|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With that said, (and this is slightly off topic for here) they really do need to add a fortified or bulletproof enchantment somewhere to add to armor and shields so the bonus can work vs firearms.
Bullet-proof breastplate does indeed sound like a good idea. How to implement is the question.
As much as I would like to see a gunslinger-centric scenario, maybe with pirates firing from the railing of their ship, I think it would not do any favours for the class. Many GM's already despise the class, now players will see them, emulate them, and BANG more gun-toting everyones. Worst case scenario, everyone dips in gunslinger to have a back-up if the BBEG is too hard too hit conventionally, then Paizo picks up on it and implements the bullet-proof breastplate or what have you. Though that would hardly be from one single scenario... hmmm... Worth an effort, though!
Also... sanity lost for the thought of goblin gunslingers...
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can not agree with the mechanics all you want, but it is still considered a PFS class. Meaning people will just have to tolerate them unless the stars for whatever reason align, and Paizo gives them the boot like they have gun-toting archetypes for some other classes.
Really, those are your only options?
How about saying "I'm sorry, but I don't allow gunslingers in my game" or even better let the player run what he wants. Destroying characters simply because you don't want a certain class or race or whatnot in your game is a very bad idea. It will lead to bad feelings and players leaving. Be honest about what you want in your game, and don't be afraid of trying something different.So in a home game, you have that luxury to say what is welcome and what is not. In PFS which is an OPEN community, you don't always get an opportunity to say "NO."
So here's what I do. I always remind the gunslinger that he is bound to "ranged weapon" rules and if he tries anything funny, you do reserve the right to regulate as needed. If they don't like that, they can always swap PC's.
My big thing, especially at low levels because gunslingers don't get a whole lot of bonus feats, is that I stay up in their face. I don't have to hurt or maim them, but making them have to take 5 foot steps to reload to not get hit in the face, totally kills the action economy, which slows down the gunslinger immeasurably.
So there are options around this besides "You can't play." You can't play requires you to pull out the "jerk" card. Don't be a jerk, just be clever. It's way cooler.
You are quite correct about what can be played in PFS games, I was speaking about games in general.
I have never had a problem with gunslingers, in fact at low levels I have seen them get off one shot and then get swarmed.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best way to handle a gunslinger in a game is with the same fairness and dedication to fun that any other class receives.
If you can't do that, don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This has been an interesting read, especially since I've been seriously considering playing a gunslinger for the first time in PFS play this Monday.
Mechanically, the class has advantages and drawbacks like most any class. One disadvantage often overlooked is that you're stuck dealing base die damage until level 5. I've seen level 5 fighters and such with +17 damage on their power-attacked two-handed weapon.
Does Deadly Aim work for firearms?
Also, rangers get Improved Precise Shot WAY earlier than gunslingers do. So yes, cover is more of an issue for them.
Due to misfires, most gunslingers are going to invest in reliable weapon enhancements instead of other +1 enhancements like bane and seeking. This nerfs them a bit when compared with archers.
As for flavor, I'm the first to admit I'm not a huge steampunk fan. I really don't like the Numerian sci-fi aspect of Golarion either. Still. it is part of the setting, which I generally enjoy.
Some of us don't like Asian flavor in our fantasy worlds, and so dislike monks, ninjas and samurai.
Others dislike Victorian era flavor, like our Dr. Jekyll alchemists. Who also hit touch AC with their bombs.
As a GM, I'm still learning - and I can get a bit crusty at times, but when players are really getting into the game and their characters, I'm having fun too, and I really don't care what class they're playing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of people in this thread throwing rotten tomatoes at the guy who has GM'ed 30 PFS games and might just run another thirty in the future.
If you feel that your enjoyment of the Pathfinder RPG is adversely affected by this class, I would recommend you alert all players to the fact that you will not GM for gunslingers before the game is organized.
Also, if you volunteer to GM at conventions, please give the convention organiser ample notice that gunslingers will not be accepted at your table before the event is finalized.
As a PFS GM, you are telling a pre-written, interactive story for the players/brave heroes. It is telling to note that no PFS author so far has felt a PFS story actually requires guns in it.
|
These sort of debates just seem weird to me. Maybe it's because I'm still pretty damn new to PFS (Only been playing for like half a year and GMing for less than 3 months) or maybe it's simply that I'm too old to be full of piss and vinegar about these sort of things. Things should never devolve to a point where you run games with the mindset of it being you vs the players. I can see someone bogarting all the action and making the event less fun for other players, but that's a player type more than it could be applied to any particular class or build.
