| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because it's more expensive then burning coal at the moment?No, because there are powerful groups of people invested in preventing it.
Your 18 Int NPC isn't going to get very far before The Establishment comes and 'persuades' him to forget his idea.
People tried that in the real world. There were places that basically refused to use guns because they thought they were a threat to the traditional way of life. The problem is, the tribe, nation, or group that refuses to use new weapon A usually just gets wiped out by the tribe or nation that does, and pretty quickly everyone is using it. Unless your world has a single all-powerful global empire that's banning almost everyone from having guns.
And if that's your world, that's fine. That sounds like a pretty cool setting, in fact. All I'm saying is that you can't just "add a few" modern guns to a world of medieval technology and expect them to make no difference. I'm not opposed to using guns in your world, just if you do, understand what that means.
But fantasy worlds have magic; the real world doesn't. That is the big, key difference. Magic can match or outdo anything guns can do in most instances. Guns made a huge impact in our world because they were so much better than the competition; in a world where they have to work hard just to keep up with an existing force, magic, that has an entire economy, political structure, and social acceptance, built up around it, it's a whole different ballgame, and guns don't have the advantage in it.
All I'm saying is that you can't just "add a few" modern guns to a world of medieval technology and expect them to make no difference. I'm not opposed to using guns in your world, just if you do, understand what that means.Straight up medieval tech, I agree.
Medieval tech with wizards, not so much.
Furthermore I never said "Modern guns"
At no point was I advocating a guy in his backyard whipped up a m1911 in 'your world' (read: his world). But a few tinkerers exploring muzzle loaders? Yeah not that much of an issue unless you want it to be.
Eh. There's a lot of reasons why people with swords are still combat relevant in D&D-type worlds despite wizards and magic, so long as it's not a super-high-fantesy setting. If you add in fancy modern guns, though, I think that changes.All I'm saying is that you can't just "add a few" modern guns to a world of medieval technology and expect them to make no difference. I'm not opposed to using guns in your world, just if you do, understand what that means.Straight up medieval tech, I agree.
Medieval tech with wizards, not so much.
so... besides you who mentioned 'modern guns'? I feel I've missed something.
Eh. There's a lot of reasons why people with swords are still combat relevant in D&D-type worlds despite wizards and magic, so long as it's not a super-high-fantesy setting. If you add in fancy modern guns, though, I think that changes.All I'm saying is that you can't just "add a few" modern guns to a world of medieval technology and expect them to make no difference. I'm not opposed to using guns in your world, just if you do, understand what that means.Straight up medieval tech, I agree.
Medieval tech with wizards, not so much.
I don't see anyone here arguing for fancy, modern guns. Blunderbusses, blackpowder shotguns and rifles, even simple pistols and breachloaded guns, not all that difficult, and not really all that game changing. They are just one more option of many potentially equal options.
Maybe it is more than a name? If you want him to bend for your concepts why not bend a bit for him, especially if he is putting in some serious work. I kinda wanted to play a gunslinger in Carrion Crown. my DM (and most other players) said they did not want guns in fantasy. i made something else and am having a blast, just finished the latest session as a matter of fact.And I would gladly give it too you. Honestly, if he is working that hard on it he should be willing to give more control over to his players and save himself some time. Especially, if I as a player am willing to work with him and still get shut down over a name. If you want to deal with that kind of precedent then go right ahead. I have better things to do.And i would jump to take your place if this guy is busting his hump to make a fleshed out world and good story. Just because you cannot have one thing does not make him antagonistic nor uncompromising, just that this time you don't get your way on one detail.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.
Because he commented that he wouldn't bend. If he said no Ninja's then their where no ninja's. I took that to mean that regardless of what I did a ninja character wouldn't be accepted, I could take a Rogue and just take abilities like Ki pool, Ninja Trick, and Weapon Training (Wakizashi), but I have a feeling that would get a no as well. So, can I do what I want as a Rouge? yes. Would what I was doing still meet with his approval? probably not, as I am effectively just recreating what he banned in the first place with nothing more than a different name. Which is something he stated he was against.
Furthermore, if he is really that swamped with the world building aspects I'll be more than happy to do the work to explain where and how my Ninja got their, but no, none of that. Just no Ninjas period. Again, it is that attitude on a DM's part that I can't deal with, and the blame game of me "having my cake and eating it too" just doesn't sit well with me at all. Personally, it sounds like something I would rather avoid. If you can deal with it then more power to you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I loathe the summoner class. Which is why I don't allow it in my games unless the player agrees to let me keep a very tight leash over how they build their eidolon. I don't have a problem with the player working towards building the likeness of a specific creature. I do have a problem with the character breaking the eidolon building system and making the game less fun for my players and for me.
