason. Unless you plan to carry that for all your classes.
My original point stands, so long as you are wiling to let your player play what he wants you can in most cases, find a way to slip in some firearms.
TThen the question becomes how do both groups define fun?If the DM's goal is to see the players accomplish goals they set for themselves while on their way to creating their own myths and legends within a fictional universe, then I would say that DM is going to be well on his/her way to having loads of fun with Pathfinder, or any rpg for that matter.
If the DM seeks to set the narrative themselves, and create an atmosphere of where it is the DMs world that the players just get to run around in, then the DM is probably not going to be having much fun as the players seek to get outside such a set narrative in order to set their own stories in motion.
On the other hand, players need to be willing and able to take ownership of such a story and create something worthy of myth and legend, and, more importantly, communicate such plans and desires to the DM so that the DM knows what direction the game should trend towards.
On the other hand, the players shouldn't create plans that amount to pissing on the world around them, and generally be a prick toward the DM's NPCs simply because they can.
Generally, if everyone is respectful, the players are willing to take some initiative, and the DM is willing to facilitate creative thinking, then everyone should be set for a joyous time. Of course, your mileage may very...
words of wisdom....
I get the feeling the next response I am going to get is something like, "But in my world theres no metal! How do they get bullets?"
...and generally be a prick toward the DM's NPCs simply because they can.Oh, the fun to be had when they piss off the wrong NPC...
Yet more reasons for players to be respectful.
p.s.-As a player, I have made this mistake. My Duskblade still hasn't recovered from what happened in that jail cell after the cops nearly beat him half to death for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer...
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yet more reasons for players to be respectful.
Or for their characters at least!
Our group just screwed ourselves over pretty big. We aborted a mission for a particularly powerful information broker and cost the NPC time and money. So obviously the NPCs next action was to recoup some of that loss by selling our location and party composition to the rivals we've gained the attention of.
Ah, consequences...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yet more reasons for players to be respectful.
p.s.-As a player, I have made this mistake. My Duskblade still hasn't recovered from what happened in that jail cell after the cops nearly beat him half to death for resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer...
i had to start tossing high level npc's in my game to scare my players into not killing every npc they came into contact with.
dm: what you didnt know is that this guy is a retired adventurer known for the slaying of the black dragon of mount joojoobee.
players: haha we're going to kick this guys ass... wait what?
Or for their characters at least!
Our group just screwed ourselves over pretty big. We aborted a mission for a particularly powerful information broker and cost the NPC time and money. So obviously the NPCs next action was to recoup some of that loss by selling our location and party composition to the rivals we've gained the attention of.
Ah, consequences...
wow thank you for that plot hook.
|
|
i had to start tossing high level npc's in my game to scare my players into not killing every npc they came into contact with.
Don't. Start having ALL the NPCs turn them away or run away. Have them have to start scrounging for food and gear with Survival checks and the like. Have the lords whose nephews the party has killed start sending mercenaries after them. Levy economic sanctions, revoke guild memberships, do everything that civilized nations do when rogue states start going off the handle.
Maybe they learn, maybe not.
wow thank you for that plot hook.
It's all thanks to mdt for being an excellent GM.
You need to show the players that their characters actions have consequences. Not just the bad ones however. Whatever actions they take should yield consequences. In time, they should thank you for it.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I can promise you that the appeal of my table is not in what I allow and don't allow, it's that I run awesome games.Are you incapable of running awesome games without banning things?
Not sure how you might have reached that conclusion. I don't ban anything in my current campaign. In previous campaigns I have had large ban lists. My players always ask me to bring back my old 3.5 homebrew, which had extensive class/race restrictions. They loved that campaign in part because it was radically different.
"Awesome" is subjective, and you did not reply to my opening post, you gave me a "What the GM says goes" rant. As a GM who I already know that I can just say "shut up and play or leave my table." I want to know why other GM's ban things for flavor. .
"Awesome" is how 6 of 6 players describe that game, so sure, that's subjective. And welcome to the Internet! Sometimes a thread's conversation goes in different directions than the OP intends. But to answer your question directly, sometimes I will ban certain things based on the tone of the campaign. I think, for instance, a bunch of Tian stuff running around in Gothic Ustalav would really break the tone of Carrion Crown. I don't ban any of that stuff, but that's because I don't have to. I make suggestions to my players and they usually listen because they trust that those suggestions will help make the game more fun. If a player comes to me wanting to play a Lastwall paladin in a Skull & Shackles game, I'm going to say that maybe this isn't the best campaign for that. I'm much more likely to veto an ill-fitting concept than an ill-fitting mechanic.