Maybe I'm not the best person to weigh in on this since the second PFS character I created is a gunslinger and I also haven't seen any gunslinger run amok at any table I've run. My 'slinger is a musket master with the much maligned double barrel musket but the odd thing is I almost never fire both barrels. To me, PFS play is about the long haul which means it's about efficiency. 98% of the time I spend my first action getting abundant (because bullets are freaking expensive) and the -4 penalty to hit just isn't usually worth it. It is worth the extra misfire chance to me just to have the option if things go pear shape one day though.
In the end, I think if you do run into a gunslinger who is unloading the bullet storm each and every encounter, besides talking with them about sharing the limelight, the best thing to do is make sure they actually are spending the gold for the cartridges. 6 GP a pop is not chump change, especially if you're rapid shotting and double barreling it. That's 36 GP a round. Eventually that will start to weigh upon your WBL.
|
|
I have had the unfortunate luck to have played with two gunslingers that not only tried to hog all the glory, but had this odd urge to kill helpless creatures. Knock out a bad guy and need to interrogate him for mission success? Point blank headshot. I've even seen one point blank a little girl, intentionally reveal the party's location during a stealth mission just so he could be obnoxious, and many other things.
However, that is a reflection of bad players. It has nothing to do with the class. Sure, gunslingers might have some balance issues, but I would say targeting a player simply for playing what they might enjoy is pretty bad.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes shooting little girls is justified.
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes shooting little girls is justified.
Um, no its not...
No offense, but its reports like that is the reason I refuse to run that scenario. Players have to think like characters. If an NPC makes all the required checks to bluff, disguise, etc. and the party still refuses to accept them for what they appear to be, then why can't the GM just ignore all the same checks when the PCs try the same thing? You failed the perception, sense motive, or whatever check, so your character has no reason at that point to be suspicious or to treat said NPC and different than any other one that is encountered.
Also, shooting her in the foot or shaking her in a bag as described can easily be considered torture. There are plenty of players that seem to think that just because you have a healer, you are allowed to cause physical harm or even kill an NPC without an issue just because you have a cure spell or raise dead available. How would you feel if every time your full-plate wearing, greatsword wielding fighter entered a town, he got accosted by the locals and had to prove, somehow that he wasn't a devil in disguise? What if the townsfolk said, "let us shoot you in the face with this cold-iron arrow to prove you're not a demon." Or maybe the next time your bard rolls a 50 on his diplomacy check to improve the attitude of the guards, the GM just says, "nope, they still don't trust you."
That being said, it would be nice if there actually were some suspicious NPCs that didn't turn out to be demons in disguise. Maybe then, players wouldn't meta-game every encounter and perpetuate the murder-hobo persona.
|
|
I'm pretty sure not a single sense motive or bluff or diplo was rolled the entire scenario. The GM ran it without the social interaction skills, which in many cases is just as well. Not much is going to skew your perception of an interaction like a prompt for a roll and from a player perspective it's usually an attempt for more info, but everyone had already broken into camps based on past experience.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My take? The GMs need a scenario with gunslingers...GOBLIN gunslingers!
I wrote a pitch for the old open call about goblins who had hijacked and stolen a cannon and assorted firearm related items being shipped across the Mwangi expanse from Alkenstar to the Shackles. The final fight was against a goblin alchemist/gunslinger.
Then they changed the rules for the open call and now my masterpiece will never see the light of day :(
|
|
Sometimes shooting little girls is justified.Um, no its not...
** spoiler omitted **
I don't disagree on the shooting issue, but in a realm of magic and shape changers being extremely suspicious is simply good sense. Especially given all the stories of pathfinders being eaten by little girls they saved.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been GMing quite a bit again lately, and I have run into an issue. What would you think is the best way to handle a gunslinger who sits down at your table?
Should I:
A) Not say anything and attempt to kill his character every chance I get
B) Be up front about my intent to kill his character so that he has the chance to leave the table or switch characters
C) Leave the table without a GM to avoid the confrontationYes, these are pretty much the only options. It's sad, but it's true. I appreciate your input.
Please just stop GMing.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been GMing quite a bit again lately, and I have run into an issue. What would you think is the best way to handle a gunslinger who sits down at your table?