I think many players forget that the GM is a person in need of fun as well; that's how so many games end, when the GM burns out from not having fun anymore.
Because he commented that he wouldn't bend. If he said no Ninja's then their where no ninja's. I took that to mean that regardless of what I did a ninja...Maybe it is more than a name? If you want him to bend for your concepts why not bend a bit for him, especially if he is putting in some serious work. I kinda wanted to play a gunslinger in Carrion Crown. my DM (and most other players) said they did not want guns in fantasy. i made something else and am having a blast, just finished the latest session as a matter of fact.And I would gladly give it too you. Honestly, if he is working that hard on it he should be willing to give more control over to his players and save himself some time. Especially, if I as a player am willing to work with him and still get shut down over a name. If you want to deal with that kind of precedent then go right ahead. I have better things to do.And i would jump to take your place if this guy is busting his hump to make a fleshed out world and good story. Just because you cannot have one thing does not make him antagonistic nor uncompromising, just that this time you don't get your way on one detail.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.
Thankfully I've never been so dead set on a concept I couldn't just pick a new one and shelve that one. Part of the reason I GM so much is because I have dozens of character concepts at any given point and simply cannot use them all.
See my edit; I was using the word "modern" in a different way then you are.
The problem is that you're trying to apply our definition of "modern" to a completely different world with a significant force that would make guns and cannons seem rather unimpressive, or routine at best. That tends to lead to difficulties.
... if it continues like this, people will want their PCs to have laptops, cellphones, sport cars, etc in their fantasy games, and at a cheap price.
Edit: To be clear, when I say "modern guns", I'm talking about the fancy 19th century-style old-west-ish handguns that the gunslinger class seems built around. If you want to put in a few crude 14th century muskets, then you can still have swords, knights in heavy armor, ect.All I'm saying is that you can't just "add a few" modern guns to a world of medieval technology and expect them to make no difference. I'm not opposed to using guns in your world, just if you do, understand what that means.Straight up medieval tech, I agree.
Medieval tech with wizards, not so much.
Eh, even the iconic gunslinger uses those crude single shot smoothbores. The Gunslinger is build around shooting things with guns. If someone wants to play Clint Eastwood and you don't like that then you have an issue with their character. And that needs to be worked out however you work that out. I suspect It wont involve an inventory of the local alchemist shop's bat Guano and Sulfur though.
And to be clear the part I bolded in your quote is what my original statement you disagreed with was about. I am glad we can agree and find some common ground here.
...Because he commented that he wouldn't bend. If he said no Ninja's then their where no ninja's. I took that to mean that regardless ofMaybe it is more than a name? If you want him to bend for your concepts why not bend a bit for him, especially if he is putting in some serious work. I kinda wanted to play a gunslinger in Carrion Crown. my DM (and most other players) said they did not want guns in fantasy. i made something else and am having a blast, just finished the latest session as a matter of fact.And I would gladly give it too you. Honestly, if he is working that hard on it he should be willing to give more control over to his players and save himself some time. Especially, if I as a player am willing to work with him and still get shut down over a name. If you want to deal with that kind of precedent then go right ahead. I have better things to do.And i would jump to take your place if this guy is busting his hump to make a fleshed out world and good story. Just because you cannot have one thing does not make him antagonistic nor uncompromising, just that this time you don't get your way on one detail.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.
Why is it such a big deal whether I am stuck on a concept or not? I already voluntarily left the game before it ever started because I felt the DM wouldn't work with me to get the concept to fit his game. So, I go find a game that matches what I want and he goes and finds a player that fits what he wants. Why is it such a bad thing when everyone wins?
Why is it such a bad thing when everyone wins?
Because you're not winning on MY terms!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are some things I'm willing to suspend disbelief on, and other things that just bug me and throw me out of the story.
Going back to this, I want to share a favorite post of mine...
you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.
are wild west revolvers really too advanced in a world that already has repeating crossbows? both use magazine fed ammunition. repeating crossbows even carry larger rounds.
the ninja is merely a magical rogue that focuses more on her supernatural powers in exchange for a loss of focus on traps. maybe exact measurement matters to players. the core rogue has an excessive focus on traps, the ninja archetype focuses more on the supernatural and is more identifiable with it's supernatural powers. if you want to call the Chi Pool ' Use of Magic' 'Utilizing Inner Energy' or 'Tapping into the Mystical Charge in the Enviroment'. i don't care. hell you could be all fancy and say you are "Tapping into the Ether Stream" for all i care.