I'm all for re-skinning mechanics to get the baseline of what you want, but there's a limit to what that can do. I'm willing to work with a player to reflavor something to fit the campaign, but not all concepts work with all campaigns. Case in point, I have a strix in my Carrion Crown game. There are no strix in Ustalav, so I told the player that he'd need a pretty interesting and unusual backstory to explain how a member of a species that hates humans managed to be at a human funeral. The player came through with some interesting connections to Lorrimor and so I allowed it.
I can see where a GM might want to ban gunslingers and alchemists. Maybe steampunk just isn't your cup of tea. That's the brilliant thing about this hobby--you make the game your own. It's a shared experience between the GM and the players. Some GMs don't want to run a "kitchen sink" kind of campaign. The players just do not get to make demands of the GM.
As for the crowd that says "it's in a rulebook, so players should have unlimited access to it." Pathfinder has rules for laser rifles. Do you let your players run around with laser rifles? Do you think it would improve your game if you did?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The point is, you can't just add one gunslinger into a campaign world that doesn't have guns without either causing that player huge headaches, or changing the campaign world dramatically. If they can buy guns and ammo and stuff on a regular basis and find magical guns in treasure chests and all that, and that logically means that guns are now suddenly very common in your world. If you don't, then you're giving the player a huge headache in being able to play his character in any kind of practical way.
If you just don't want guns in your campaign just say it and don't have them. Don't go nitpicking for some superficial technical reason. Unless you plan to carry that for all your classes.
Thats an interesting conclusion because my point was the exact opposite. You can add one gunslinger and a few guns with out changing everything drastically. Assuming they make their own ammo and guns. Which as stated they can do easily so long as your world also has things like alchemists and fireball, and metal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the crowd that says "it's in a rulebook, so players should have unlimited access to it." Pathfinder has rules for laser rifles. Do you let your players run around with laser rifles? Do you think it would improve your game if you did?
I have yet to experience a Pathfinder game that was not improved by the inclusion of laser weaponry. So, yes I do allow my players to run around with laser rifles if they want them.
edit: Ninja'd by tri...
asuming those are known/needed.
to assume that of someone who has a feat and or skill ranks , implying a working knowledge of ammunition, is silly, and should be automatically assumed that they know those 3 materials would be needed.
anyway im digressing, i dont allow my world to have firearms. if i want to play with firarms then i would choose a system without swords and shields. on a side note i ouwn and use my firearm very often, i appreciate guns and how they contributed to humanities evolution, that doesnt mean i want to see then in my fantasy game.
this is the one case of something being banned from my games. two reasons, first i hate the mechanics of firearms in PF, and second i hate guns in my fantasy world.
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.
I think it is possible to refluff a class if the mechanics can still be used in the world. If the mechanics do not apply or are hard to work in, that is the real issue.
|
|
Really. Ok, how do they make their own handguns in a world without advanced metal casting and the ability to forge high-quality steel?
By being that damn good of a smith.
Anyway, if you have guns that advanced in your world, then everyone should have excellent cannons, which means castles aren't used anymore, they're obsolete.
You're making a rather large leap there. 'If guns, then cannons.' Then, 'if cannons, then no castles'.
Despite the fact that nothing requires you to have cannons in a world with guns.
And that we still have castles despite flight being a common ability and mid-level spells being the equal and superior of cannon.
Really. Ok, how do they make their own handguns in a world without advanced metal casting and the ability to forge high-quality steel? A crude cannon, maybe, but a handgun? No way.
Sure, if they are using revolvers it won't fit. Primative muzzle loaded pistols though? No problem.
A spell components store that sells "a pinch of bat guano" as a spell component is very unlikely to carry enough for you to make hundreds of bullets out of, unless they basically sell nothing else, which would be a really odd spell component store. There's a huge difference in scale here; you are literally going to need tons of the stuff. Wars were fought over guano supplies in real life.
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is possible to refluff a class if the mechanics can still be used in the world. If the mechanics do not apply or are hard to work in, that is the real issue.Yeah, but, why?
If you want to have a stealthy assassin type in your world available to characters that's not a ninja, then why tie yourself to the ninja mechanics that aren't really appropriate? Why not just re-design it so it makes sense with your concept?
So far the only answer I have heard is "Because that other optoin is not optimal."
hmm Actually now that I think about it, banning gunslingers because you've decided there isn't enough bat guano in the world to support a few dozen guys with guns is like banning Ninja because you decided there aren't enough Gi suppliers in your world.