Keeping The Gunslinger and other Unique Ideas


Prerelease Discussion

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

With Pathfinder 2.0 coming out it is my greatest hope that some the things Paizo has made be brought to this new edition. One of which is the ingenuity to make an actual Gunslinger class and its related archetypes so here's hope we see a Gunslinger 2.0 and I hope to see what other options Paizo has created that people love.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Id love a Gunslinger. I think that the action system might make them a lot more fun, frankly.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd rather just make gunslinging something that any martial class can pick up options to do proficiently. There's nothing particularly interesting about the Gunslinger that you couldn't incorporate into the Fighter.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

We don't have specific classes for other fighting styles, like archery or two-weapon fighting or sword-and-board. Why do guns need a specific class just to support the idea of being a guy who uses a gun? I concur with Arachnofiend; guns should be an option that anyone can integrate into their build with feat and/or archetype support. If Gunslinger is to make a comeback, it needs a bigger niche than just "guy who uses a gun".


Yes,
but if that means scrapping entirely the panache/grit systems I would be disappointed.

At the same time, it would be just as bad panache/grit it became the default martial system.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dasrak wrote:

We don't have specific classes for other fighting styles, like archery or two-weapon fighting or sword-and-board. Why do guns need a specific class just to support the idea of being a guy who uses a gun? I concur with Arachnofiend; guns should be an option that anyone can integrate into their build with feat and/or archetype support. If Gunslinger is to make a comeback, it needs a bigger niche than just "guy who uses a gun".

Swashbuckler. Dervish Dance Magus. Magus in general.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The panache/grit system is also something that could be incorporated into the base system and applied to every class. Starfinder's resolve is a step towards this, though not a complete one.

I'd be happy to build a gunslinger as a Fighter, maybe with an archetype, and a global pool of do-cool-stuff-points.


I agree any martial class should be able to use firearms (or any other element of the combat rules) effectively. So, surely a fighter should be able to sling guns.

Panache/Grit could make a class of its own (I'm calling it the soldier in my home game) that has less training than a fighter, but compensates with a gung ho attitude and inspired improvisation in the field. If you see the experienced fighter as a martial arts master knowing lots of techniques and combinations, the experienced soldier would instead be the archetypal trooper, with a smaller list of tricks but the ability to give that extra push when needed.

How this world all work out in PF2 is hard to say, as grit is a very gamey mechanism it is naturally very much affected by how the game works.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I just hope we get firearms in the core rules. If we do, I think a gunslinger-like abilities are probably a given as well.


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Dasrak wrote:

We don't have specific classes for other fighting styles, like archery or two-weapon fighting or sword-and-board. Why do guns need a specific class just to support the idea of being a guy who uses a gun? I concur with Arachnofiend; guns should be an option that anyone can integrate into their build with feat and/or archetype support. If Gunslinger is to make a comeback, it needs a bigger niche than just "guy who uses a gun".

Swashbuckler. Dervish Dance Magus. Magus in general.

The Magus, at its core, exists to be a hybrid arcane spellcaster / melee fighter without having to multiclass. The specific mechanics of PF1 and the Magus class itself were what funneled it towards the "1H Weapon + Spell" style that ultimately pushed it towards the Scimitar and Dervish Dance. With the PF2 action economy, one can make an attack and cast a spell in the same turn with no need for Spell Combat / Spellstrike. The Magus might then simply combine 3/4 BAB, 6th level Wizard spellcasting, and Arcane casting in armor, into a single class with no restriction in fighting style.

The Swashbuckler should have been the game's Dex Fighter without such a tight restriction in fighting style (which, hilariously, made them better off with a Battleaxe than with a Rapier for a while). It could just as easily have been a Fighter archetype, but the decision was made that the ACG would have 10 hybrid classes and Swashbuckler was one of them.