Paladin is easy to Defluff
change 'Detect Evil' to 'Detect Hostile Intent' and change smite evil to 'Smite Enemy' and change the class name to 'Champion' or something like that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going back to this, I want to share a favorite post of mine...
you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.
Not gonna lie, this made me LOL to the point of crying.
Why is it such a big deal whether I am stuck on a concept or not? I already voluntarily left the game before it ever started because I felt the DM wouldn't work with me to get the concept to fit his game. So, I go find a game that matches what I want and he goes and finds a player that fits what he wants. Why is it such a bad thing when everyone wins?
Because it may not be so simple as that. Real life rarely works out to such pleasant ideals. I could go on but I think you understand my meaning.
You may just find that no GM you game with wants asian themes in their games and is unwilling to compromise. You may find that there are no other games around.
If you live in such an ideal than good for you. But don't pretend that's the ideal solution for everyone.
change 'Detect Evil' to 'Detect Hostile Intent' and change smite evil to 'Smite Enemy' and change the class name to 'Champion' or something like that.
[evilgm]MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA[/evilgm]
Hate to mention this TOZ, but cannons and hand cannons (the earliest hand guns) preceeded more complex guns.
Yes. In the real world.
The real world needs only have as much bearing on your fantasy world as you want it to.
The real world is the only example of technological sequence we have. In this case firearms, in both China and the west started with large weapons and worked their way down to smaller. The reasons are practical. It's easier to build a large weapon which is not as hindered by weight / size given inferior materials. You can always come up with an alternate explanation for other development patterns in a fantasy game. Say there hasn't been any large scale warfare since the development of guns / gunpowder. But, if you have had wars, especially sieges, you have more to explain. Assuming that "science", as we know it, has any bearing in your fantasy game. It doesn't in mine btw. No guns either as it so happens :) Getting guns / cannons / gunpowder out of my game is why I developed alternatives to science as explanations for the physical / "natural" world.
Paladin is easy to Defluff
change 'Detect Evil' to 'Detect Hostile Intent' and change smite evil to 'Smite Enemy' and change the class name to 'Champion' or something like that.
So, `Smite Everything`?
There are some things I'm willing to suspend disbelief on, and other things that just bug me and throw me out of the story.Going back to this, I want to share a favorite post of mine...
you have medieval knights wearing rennaiscane era armor, wielding roman era falcatas, worshipping greek gods, traveling with native american shamans wearing the hides of saharan beasts, who transform into prehistoric dinosaurs who are accompanied by modern japanese schoolgirls wielding Tokugawa Era Daisho and Wearing black pajamas, and old men wearing robes and pointed hats who chant mathematical equations to control reality, on a journey to kill brain eating space aliens, giant sentient firebreathing spellcasting reptiles and sentient jello.
That's just beautiful. I love it.
Why is it such a big deal whether I am stuck on a concept or not? I already voluntarily left the game before it ever started because I felt the DM wouldn't work with me to get the concept to fit his game. So, I go find a game that matches what I want and he goes and finds a player that fits what he wants. Why is it such a bad thing when everyone wins?Because it may not be so simple as that. Real life rarely works out to such pleasant ideals. I could go on but I think you understand my meaning.
You may just find that no GM you game with wants asian themes in their games and is unwilling to compromise. You may find that there are no other games around.
If you live in such an ideal than good for you. But don't pretend that's the ideal solution for everyone.
That's why I only applied that statement to me. If I can find such a game then so be it. If I can't then I deal with not having a game. I recognize that such things may not work for everyone, so they may be stuck in a sour position. They can also compromise and work with something else, if they feel the game will be good enough. I apologize if I made it seem I was making a blanket statement about everyone's lives. I was simply stating what I would do facing that situation.
Because it's more expensive then burning coal at the moment?No, because there are powerful groups of people invested in preventing it.
Your 18 Int NPC isn't going to get very far before The Establishment comes and 'persuades' him to forget his idea.
People tried that in the real world. There were places that basically refused to use guns because they thought they were a threat to the traditional way of life. The problem is, the tribe, nation, or group that refuses to use new weapon A usually just gets wiped out by the tribe or nation that does, and pretty quickly everyone is using it. Unless your world has a single all-powerful global empire that's banning almost everyone from having guns.
