|
As far as I am aware the Spellslinger archtype from Ultimate combat was originally banned from society play because it conflicted with design space with the Gunslinger itself. Guns in Golarion lore are rare and as such gunslingers aren't common either. However, a lot of time has passed since the creation of these character options and we have seen changes in design philosophy as well. Recently the Picaroon swashbuckler and Spellscar Drifter cavalier were both made legal options which use guns as well, a change from previous decisions.
From a flavor standpoint the Spellslinger was an arcane and occult blend who used the emerging gun technology as a focus. Between the creation of the Arcanist (a spell tinkerer), the addition of the Occult Mysteries playtest, and Numeria's technology becoming a campaign wide arch I can't think of a better time to legalize Spellslingers as a character option.
|
Two reasons I can see why it still isn't legal, though I may be completely off base.
1) The Mana Wastes, where guns originally were developed, is anathema to Wizards. The idea that a wizard would go to a place where magic is dead to learn how to cast spells through a firearm just doesn't make sense. It flat doesn't fit the setting material.
2) The picaroon starts with proficiency, but not a firearm. Since firearms aren't always available, they won't have one until late level 2 at the earliest because of the Fame item limits. The Spellscar Drifter gains a firearm from 1st level, but gives up a significant ability to do so. Also, the flavor of the class fits perfectly with the Mana Waste, just like the base Gunslinger (but not the Spellslinger, as noted above).
As a bonus 3rd reason, "a lot" of time has not passed since guns were discovered. It has been almost 3,000 years since the first gunwork was founded in Alkenstar, and in that time guns have gone from "Unavailable" to "Emerging." The amount of time gunslingers have been a playable option is a drop in the bucket compared to that. Maybe you should ask Mike in a thousand years? ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember reading that the reasoning was that guns haven't been around long enough for cross-training to be developed. That is, the church of Iomedae hasn't had the time and opportunity to create a training program for Holy Gun archetype paladins, so if you want to be a paladin with a gun, you have to blaze the trail yourself through multiclassing. Likewise, the arcane colleges haven't had the time to develop a training program for Spellslingers, so if you want to be a wizard with a gun, you have to blaze the trail yourself through multi-classing.
And on that note, a Pistolero 1/Wizard (scryer) 1/Eldritch Knight X would be a pretty sweet hybrid.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember reading that the reasoning was that guns haven't been around long enough for cross-training to be developed. That is, the church of Iomedae hasn't had the time and opportunity to create a training program for Holy Gun archetype paladins, so if you want to be a paladin with a gun, you have to blaze the trail yourself through multiclassing. Likewise, the arcane colleges haven't had the time to develop a training program for Spellslingers, so if you want to be a wizard with a gun, you have to blaze the trail yourself through multi-classing.
Seriously? I would prefer just a simple, "Nope, we don't wanna" as a reason compared to that... hooey. Quite frankly that excuse for not allowing the non gunslinger gun bearing archetypes is almost insulting. As if there are entire schools of Paladins organized like some modern day Military occupational Specialty? And all wizards in some Hogwarts like school organized by archetype training as well? Nonsense. Those non typical Paladins and Wizards ARE the trailblazers. Sacrificing a portion of their normal power and training in order to make use of non standard weaponry.
Sometimes trying to come up with a contrived story excuse is worse than simply saying no.
|
|
It's a misguided decision from campaign leadership. The thought is that disallowing some of the gun archetypes will reduce the number of non-gunslingers wielding firearms. Unfortunately for them, players like their concepts. They just dip 1 level of gunslinger and suffer the lack of synergy and class features grudgingly, when balanced archetypes which fit them better exist, but are banned.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it is a very well-informed decision from campaign leadership, based on discussions with hundreds of V-Os who are plugged in to almost every gaming community in the world, and based on lots of factors (some of which have been covered here).
Sorry if you weren't here for the discussion back then, but adding archetypes which conflict with Golarion cannon and which frankly the game doesn't need (given the huge number of options which are newly available) isn't likely to happen. Especially when you start insulting the hard-working folks who run this whole thing for your enjoyment.
|
|
Sorry if you weren't here for the discussion back then, but adding archetypes which conflict with Golarion cannon and which frankly the game doesn't need (given the huge number of options which are newly available) isn't likely to happen. Especially when you start insulting the hard-working folks who run this whole thing for your enjoyment.