Though the Deeds themselves are mostly underwhelming I actually like the Grit/Panache system in principle, and I would be happy to see martial classes use a similar system to power their extraordinary abilities. A bit of trivia for 5e players: All Fighters in the 5e playtest had Superiority Dice, but the grognards unfortunately prevailed and the mechanic was relegated to the Battlemaster archetype only. A missed opportunity, IMO.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want to see gunslinging in some form primarily because I want an Alkenstar AP. I don't see that happening without guns.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Athaleon wrote:
The Magus might then simply combine 3/4 BAB, 6th level Wizard spellcasting, and Arcane casting in armor into a single class, with no restriction in fighting style.

Speaking of this, I'm really curious to see the Eldritch Knight in PF2E. I really hope it doesn't get cut; it didn't escape me that archetypes and multiclassing got mentioned explicitly but prestige classes did not. The PrC's got a raw deal in PF1E, being devoid of class features and lacking the interesting options the base classes got (no equivalent of rage powers or rogue talents for PrC's). I can see this as a chance to really do justice. It would also mean we'd have both a prepared and spontaneous "magus" right out the gate, since both wizard and sorcerer would be options for entry.


I'm not terribly worried. Afterall, they have to keep selling books in 2020+

So I expect the initial books beyond Core & Monsters I will rehash a fair amount of stuff. at least in some fashion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm on the side of Gunslingers not being their own class. 1E sets down very clearly that Gunslingers are the only class that can use firearms capably well (briefly ignoring a certain Fighter archetype from Reign of Winter), and that what Gunslingers do is shoot guns.

For a full character class, we need more depth than "guy what shoot guns good", and I very much dislike combat strategies being baked in with classes (Gunslingers and firearms, Swashbucklers and fencing, Cavaliers and mounted charges).

I hope that 2E opens up options for any class to be competent in whatever combat strategy that they hope to focus on.

I also hope that 2E does incorporate some form of grit/panache/luck user, either as its own class or a series of archetypes for other classes. The tenacious warrior adapting to the flow of battle, and plying gambits to get rewards is a very fun style of fighting, right alongside meticulously choosing class features for your build and slinging spells.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a PF2E Gunslinger just being a Fighter who chooses some type of firearm as his preferred weapon along with a few other appropriate choices.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm fine with gunslinger being an archtype for Fighter or another class. A lot of the advanced classes could just be archtype for base classes in 2.0


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, I'm in the camp that thinks a lot of base and hybrid classes being archetypes. Especially since they're baked in now. Gunslinger is one of them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
sadie wrote:
..., and a global pool of do-cool-stuff-points.

Can I put in my vote for a class with a "do-cool-stuff" pool that drives class abilities. I don't care what the class is, as long as they have a pool of points with this specific title ;)


Not sure if I'm in a "give everyone cool points" team. I kind of agree to Gunslinger as an archtype. Hell, I built it in 5e as just a fighter, it wasn't hard. Everyone having a point pool though to me would feel a little same-y. Maybe make the fighter the "cool stuff point pool" class, since it lost it's appeal over the years, and make gunslinger and swashbuckler archtypes of it?

I do agree to firearms being accessible to everyone though. I'd go as far as they've been in PF long enough, make them a martial weapon in the new PF2 Golarion (at least the base pistol, musket, blunderbuss. The more exotics like the double barrel pistol or advanced firearms can remain exotic).

While I'm on that one though, if it's still a feat, make Exotic Weapon Proficiency a better feat. Simple, you get all simple, Martial, all martial, but exotic you get one? At least 3 man, or make it weapon groups like exotic firearms, or swords or whatever. That alone would make some things more accessible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe the Fighter can choose a class feat called "gunslinger" that gives proficiency with guns and opens up a feat chain which gives Grit and Deeds based on how many "gun feats" you select


Paizo could "keep" most of their old classes without a formal write up with comprehensive "create your own class rules"

Followed by "create your own equipment rules" and feats, and spells, and artifacts.


Eliandra Giltessan wrote:
I want to see gunslinging in some form primarily because I want an Alkenstar AP. I don't see that happening without guns.