And if that's your world, that's fine. That sounds like a pretty cool setting, in fact. All I'm saying is that you can't just "add a few" modern guns to a world of medieval technology and expect them to make no difference. I'm not opposed to using guns in your world, just if you do, understand what that means.
Most gameworlds already fail the logic test. Magic users can replace kings quiet easily and/or control them. Castles are not a real defense in PF, not when a mid level mage can just ignore the walls, and being assassins with him*. So adding guns won't change that much, unless it is low fantasy.
*That is not an exhaustive list.
The real world is the only example of technological sequence we have. In this case firearms, in both China and the west started with large weapons and worked their way down to smaller. The reasons are practical. It's easier to build a large weapon which is not as hindered by weight / size given inferior materials. You can always come up with an alternate explanation for other development patterns in a fantasy game. Say there hasn't been any large scale warfare since the development of guns / gunpowder. But, if you have had wars, especially sieges, you have more to explain. Assuming that "science", as we know it, has any bearing in your fantasy game. It doesn't in mine btw. No guns either as it so happens :) Getting guns / cannons / gunpowder out of my game is why I developed alternatives to science as explanations for the physical / "natural" world.
Hate to mention this TOZ, but cannons and hand cannons (the earliest hand guns) preceeded more complex guns.
Yes. In the real world.
The real world needs only have as much bearing on your fantasy world as you want it to.
Magic does wonders for changing perceptions of how important things are. Yes, you would develop prototype cannon first, but with the presence of magic, they would never see the field except for very limited circumstances. Mages are cheaper to hire, move about, and are less traceable. You likely wouldn't see anything outside of prototypes and random experiments until you got down to at least rifle stage, where the competition, bows and crossbows, would have a harder time keeping up with the new tech. Cannons simply couldn't keep up with magic in most instances; why destroy a perfectly good wall, when you can cloudkill everyone inside and claim the wall, and whatever the wall is protecting, for your own use?
All I'm saying is that you can't just "add a few" modern guns to a world of medieval technology and expect them to make no difference. I'm not opposed to using guns in your world, just if you do, understand what that means.Straight up medieval tech, I agree.
Medieval tech with wizards, not so much.
Eh. There's a lot of reasons why people with swords are still combat relevant in D&D-type worlds despite wizards and magic, so long as it's not a super-high-fantesy setting. If you add in fancy modern guns, though, I think that changes.
Edit: To be clear, when I say "modern guns", I'm talking about the fancy 19th century-style old-west-ish handguns that the gunslinger class seems built around. If you want to put in a few crude 14th century muskets, then you can still have swords, knights in heavy armor, ect.
The default setting for guns is not six shooters. That is an advanced firearm by game rules, and Paizo cautions against it. The default gun is more like a muzzle loader where you have to load the powder and the bullet.
Paladin is easy to Defluff
change 'Detect Evil' to 'Detect Hostile Intent' and change smite evil to 'Smite Enemy' and change the class name to 'Champion' or something like that.
So, `Smite Everything`?
Yep, but it would still limited in uses per day as normal.
are wild west revolvers really too advanced in a world that already has repeating crossbows? both use magazine fed ammunition. repeating crossbows even carry larger rounds.
the ninja is merely a magical rogue that focuses more on her supernatural powers in exchange for a loss of focus on traps. maybe exact measurement matters to players. the core rogue has an excessive focus on traps, the ninja archetype focuses more on the supernatural and is more identifiable with it's supernatural powers. if you want to call the Chi Pool ' Use of Magic' 'Utilizing Inner Energy' or 'Tapping into the Mystical Charge in the Enviroment'. i don't care. hell you could be all fancy and say you are "Tapping into the Ether Stream" for all i care.
Paladin is easy to Defluff
change 'Detect Evil' to 'Detect Hostile Intent' and change smite evil to 'Smite Enemy' and change the class name to 'Champion' or something like that.
Being evil and having a hostile intent are not synonamous though. Maybe being able to detect the nature of someone who can easily do bad things is better, but that might be hard to break down into one word that is not "evil".
But fantasy worlds have magic; the real world doesn't. That is the big, key difference. Magic can match or outdo anything guns can do in most instances. Guns made a huge impact in our world because they were so much better than the competition; in a world where they have to work hard just to keep up with an existing force, magic, that has an entire economy, political structure, and social acceptance, built up around it, it's a whole different ballgame, and guns don't have the advantage in it.
I agree about magic making a big difference in a world.