Should I:
A) Not say anything and attempt to kill his character every chance I get
B) Be up front about my intent to kill his character so that he has the chance to leave the table or switch characters
C) Leave the table without a GM to avoid the confrontationYes, these are pretty much the only options. It's sad, but it's true. I appreciate your input.
Please just stop GMing.
You know this is the best response to this entire thread.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now see, here's the bad part.
** spoiler omitted **
I'm talking about an actual little girl; not a demon, not a ghost/haunt/spectre/etc. An actual little girl. Boom, headshot.
... and that wasn't "Warning: you are about to commit an evil act. If you do you'll be catapulted from whatever alignment you ostensibly have written on your sheet right down to chaotic evil, booted from the society and declared dead. Do not pass go do not collect 200 gold pieces. Are you SURE you wish to proceed?" because.... ?
I'm talking about an actual little girl; not a demon, not a ghost/haunt/spectre/etc. An actual little girl. Boom, headshot
|
|
Well, the first instance of it had the little girl actually trying to attack us. Admittedly, it was one of those enemies that was terribly inept. Not to mention that we'd already beaten it once, only to stabilize it in an act of mercy. So it's got all of 1-2 HP left, starts trying to again (while tied up). One of us had prepared an action to put it down again with nonlethal damage. The gunslinger, unbeknownst to us, had prepared an action to shoot it in the face. Even, y'know, being fully aware we could easily put it unconscious again. Guess which one went off first. >_>
The second incident (different gunslinger) just popped them for lulz. This is the same guy that kept killing NPCs we needed to keep alive for missions. So to answer your question? Not a clue.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just remind them of the typical reaction that NPCs have when someone pulls out a firearm:
Of all the forms of technology [...] from the lands of the Inner Sea, none are as universally misunderstood or despised as the firearm. [...] The appearance of a firearm suggests at once an outrageous expenditure of gold, a sorrowful impotence of limb, and an immediate threat of dishonorable violence.That's certainly going to hurt diplomacy, and make "disarm, steal or sunder the gun" a high priority.
I think if a 'universally despised' practice like necromancy is allowed in play and not penalized overly much that you shouldn't go out of your way to be a jerk to a gunslinger because you don't like the class.
If you're a bad guy...and the guy with 7 feet of adamantine just pulped 3 of your buddies while the guy with the 'boomstick' has tried to discuss things or just shot one guy.. I don't think the gun is the threat in the room.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel bad for you, Demoyn, considering some of the responses you've gotten here. Obviously you're getting them because two of your options are "I'll do anything I can to kill you"; if you hadn't provided any options, I'm sure this thread would look very different.
I've got a gunslinger I love playing myself, but I also used to tell players at my tables that I wouldn't GM for synthesist summoners when they were legal - pretty much exactly the situation you're describing. Now, I wouldn't ban those characters at a con or a public in-person game, only for online games. Whenever that happened, I'd ask them to play another character. For public games or cons, I'd suck it up and let them play those characters. I wouldn't like it, but it's a public game.
You shouldn't say to anyone "I'm going to go out of my way to kill you", ever, with the exception that you're certain that person would enjoy having you do that. Not just is-okay-with-it, they need to be having fun at the table. Some people like a challenge, some people won't like being discriminated against because of their class - the latter is obviously going to be more common.
Having said all that, what's your situation exactly?
You've said you don't like gunslingers, you've said it's because cowboys and fantasy doesn't mix as far as you're concerned - that's fine, you're entitled to that opinion, you're not alone - but:
- are you GMing a private game?
- ...public games?
- ...cons?
- Do you think your community/whoever you play with would be okay with the options you've provided?
- Had past experiences with any of your options?
- ...Or are you asking now before a gunslinger decides to join your game?
- None of the above? Something else?
Answers to all of these are important to get you proper answers.
|
|
Sadly Gunslingers arnt that common locally. Ive got mine and I know of one other player with one (who dosnt get a lot of screen time).
I do have an issue with any gm for PFS who says they will target gunslingers in games over other characters / and or go out of their way to kill them.
I also have an issue with any gm who says 'Im going to target X class because I dont like them'. Its just poor form.
I know I have players here locally who do not like the Gunslinger concept.. whether that is because of a 'no guns in my fantasy game please!' argument or the fact that they think they are overpowered (and I will agree and disagree with some aspects there). Hell it may come down to the fact they dislike Clustered Shot because their melee fighter dosnt have something of exact equivalence.