I'm sorry if I'm not allowed to vehemently disagree with the decisions made. I didn't know dissenting opinions were banned - but then again, I suppose they don't appear on Additional Resources... :P
Sidenote: Saying that someone's decision is misguided isn't an insult. Nobody's perfect, and that's not an insult either. I made no personal attacks on anyone in the campaign leadership, as I simply asserted that they had made a mistake.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it is a very well-informed decision from campaign leadership, based on discussions with hundreds of V-Os who are plugged in to almost every gaming community in the world, and based on lots of factors (some of which have been covered here).
Well informed and misguided aren't mutually exclusive.
... Sorry if you weren't here for the discussion back then, but adding archetypes which conflict with Golarion cannon...
I'm not saying it has enough for guns to be common, but canon can progress, and stagnant canon, I feel is bad. Might be good for leadership / writers to keep that in mind.
...and which frankly the game doesn't need (given the huge number of options which are newly available)...
That's, like, your opinion, man. I'm sure you know that, but I just wanted to make sure, since this last bit seemed like you're stating a fact.
... isn't likely to happen. Especially when you start insulting the hard-working folks who run this whole thing for your enjoyment.
Not seeing how he insulted them, but, to each their own, I suppose.
Ultimately, I don't have a horse in this race, I'm not playing a spell slinger and don't care to. I just felt you made some troubling assertions.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, I stated it like it was fact too. I do apologize if anyone took offense to what I said, but I still disagree with the decision to ban gun-related archetypes. I'm pretty strongly in the "ban it only if it's disruptive or overpowered" camp of opinion, and I'm very convinced that increased access to class features would increase the enjoyment of more players than it would disappoint.
There really should be a Pathfinder Rifle Association.
"Gun-related archetypes don't kill people! Pathfinders kill people!"
Two reasons I can see why it still isn't legal, though I may be completely off base.
1) The Mana Wastes, where guns originally were developed, is anathema to Wizards. The idea that a wizard would go to a place where magic is dead to learn how to cast spells through a firearm just doesn't make sense. It flat doesn't fit the setting material.
2) The picaroon starts with proficiency, but not a firearm. Since firearms aren't always available, they won't have one until late level 2 at the earliest because of the Fame item limits. The Spellscar Drifter gains a firearm from 1st level, but gives up a significant ability to do so. Also, the flavor of the class fits perfectly with the Mana Waste, just like the base Gunslinger (but not the Spellslinger, as noted above).
As a bonus 3rd reason, "a lot" of time has not passed since guns were discovered. It has been almost 3,000 years since the first gunwork was founded in Alkenstar, and in that time guns have gone from "Unavailable" to "Emerging." The amount of time gunslingers have been a playable option is a drop in the bucket compared to that. Maybe you should ask Mike in a thousand years? ;)
You're telling me that a wizard who goes to a region of the world where magic works oddly (including, yes, dead magic) in order to find some crazy way to cast spells through a firearm doesn't fit setting material, but a wizard who goes to a region of the world where robots and lasers exist to create a +2 holy axiomatic rocket launcher while grafting cybernetics onto their bound demonic servants fits?
Okay you didn't actually say that last part, but still :P
|
|
If a boon actually was given out I can see that being a good reason. He's a lucky guy since the archetype appears fun!
As for staying banned for strength with sorcerer I don't think too many people are going to pay mind to the guy who stopped taking wizard progression in favor of being two whole spell progression levels behind him. The option would be cool and interesting but certainly not game changing.
|
I think a lot of the gunslinger archetypes are banned because attacking at touch AC is a very powerful advantage. Limiting this ability by requiring a dip into the actual gunslinger class is one way to keep that from spreading too much.
The archetypes limit the negatives you get for taking a level of gunslinger to a degree. There are trade offs but getting a gun/touch attack to me outweighs the drawbacks in most cases.
As to spellslinger specifically, having an attack at level 1 wizard that rarely misses, and can do more damage than magic missile and is effectively unlimited (depends on money) breaks the power assumption of a level 1 wizard.
I would like to see these archetypes opened up.
Oh and as to the use of the word misguided - this is a very charged word and will never help to get something changed, all it really does is make the persons it is directed at defensive and most probably dismissive of the idea represented.
|
|
The big thing is that the spellslinger is pretty broken.
On one hand, they have to give up cantrips, and have four counter schools, which is a huge hit to them. They also have no arcane bond or familiar to play with, and that also hurts them.
They have fewer spells to work with and cannot endlessly cast cantrips.
Also, by RAW, a lot of the bonuses you can add to your gun (like flaming, frost, etc.) can only be added to melee weapons, so you would have to stock strike (or pistol whip) your enemy for them to work.
This makes them weaker.
HOWEVER!