Guns however were not "so much better". As late as the 18th century a serious suggestion was made in England about reviving the longbow for the Royal Army. It had superior range, superior rate of fire, superior accuracy and equal armor piercing power to the smoothbore muskets of that day. It wasn't followed up on for a variety of reasons which had nothing to do with the technical specs of the two weapons. It was about ease of training, lack of needed raw materials (yew), production facilities and the lack of the social class (the yeomanry) which had made the longbow, as a weapon system, practical for military deployment in the Middle Ages. It's the 19th century with rifled weaponry in wide distribution, revolvers, breachloaders etc. that cinched the technological superiority of gunpowder weapons. They had already achieved battlefield supremacy 2 centuries before achieving technological superiority...
Magic does wonders for changing perceptions of how important things are. Yes, you would develop prototype cannon first, but with the presence of magic, they would never see the field except for very limited circumstances. Mages are cheaper to hire, move about, and are less traceable. You likely wouldn't see anything outside of prototypes and random experiments until you got down to at least rifle stage, where the competition, bows and crossbows, would have a harder time keeping up with the new tech. Cannons simply couldn't keep up with magic in most instances; why destroy a perfectly good wall, when you can cloudkill everyone inside and claim the wall, and whatever the wall is protecting, for your own use?
Excellent job thinking the alternative through. But, your assuming magic won't be applied to cannons / cannon ammo. I suspect it would be, which would jack up their effectiveness which... and so on. Imagine a load of Delayed Blast Fireballs used as grapeshot for example :) Cannons as UMD devices... As for magic and walls, if you're not applying magic to your defences when faced with offensive magic you are really dropping the ball. Or the wall :D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What classes could your campaign do without?
The above mentioned thread has GM's saying they do or would ban a class due to the flavor that Paizo gave it. I am not understanding this. A class's mechanics is just a means to an end. Nobody has to be making a character that get rages/gets angry, and hits harder due to his untamed nature. He could make a living by guiding people into dangerous area, and is able to channel some mystic force when it is time to fight. The fatigue could be a result of the force causing him a lot of strain. The ninja concept class does not even need the ninja class. I would use a ranger to do it, for those that say eastern classes don't fit.
In short banning class X does not really stop the concept from being played so why ban the class?
Why do you keep making/heavily contributing to threads with the express purpose of disrespecting other GMs and how they choose to run the game. Not all of the setting material is ultimately necessary for running a campaign, and babysitting a bunch of flower children isn't as fun for many GMs as it is for you.
Pathfinder has extremely high player empowerment, even more so than 3.5. It's perfectly reasonable for the GM to pump the brakes now and again. Especially since some people run their home brew that surprise, "might not have guns in it" or, "woweee there's no allegory for ancient china in this setting".
I think it's really rude of you to keep dumping on other dms non stop on these forums. Just because you think the way you run Pathfinder is the ONLY right way, doesn't mean it is...
So, about that Numerian Space Marine mentioned earlier...
Jump in and tell me what you'd like to see and I may add it in. Tell me what you'd hate to see and I may add that in, too!
Now go and refluff it as a nutter dressed in cardboard boxes with 'gundem' scrawled on them haphazardly (the misspelling is important), who gains technology-like powers because he believes.
Because space marines don't fit in your setting.
Excellent job thinking the alternative through. But, your assuming magic won't be applied to cannons / cannon ammo. I suspect it would be, which would jack up their effectiveness which... and so on. Imagine a load of Delayed Blast Fireballs used as grapeshot for example :) Cannons as UMD devices... As for magic and walls, if you're not applying magic to your defences when faced with offensive magic you are really dropping the ball. Or the wall :D
Magic does wonders for changing perceptions of how important things are. Yes, you would develop prototype cannon first, but with the presence of magic, they would never see the field except for very limited circumstances. Mages are cheaper to hire, move about, and are less traceable. You likely wouldn't see anything outside of prototypes and random experiments until you got down to at least rifle stage, where the competition, bows and crossbows, would have a harder time keeping up with the new tech. Cannons simply couldn't keep up with magic in most instances; why destroy a perfectly good wall, when you can cloudkill everyone inside and claim the wall, and whatever the wall is protecting, for your own use?
You're quite correct, but usually the point of a siege was not to destroy, but to capture, so if you've already settled into a seige, you've already ruled out raw damage as a preferred method. Delayed blast fireball grapeshot might work for anti-infantry, but really for the cost involved of having to make the cannon, the ammo, enchant the ammo, move the cannon and the ammo to the place it's needed, protect the cannon and the ammo throughout the entire process, in most cases, it's so much easier to hire a mage and few fighters as bodyguards if you need anti-infantry support. As for the cloudkill example, yes, if the opponent is smart, he will have magical defenses, in which case, he's probably augmented the walls to where a cannon isn't going to be any better than a fireball, so again no advantage to the cannon.