Absolutely. Given the existence of Alkenstar in the setting (and the claim they won't be making catastrophic setting changes), guns will be around and some kind of gunslinger will be available.

Most likely not in the initial Core release and hopefully with some of the controversial issues smoothed out from the start.

The other possibility for at least some of the PF1 unique ideas is that 3pp will update them before Paizo gets to them. Which might let Paizo concentrate on new unique ideas.


Dasrak wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
The Magus might then simply combine 3/4 BAB, 6th level Wizard spellcasting, and Arcane casting in armor into a single class, with no restriction in fighting style.
Speaking of this, I'm really curious to see the Eldritch Knight in PF2E. I really hope it doesn't get cut; it didn't escape me that archetypes and multiclassing got mentioned explicitly but prestige classes did not. The PrC's got a raw deal in PF1E, being devoid of class features and lacking the interesting options the base classes got (no equivalent of rage powers or rogue talents for PrC's). I can see this as a chance to really do justice. It would also mean we'd have both a prepared and spontaneous "magus" right out the gate, since both wizard and sorcerer would be options for entry.

I somehow suspect that Prestige Classes will get dropped. They never got much support, Paizo never seemed to interested in them or in the "multiclassing is always the best approach" philosophy behind them.


MR. H wrote:

Paizo could "keep" most of their old classes without a formal write up with comprehensive "create your own class rules"

Followed by "create your own equipment rules" and feats, and spells, and artifacts.

Could, but balanced comprehensive "create your own class" rules are probably more work and harder to get right than just making all the classes. Less page count, I suppose.

Dark Archive

In the Know Direction interview with Erik Mona and Logan Bonner it was mentioned that Gunslingers and firearms won't be in the playtest or the Core rulebook, since they don't fit the standard fantasy trope. They want to give GMs an easy way to exclude firearms in their games if they want to, by not integrating them deeply into core.

They also mentioned that they want gunslingers and firearms to remain rare, so that every fighter won't easily have a backup firearm.


MR. H wrote:
Paizo could "keep" most of their old classes without a formal write up with comprehensive "create your own class rules"

Unlikely. For Paizo to make profit, people must be convinced that it's impossible to play a good X concept until Paizo prints it

The Exchange

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
D@rK-SePHiRoTH- wrote:
MR. H wrote:
Paizo could "keep" most of their old classes without a formal write up with comprehensive "create your own class rules"
Unlikely. For Paizo to make profit, people must be convinced that it's impossible to play a good X concept until Paizo prints it

They didn't do that with 3.5 and there's no reason to think that they will do it with PF1. They actually supported people giving out their homebrew conversions vie the forums, and were nothing but supportive to 3PPs tackling topics like the Psionic and other classes.

The simple truth is that they won't be able to tackle all PF1 material at once. I'm sure they will come up with splatbooks to follow and update some of the material but I wouldn't even be very surprised if some of the 2E follow-up classes would look quite different from their PF1 predecessors.


thejeff wrote:
MR. H wrote:

Paizo could "keep" most of their old classes without a formal write up with comprehensive "create your own class rules"

Followed by "create your own equipment rules" and feats, and spells, and artifacts.

Could, but balanced comprehensive "create your own class" rules are probably more work and harder to get right than just making all the classes. Less page count, I suppose.

True, but those are the kinds of things that would impress me about 2e.

Starfinder seems alright, but it lacked a "wow" factor that I personally need to get interested in a new system.


I like having the Gunslinger as a class. But I don't see the need to keep a cavalier as it's own class.

I like the Swashbuckler but it depends on how they make the fighter(or rogue) work that depends on the need for this one.

I like the Brawler but like I said depends on how the fighter will work in this system.

The main classes I want to see outside core are Gunslinger, Hunter, Investigator, Kineticist, Medium, Mesmerist, Oracle, Occultist, Psychic, Spiritualist, Summoner, and Witch. Would love to see good versions of the Samurai and Ninja as well.

I would like to make the PF2E version of the Investigator to be very different then just a Alchemist + Rogue.