They can also be completely broken by the fact that if you take a single level of spellslinger, and then all your other levels into some other spellcasting class (I especially like a witch, or the wildblooded sorcerer that uses INT, since they share their primary ability scores), you can technically use that other classes' spells to shoot/enhance your arcane gun, because there is no rule saying that you can only use your wizard spells for this ability.
Therefore, the spellslinger can either be hopelessly weak and next to useless, or so OP it kills things with a sneeze. THAT is why I believe it was banned. As with other classes with guns, I have no clue. I'm not going to argue the thematics, or how it would fit in the lore, because I'm still really a noob and don't know much. But that is the technical reason why I believe it was banned.
Also, by RAW, a lot of the bonuses you can add to your gun (like flaming, frost, etc.) can only be added to melee weapons, so you would have to stock strike (or pistol whip) your enemy for them to work.
Not true.
37–45 Flaming3 +1 bonus
46–54 Frost3 +1 bonus
3 Projectile weapons with this ability bestow this power upon their ammunition.
|
|
I'll be honest ... I am playing one in the Iron Gods Adventure path ... it is NOT easy
they are feat starved.... in order to do anything other than cast Color spray or burning hands through the gun (at low levels) you MUST have Point blank Shot and precise Shot (wizard BAB with a -8 to hit is more painful than having 4 opposition schools even when your rolling against Touch AC)
if you Roll a 1 to attack or they roll a 20 on a save ... your gun overloads and gains the broken condition (Just like if it had misfired) - so you need either amateur Gunslinger .. or a 1 level gunslinger dip for quick clear ... otherwise your basically out of the rest of the fight
sure you get a little help with PFS not allowing magic Item Crafting
Also unlike the myrmadarch Magus you still use the spells range ... a 15 ft Cone still originates from you not from anywhere within range of the gun
so I question the power in this simply because I am playing one ATM
|
I'll be honest ... I am playing one in the Iron Gods Adventure path ... it is NOT easy
they are feat starved.... in order to do anything other than cast Color spray or burning hands through the gun (at low levels) you MUST have Point blank Shot and precise Shot (wizard BAB with a -8 to hit is more painful than having 4 opposition schools even when your rolling against Touch AC)
if you Roll a 1 to attack or they roll a 20 on a save ... your gun overloads and gains the broken condition (Just like if it had misfired) - so you need either amateur Gunslinger .. or a 1 level gunslinger dip for quick clear ... otherwise your basically out of the rest of the fight
sure you get a little help with PFS not allowing magic Item Crafting
Also unlike the myrmadarch Magus you still use the spells range ... a 15 ft Cone still originates from you not from anywhere within range of the gun
so I question the power in this simply because I am playing one ATM
Is there true strike on the list? My archer wizard swears by it.
|
|
1) The Mana Wastes, where guns originally were developed, is anathema to Wizards. The idea that a wizard would go to a place where magic is dead to learn how to cast spells through a firearm just doesn't make sense. It flat doesn't fit the setting material.
"So, like, I grew up in the mana-wastes. An' Papa didn't want me to learn how to use guns, and kicked me out when he caught me with my pistol. As I was leaving dis weird fog rolled in, I blinked, an next thing I knew I was in Absolom! Fell into the pathfinders cause I heard they were folk who gave out meals. Wasn't expecting the 3 more years of schoolin. Or the magic, I ain't never seen that before coming here. turns out I had the talent for it too. Aram says my upbringing polluted my talent, but I'll disagree with him; my latest pistol was made for channeling spells!"
--Mary Sue, newly confirmed pathfinder.
can't fit in the setting my ass.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard-loving player was crushed when he saw the boons under the crossed off section for missions not attempted.
That's completely understandable and while it was gracious to put it out that way, I also feel like it's kind of insulting to those that had the chance to get it but didn't because of in-game choices with no way of knowing that a different choice would have led to this.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
A wizard-loving player was crushed when he saw the boons under the crossed off section for missions not attempted.That's completely understandable and while it was gracious to put it out that way, I also feel like it's kind of insulting to those that had the chance to get it but didn't because of in-game choices with no way of knowing that a different choice would have led to this.
I couldn't even do it. My group prioritized our party's factions. By the time we finished them, the mission required to get the boon had already been completed. We actually spent some time twiddling our thumbs because we did all the missions that were open.
It was really upsetting as I love the spellslinger and the other boons were no where near as good. Don't get me wrong -- the other rewards were pretty good, but nothing beats getting a new character option. It just feels unfair.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A wizard-loving player was crushed when he saw the boons under the crossed off section for missions not attempted.
There's a reason I told my players beforehand that the Scarab Sage mission might unlock something from the Additional Resources; so they should seriously consider doing that one first.