The problems with the cannon vs magic are many. One, magic can defend against magic, cannons are purely offensive. Two, cost and effectiveness, the cannon simply cannot keep up with even an average fireball spell. And that doesn't even begin to get into the maintenance costs. Three, mobility; a mage can move quickly and under their own power (usually), a cannon requires a significant effort to move and accurately position. It isn't even the fact that the cannon is at a disadvantage as it much as it is magic is just that bloody powerful, giving it an advantage against pretty much anything but more magic.
It isn't until you get down to the musket/rifle stage that the competition balances out, and even that is due more to a lot of single target evocation spells getting weakened with every new iteration than any inherent power of the guns, making the gun's primary competition at that point the bow and crossbow. Basically, you have to eliminate the magic for the guns to be able to get the upper hand, even at this level, magic is still often a healthy competitor that can't be ignored, but at least it doesn't have any more advantages than a musket. It isn't until you get down to pistol that the guns have a clear advantage in being able to deliver a lethal blow in a small, easy to hide package.
I'll start off by saying that I'm not a huge fan of discluding people, classes, etc. However, it is sometimes necessary.
If your campaign is something where a particular type of class just doesn't fit well, that's a reason. For example, if your world doesn't include guns, a gunslinger doesn't work. If no one has communications with the gods anymore in your world, and churches do not exist, an Inquisitor may not be a great fit. If you're campaign is centered around the characters being members of the shadow guild, a Paladin may be a poor fit to allow.
Again, not something I like to do a lot. I usually lean (in my homebrews) towards allowing all classes, but making the advantages/disadvantages somewhat clear so players can make intelligent decisions.
I totally agree that some things can be re-skinned, but some things that get pushed for regardless of how it fits with the campaign or how the GM feels about it are just antagonistic. Let's say I want to be a necromancer amongst my free-the-slaves-kill-unholy-undead paladin friends in a campaign about defeating the evil orcs, dragons, and the lich king and and my DM says no necromancers, should I make a cleric or vivisectionist that is a necromancer? Well that would just be skirting the real issue which is the juicy flavor of death. But what if I really just want to use the mechanics of taking the fallen of my enemies and turning them into tools to use back against the enemy. Even if I reskin it as me raising them and convincing them to join my side, the others players would still see it as me being a necromancer. Then all the questions of if this is still of the necromancy school, if the servants follow as willingly, are they still treated like undead or are they fully alive now? Then the GM has to make sure it's still balanced and reasonable. There are some cases where you just can't keep mechanics with the reskinned flavor.
Instead of putting myself and GM through that work trying to make it fit, only for either or both of us being frustrated when something wonky and unexpected happens, I could of just saved the concept for another game, and played one that fits better with the theme.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you keep making/heavily contributing to threads with the express purpose of disrespecting other GMs and how they choose to run the game. Not all of the setting material is ultimately necessary for running a campaign, and babysitting a bunch of flower children isn't as fun for many GMs as it is for you.
When have I ever disrespected anyone in this manner? Don't confuse disagreeing with disrespect. I would like a quote if you can find one. I am sure it is a misunderstanding if anything.
Pathfinder has extremely high player empowerment, even more so than 3.5. It's perfectly reasonable for the GM to pump the brakes now and again. Especially since some people run their home brew that surprise, "might not have guns in it" or, "woweee there's no allegory for ancient china in this setting".I think it's really rude of you to keep dumping on other dms non stop on these forums. Just because you think the way you run Pathfinder is the ONLY right way, doesn't mean it is...
You also are another person that did not read the opening post. You saw me post, and assumed the worst. I asked a very simple and legit question. It boils down to why should a GM ban a class based on its name.
PS:I don't care for guns either.
I also advocate that everyone should runs games in a way that allows for them to have run, so to say I insist there is only one way to play the game is incorrect. Some my post have given advice to people on how to do X, even if X does not work in my games. You should ask me questions, and not make baseless accusations.
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?
If the ninja mechanics are not appropriate, then that falls under "if the mechanics do not apply or are hard to work in, that is the real issue."
Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel like we're both saying the same thing, except you're arguing with me.
(Also, I'm sure you just meant it as an example, but there are also several ways to build a stealthy assassin in Pathfinder without using the ninja anyway.)
| 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?