What I suggest you do is approach your VC/VL and state that you are not willing to run pfs games if Gunslingers are signed up. This will lead to some tricky maneuvers on recruitment for games.. but dont worry.. it will soon become widely known that you dont accept gunslingers in one of your games.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just remind them of the typical reaction that NPCs have when someone pulls out a firearm:
Of all the forms of technology [...] from the lands of the Inner Sea, none are as universally misunderstood or despised as the firearm. [...] The appearance of a firearm suggests at once an outrageous expenditure of gold, a sorrowful impotence of limb, and an immediate threat of dishonorable violence.That's certainly going to hurt diplomacy, and make "disarm, steal or sunder the gun" a high priority.I think if a 'universally despised' practice like necromancy is allowed in play and not penalized overly much that you shouldn't go out of your way to be a jerk to a gunslinger because you don't like the class.
If you're a bad guy...and the guy with 7 feet of adamantine just pulped 3 of your buddies while the guy with the 'boomstick' has tried to discuss things or just shot one guy.. I don't think the gun is the threat in the room.
Sure, necromancy's universally despised, but it's allowed in play.
But trying to persuade that harbourmaster to get the location of a potential lead will be much harder if you're walking around with a bunch of zombies behind you is something completely different. It's foolish to think that you can walk around with animated skeletons and not have adverse NPC reactions.
The point I was trying to make is that you should react to actual threats not the ones, as a GM, you dislike. Destroying a players keystone weapon like a hard to replace firearm is a jerk move.
The post that I replied to seemed to infer that a gun immediately merited sundae ring, theft or ignoring the players actual approach/role playing over the simple possession of an item. Which while might be known,isn't so well known that the dirt farmer in backwoods Taldor/Andoran/Cheliax ect might know on sight.
Automatically going for a sunder is a definite jerk move.
And as a side note: I am thinking more and more that the original poster started this just to generate hate in the threads.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love to play the game the way it was meant to be played, Finlanderboy. Sadly, Paizo took that option away by allowing gunslingers.
No, they really didn't. Because there is no one true way. If you don't want guns and cowboys in your fantasy game, don't play in someone else's campaign. And yes, PFS is not your game. It's Paizo's, and you are just helping run it. If you don't like the way they run it, run your own.
Best way to deal with gunslingers at your table is to run. Seriously, when someone brings a gun to a game and is eager to use it, I'd just run.
|
|
From what I've found so far, once the table realizes that a Secondary Success Condition might possibly involve not-killing people... that really messes with Gunslingers. Not only are they unable to take a -4 penalty to their attack rolls to deal nonlethal damage with their gun, but a single x4 critical hit can blow away the entire table's Fame point.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
-Matt, "So, pretty please, with sugar on top, put the gun away."
|
|
From what I've found so far, once the table realizes that a Secondary Success Condition might possibly involve not-killing people... that really messes with Gunslingers. Not only are they unable to take a -4 penalty to their attack rolls to deal nonlethal damage with their gun, but a single x4 critical hit can blow away the entire table's Fame point.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
-Matt, "So, pretty please, with sugar on top, put the gun away."
The same can be said of the barbarian doing 3d6+18+ with a lead bladed great weapon.
Crit = smish.
Ditto glass cannon/wizards/sorcerers.
|
|
From what I've found so far, once the table realizes that a Secondary Success Condition might possibly involve not-killing people... that really messes with Gunslingers. Not only are they unable to take a -4 penalty to their attack rolls to deal nonlethal damage with their gun, but a single x4 critical hit can blow away the entire table's Fame point.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
-Matt, "So, pretty please, with sugar on top, put the gun away."
I must be sure to pick up some salt shot cartridges for nonlethal. Thanks for the tip.
|
|
I must be sure to pick up some salt shot cartridges for nonlethal. Thanks for the tip.From what I've found so far, once the table realizes that a Secondary Success Condition might possibly involve not-killing people... that really messes with Gunslingers. Not only are they unable to take a -4 penalty to their attack rolls to deal nonlethal damage with their gun, but a single x4 critical hit can blow away the entire table's Fame point.
Just thought I'd throw that out there.
-Matt, "So, pretty please, with sugar on top, put the gun away."
Only works for scatter weapons.
|
|
The same can be said of the barbarianNot exactly. That barbarian can attack for non-lethal damage, while the gunslinger cannot.
The eample I used had a Barbarian hit for nearly 100 hp of 'non lethal' on a 20 hp victim.
I would get rubber bullets if I could. Salt shot doesn't work.
I don't normally kill everything in site on impulse. Whereas the Barb did.