I'm about to start running RotRL with slightly more challenging encounters for a party who are all basically new:
Ranger - Focusing on ranged combat
Paladin - Doing the whole white knight thing
Druid
Witch
Cavalier
We might also have a Rogue. My problem is with the Cavalier. He's a Dwarf and I can't really see a mount being useful for most of the campaign. In addition, I'm really struggling to figure out what a Cavalier (Especially unmounted) can do that a Paladin can't.
Anyway, I'm toying with actually allowing the Gunslinger class. I was against it previously, however I've been reading up and listening to a few podcasts etc and I'm coming round to the idea. The problem is that the vocal majority seem to think that Gunslingers will outshine every other class and I really don't want any of the players getting a bad first impression of Pathfinder because they find themselves useless in combat.
I'm also wondering if a Gunslinger would work as part of the above team, in place of the Cavalier if I were to suggest it to him.
So I guess my question is how difficult would it be for a new player, who doesn't have an awareness of optimisation at least for now, to break the class? I'm aware that there are a ton of rules regarding the class which are intended to constantly mini-nerf it and I intend to keep on top of them. Also, I'd probably adhere to the 'guns are incredibly rare and expensive, and you're lucky to find one that isn't a rusty piece of junk' idea.
Still though, all I can find are forum posts that descend in to bitterness with no clear conclusion.
A new player will have a miserable time with the gunslinger class until they go look up a guide and learn how to build them properly.
Then you have a semi-optimized gunslinger. They aren't particularly hard to make properly if you have a guide telling you where all the pitfalls are.
My suggestion would be to roll up the best gunslinger you can yourself that you would consider allowing at the table. Compare that gunslinger to the rest of the party* and see how all the numbers stack up(or you could let us do it). Don't forget to take the 10% chance of the gunslinger's weapon breaking on every shot into account.
As for the Cavalier...yeah, they are not that good compared to paladins. Still, if the Cavalier can actually get to use their mounted feats then they aren't terrible. The player won't consider changing to a small race, will they? Halflings can ride around on their Medium sized mounts in dungeons all day.
*assuming you have access to their character stats
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A house rule I implement for Gunslingers is that rather than straight hitting touch AC, they instead have 'armor piercing'. What this means is all guns have a certain armor-piercing value which directly reduces an enemy's AC gained from armor, natural armor, and shields. For one-handed firearms the base starting reduction is 2, and for two-handed firearms it's 4. Every point of enhancement bonus adds an equivelant amount of armor piercing to the gun (so a +1 pistol will have 3 armor piercing, where a +2 musket will have 6 armor piercing). It's a bit of extra work on your end, but I feel it's worth it. It always felt silly to me that a Gunslinger could just cut through 20+ natural armor on a dragon or huge monster with no sweat. Now it actually has some sort of progression.
As for how common guns are in the world, Golarion has guns coming from only one place - Alkenstar. It's likely that anyone who creates a Gunslinger will have some sort of connection there, or at least found a way to get their hands on one of these crazy, exotic weapons.
|
It sorta depends on several factors ow good the Cavalier is. People overemphasize how necessary a mount is to a Cavalier's function. That said, if you're mostly gonna be fighting Evil stuff, yeah, the Paladin will outshine them a lot.
If it's a more balanced mix of stuff, an Order of the Dragon Cavalier (for example) has some definite advantages the Paladin lacks (a +3 to everyone's attacks including their own vs. even Neutral foes at 8th level is solid, for example). The Beast Rider Archetype and grabbing a mount who's actually terrifying even as just a flanking buddy is also a very solid boost to their power (nobody ever regrets having a pet tiger along).
Teamwork feats are also super powerful if utilized and selected properly.
Now, none of that probably makes up for the Paladin's vastly better saves and Lay on Hands, but it's not bad. some other Orders do quite a bit worse, though, at least IMO.
And, of course, if the Cavalier is likely to be overshadowed then the Rogue's likely in an even worse place...
As for Gunslinger...Gunslingers are pretty powerful, but not necessarily that fun to play. I'd instead ask the player why he's playing a Cavalier (and likely ask the rogue player the same) and then see what he likes about the concept and see if some other class reflects it better.
if your concerned about the the mount there is a samurai archetype called Swordsaint that replaces the mount. If you didn't mind a little bit of house ruling you could allow the cavalier to take that archetype, call it a sword master or something.
as for gunslingers, I don't think you have to worry about them to much in rise of the rune lords. hitting touch on goblins isn't that big of a deal, its only against the real big scary stuff where it becomes an issue. also, if you or you're players aren't complexity comfortable with firearms. there is an archetype called bolt ace that replaces it with a crossbow and is one of my favourite classes to play.
Having played through book 5 so far in RotRL with both a cavalier and a gunslinger in my party I can say that neither of these classes were an issue
the gunslinger is well-built
the cavalier has a mount
both have been fun to play alongside and neither the mount nor guns has caused an imbalance issue
|
I have a lvl 10 dwarven Daring Champion cavalier for society play. He's a gruff slave trader wielding a dwarven waraxe with dex-to-damage.
Between an AC of 32, tactician, bodyguard, challenge and precise strike I can deal s&!*-tons of damage while tanking and having some extra tricks up my sleeve.
I would ask the player if he's interested in the mounted part or not, because having to ride something in order to be effective is only a good idea roughly 50% of the time.
That said, you could let him take the mounted 'gunslinger' cavalier archetype for example, that way he can have a bit of both.
keep in mind OP:
a lot of those crappy gunslinger threads were well before weapon-cord errata and clarifications on ammunition costs
a lot of 'cavalier mounts are useless in dungeons' threads are from well before supplements like Animal Archive, Knights of the Inner Sea and Ultimate Equipment gave mounted characters a wealth of new magic items, feats, spells etc. to do all kinds of cool things with their mounts
Rise of the Runelords features giants. Lots of giants. Some of the maps are too small for those giants to actually use properly, so our GM enlarged them.
We had a paladin cohort who rode a huge mount for most of the second half of the AP. It was very effective and a lot of fun. We also had 2 multiclassed characters with levels of gunslinger. They weren't as useful as the mounted one.
I'd ban the Rogue instead. Swashbuckler is better. Bard is better. Any character with the trapfinding trait is better. Or an alchemist. Or... You get the idea?