If the ninja mechanics are not appropriate, then that falls under "if the mechanics do not apply or are hard to work in, that is the real issue."
Maybe I'm missing something, but I feel like we're both saying the same thing, except you're arguing with me.
(Also, I'm sure you just meant it as an example, but there are also several ways to build a stealthy assassin in Pathfinder without using the ninja anyway.)
there are, but the ninja is a supernaturally gifted stealthy assassin that doesn't require excessive multiclassing, has mechanics that support assassination and do not require an evil alignment, has a level of customizability that the other stealthy assassin classes don't quite possess, has an incentive to ambush with a small blade, and doesn't fall apart trying to do the job it is intended to do.
you can try something like this with an arcane trickster, but you lost your incentive to ambush with a small blade, fall apart as an assassin and you can't hit anything.
you can try with a bard, but you have no incentive to ambush, and the skills are generally percieved to be against type. performance is generally not very subtle and neither are you buffs.
you can try a rogue with the Ki Pool talent, but you fall apart due to a lack of Ki and a lack of advanced ninja tricks. you fall apart before you plant that blade to your foe's neck.
you can try with a ranger, but again, no incentive to ambush, you have no real way to augment your stealth beyond skill points and being within a favored terrain. you cannot guarantee your terrain will be favored, and your animal pet will likely alert the foe of your presence.
you can try with an inquisitor, but buffing isn't very subtle, takes time, and denies the edge of surprise.
you can try with a vivsectionist, but most vivisectionists favor claw and fang, and tend to have a lot of gore covering them, making it easy to reveal them. plus, people will suspect the mutant man out of prejudice. 2 pairs of arms, a tumor familiar, and a bunch of bottles isn't very subtle.
|
|
My Dm has worked around everything but guns, im not going to tantrum out of a game over that like some here would.If you want him to bend for your concepts why not bend a bit for him, especially if he is putting in some serious work.The problem arises when one side never bends.
Could you point out exactly who you are referring to?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... if it continues like this, people will want their PCs to have laptops, cellphones, sport cars, etc in their fantasy games, and at a cheap price.
In other words... Shadowrun. ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
why ban a class on the grounds of its name? and why ban one based on the fluff provided by the writers?
there are half a dozen ways to build a sneaky assassin. but they are all missing a piece of the assassin package that the ninja encompasses.
I'm curious. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. Why do you have to have a specific class, mechanic (etc.) to represent your concept? The old saying is "there are only so many ways to skin a cat". Not that I want to skin a cat, but why can't your concept use some other class that is already accepted in a campaign? There are any number of classes that do similar things. Example, why a Ninja, when a Rogue will do? Why should everyone else (GM and other players) have to dance to the tune of one player wanting his specific favorite and no other?
I've read many, but not all, of the posts in this thread (as well as all the posts in the other thread the OP referenced), so I apologize if this has already been brought up. Humor me.
I'll give this a humor, with the Ninja class in mind:
I want to play that specific class, because I've played a thousand fighters and a thousand rogues and half as many fighter/rogues, and I want to try something new.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Last time I checked, the rogue class wasn't supernatural. What makes the Ninja a Ninja is the fact that it has a dash of the supernatural to it and it's oriental flare.
What about that Gypsy idea I posted earlier? Uses gypsy magic in place of ki. It's the exact same mechanics as the ninja, but a completely different flavor and brings no oriental into your 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.
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.
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 all guns have to use gunpowder to create enough force.
Last time I checked, the rogue class wasn't supernatural. What makes the Ninja a Ninja is the fact that it has a dash of the supernatural to it and it's oriental flare.What about that Gypsy idea I posted earlier? Uses gypsy magic in place of ki. It's the exact same mechanics as the ninja, but a completely different flavor and brings no oriental into your world.
good idea. Varisian troupes will take anyone in.
I must say, this discussion is fun sunshadow21. Thank you.
You're quite correct, but usually the point of a siege was not to destroy, but to capture, so if you've already settled into a seige, you've already ruled out raw damage as a preferred method. Delayed blast fireball grapeshot might work for anti-infantry, but really for the cost involved of having to make the cannon, the ammo, enchant the ammo, move the cannon and the ammo to the place it's needed, protect the cannon and the ammo throughout the entire process, in most cases, it's so much easier to hire a mage and few fighters as bodyguards if you need anti-infantry support. As for the cloudkill example, yes, if the opponent is smart, he will have magical defenses, in which case, he's probably augmented the walls to where a cannon isn't going to be any better than a fireball, so again no advantage to the cannon.