But yeah, I thought locking it behind a specific faction mission was a kinda s+$!ty thing to do, especially when some of the other faction missions just give a piddling bonus on situational skills.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
A wizard-loving player was crushed when he saw the boons under the crossed off section for missions not attempted.There's a reason I told my players beforehand that the Scarab Sage mission might unlock something from the Additional Resources; so they should seriously consider doing that one first.
But yeah, I thought locking it behind a specific faction mission was a kinda s@%#ty thing to do, especially when some of the other faction missions just give a piddling bonus on situational skills.
To me, that was wrong. I try my best to get players to not meta-game. You, on the other hand, meta-GMed. Things like this are why we can't have nice things. There is always a second chance for the players to gain that prized boon: GM.
And I agree that not all of the Faction-based boons were created equal. That is something to take up with the authors/designers of the Chronicle. I suggest posting a review and voicing your opinion there, where they can more directly respond.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
this are why we can't have nice things.
There's no correlation, at all, between Dm's making sure players get an option on the chronicle and having the options taken away. NONE. It's there, it's meant to be taken. Its not something that was earned by smarter play it was something you just happen to luck into, and there's NO reason why the DM can't or shouldn't nudge players that way.
To be clear, i did not do this. But only because I did not understand how the boon was applied (I thought you had to complete your characters faction mission and got an in character table faction) Otherwise yeah, right for that one after the other missions had been completed instead of an early bathroom break.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the seven boons were remotely equal, then I wouldn't have an issue. But they aren't. Two of the boons are vastly greater and more powerful than the other 5. The other 5 don't even come close. And that's the part I have the greatest problem with.
I'm okay that players wouldn't know - that's how it should be. But it feels like the rewards for five of the faction missions weren't worth the time and effort to obtain them, while two got amazing rewards.
That''s got to be avoided in the future. 1 reward which unlocks, for those that have it, an option not permitted by the Additional Resources, and another that allows one to make a level 2 character.
If you played any faction mission other than those two factions, this scenario was basically a punishment for choosing the wrong faction, and that's the part I find offensive.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, that was wrong. I try my best to get players to not meta-game. You, on the other hand, meta-GMed. Things like this are why we can't have nice things. There is always a second chance for the players to gain that prized boon: GM.
Well, if this were a regular, garden variety scenario, then GMing is a great option. But it isn't. It's a multi-table special. You have to have X number of tables to be able to run in. I'm sorry, Michael, but the advice to just "GM" it doesn't solve the problem or inequity of the boon in the first place. One shouldn't HAVE to GM just address a problem with the design of a boon.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Just GM it!"
Sure would love to! Come on up to Michigan and organize a convention, and I'll happily be one of your GMs. Or, heck, fly me out to wherever you'd rather run the convention.
"Just run it!" works a little better for stuff that people can actually run on command, not stuff that requires us to get lucky in about eight different ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree that this a huge flaw in the system. I haven't run the scenario (yet) but knowing what I do now, it won't be about role-playing, I will be there to get a boon wether it makes sense for that character or not. And I know I am not the only one who would do that. It ruins the immersion and punishes role-play.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To me, that was wrong. I try my best to get players to not meta-game. You, on the other hand, meta-GMed. Things like this are why we can't have nice things.
We can't have nice things because GMs want players to have access to the nice things, rather than locking them off due to failure on a luck based mission?
I'd much rather metagame a tiny bit, than have a player miss what is potentially their only shot to play something unique and interesting.
There is always a second chance for the players to gain that prized boon: GM.
You're right Micheal, I should have told the twelve year old at my table that if she really wants to be a Spellslinger, then she needs to stop being selfish and drive to a con to GM a multi-table special! You've truly presented a fantastic alternative that I overlooked. I'm so glad you were here to enlighten me.
I suggest posting a review and voicing your opinion there, where they can more directly respond.
I'm in the process of doing so, but that does nothing in the short term, and certainly wouldn't have helped at Gencon.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16
|
It's worth pointing out that the scenario is designed such that only a limited amount of tables can get any particular boon since too many tables completing a faction mission results in locking out other tables from doing that faction's mission.
At least GMs telling their tables to do Scarab Sages explains why it was the second faction to be completed.
|
|
It's worth pointing out that the scenario is designed such that only a limited amount of tables can get any particular boon since too many tables completing a faction mission results in locking out other tables from doing that faction's mission.
At least GMs telling their tables to do Scarab Sages explains why it was the second faction to be completed.
Is the mission locked out once it's been completed or is there just less incentive to get it since it's not adding to table successes anymore?