The point of the siege is to destroy the castle / city wall and take control of the land around it. The castle dominated the territory around it. The land is valuable; the castle somewhat less so and the castle walls are quite replaceable (although you had a leg up if you could get it intact). The costs of manufacture of magical items is significant but it's relative to the number of high level magic users you have. If you can field a lot of them, no problem. If not, then you are better off employing the ones you have to manufacture weapons that can be deployed with lower level casters / UMD enabled characters. As for the lack of advantage to cannons, given their superiority vs. torsion and spring seige engines as a siege weapon (it was the thing they were best at originally), the magically augmented cannon will still be vastly superior to older siege devices in the magically enhanced seige.
The problems with the cannon vs magic are many. One, magic can defend against magic, cannons are purely offensive. Two, cost and effectiveness, the cannon simply cannot keep up with even an average fireball spell. And that doesn't even begin to get into the maintenance costs. Three, mobility; a mage can move quickly and under their own power (usually), a cannon requires a significant effort to move and accurately position. It isn't even the fact that the cannon is at a disadvantage as it much as it is magic is just that bloody powerful, giving it an advantage against pretty much anything but more magic.
It's not magic vs. cannon. it's magic cannon vs. magic. The magic cannon isn't going to be the only magic device deployed; some would be defensive. It's like any other arms race. Offense and defense will alternate in which dominates depending on the latest developments. Comparing a fireball to siege magic or gunnery should be like comparing a grenade to high powered artillery. The artillery device should produce a "bigger bang" (or at least a greater effect). As for mobility; why not build your cannon as part of a Golem? make it mobile artillery? More expensive, yes and more effective. Magic is that bloody powerful; magically enhanced technology just more so.
It isn't until you get down to the musket/rifle stage that the competition balances out, and even that is due more to a lot of single target evocation spells getting weakened with every new iteration than any inherent power of the guns, making the gun's primary competition at that point the bow and crossbow. Basically, you have to eliminate the magic for the guns to be able to get the upper hand, even at this level, magic is still often a healthy competitor that can't be ignored, but at least it doesn't have any more advantages than a musket. It isn't until you get down to pistol that the guns have a clear advantage in being able to deliver a lethal blow in a small, easy to hide package.
The game has been "developing" magic weapons since 1974... give the Devs 38 years to think how magic could be employed to guns / munitions. Plusses to hit, damage, elemental effects, spell like effects, are all obvious. This could be big :) When you introduce a whole new technology to a game, even when the mechanics *seem* similar to existing ones, you have to think through the ramifications. Years ago when I was coming up with reasons for piles of magic loot to be lying around in a game which did not, at that time, support the manufacture of magic items (original and 1E AD&D) I came up with one of those standard tropes; the ancient magical empire which was far more advanced etc. I also played / DMd Empire of the Petal Throne which equated technology and magic. I came up with numerous ideas on advanced magic, tantalizing bits of which were left laying around in ancient ruins. A lot of it bore a resemblance to modern technology (magical artillery etc.).
I've had those same 38 years to think through magics' effects on traditional seiges and battles. My castles sport magically hardened walls, self repairing, anti-magic fields, dispell magic and counterspell effects. That is required just to justify those castle walls standing up against regular spells and relatively limited magical devices. Getting in to whole new realms of these goodies if you want to bring in technology to supplement... no magnify the effects of magic. Arms race. While this is fun to think about I prefer to maintain my game at a more traditional level and deal with "regular" magic in sieges and battles.
Although, that magical 30 Years War I mentioned (in this thread or it's predecessor?) might be fun. This whole train(wreck) of magic / technology and bigger bangs (why not just blow up the dragon?) is why I went to pains to eliminate science / guns / gunpowder etc. from my game. I have not regretted it since. Ymmv.
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?
The gunslinger will just need backup weapons for when his/her gun is destroyed or s/he is out of ammo. Same as any archer. Kits can be remade with the proper tools. The gunslinger obviously didn't purchase it in your world, so s/he already knows how to make one from scratch.
In a world with metallurgy and armor and sword making, any blacksmith would be able to make new bullets with a little guidance from the gunslinger. Or more like, the gunslinger is also a smith, and can make use of a smith's forge to create the things s/he needs in the next town.
As for raw materials, those would be the same raw materials to make other weapons, such as maces, swords, hammers, barrels, horseshoes, spears, and a thousand other things made with metal and wood.
Alchemists deal with explosives, so there are likely other things that can create great force other than gunpowder; see my previous post for examples of alternate ways to fire a gun.