I would like the hunter to be martial class with a pet. No spellcasting but some supernatural powers.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So the Gunslinger came up specifically in our (Know Direction) interview last night with Erik Mona and Logan Bonner.

They said they wanted to not include them in the core yet, for several reasons (flavor, rarity, unique mechanics.)

And when they do reintroduce the Gunslinger, they wanted to have a very focused play-test on the mechanics this time around.


MR. H wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MR. H wrote:

Paizo could "keep" most of their old classes without a formal write up with comprehensive "create your own class rules"

Followed by "create your own equipment rules" and feats, and spells, and artifacts.

Could, but balanced comprehensive "create your own class" rules are probably more work and harder to get right than just making all the classes. Less page count, I suppose.

True, but those are the kinds of things that would impress me about 2e.

Starfinder seems alright, but it lacked a "wow" factor that I personally need to get interested in a new system.

It's sort of the Holy Grail of class systems. I'm not convinced it's possible.

It's hard enough to get individual class designs right, as we've seen in plenty of Paizo examples over the years. Far, far harder to make generic class builder rules.

Even the much simpler item design system is surrounded by huge caveats like "first base new item prices on existing items. Only if that doesn't work use the formulas. Don't allow abuses."

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32

Dasrak wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
The Magus might then simply combine 3/4 BAB, 6th level Wizard spellcasting, and Arcane casting in armor into a single class, with no restriction in fighting style.
Speaking of this, I'm really curious to see the Eldritch Knight in PF2E. I really hope it doesn't get cut; it didn't escape me that archetypes and multiclassing got mentioned explicitly but prestige classes did not. The PrC's got a raw deal in PF1E, being devoid of class features and lacking the interesting options the base classes got (no equivalent of rage powers or rogue talents for PrC's). I can see this as a chance to really do justice. It would also mean we'd have both a prepared and spontaneous "magus" right out the gate, since both wizard and sorcerer would be options for entry.

It might be too much to hope for, but I'd love to see the eldritch knight become obsolete in 2nd edition. That would mean that multiclassing works better, so you can do a proper fighter/mage without needing a third class to glue the two together.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

I wouldn't mind if guns were a viable option for all characters, thus not really requiring a separate gunslinger class. I am not sure WHAT class I most want to see next, but I would like to see a much better mounted combat system and a revamped cavalier. Witch, Investigator, Magus, and Kineticist would also top my list.

Honestly, as much as people are worried about simplification, my biggest hope is that the new rules will open up MORE design space, allowing a greater diversity of classes than what we can do in the current system, without running up against the core classes or other constraints.


Not gonna lie, I love my terrible arachnid Wildsoul Vigilante. I'd like to see her corners smoothed out in 2e, and unfortunately my build with her uses Style feats and Nightmare Fist, so there's a good chance she won't be rebuildable in 2e for a long while.

But, I like the Vigilante, the concept of essentially running 2 characters, a combat one and a pure-social/professional. I can't see another class really capturing that same niche, while keeping all the fluffy archtypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Darafern wrote:

In the Know Direction interview with Erik Mona and Logan Bonner it was mentioned that Gunslingers and firearms won't be in the playtest or the Core rulebook, since they don't fit the standard fantasy trope. They want to give GMs an easy way to exclude firearms in their games if they want to, by not integrating them deeply into core.

They also mentioned that they want gunslingers and firearms to remain rare, so that every fighter won't easily have a backup firearm.

They also mentioned that they want to put the Gunslinger in a separate book where they can have an extensive playtest separate from the one for the new core rulebook. Apparently they want to revise this class extensively for the new edition.

Shadow Lodge

Darafern wrote:

In the Know Direction interview with Erik Mona and Logan Bonner it was mentioned that Gunslingers and firearms won't be in the playtest or the Core rulebook, since they don't fit the standard fantasy trope. They want to give GMs an easy way to exclude firearms in their games if they want to, by not integrating them deeply into core.

They also mentioned that they want gunslingers and firearms to remain rare, so that every fighter won't easily have a backup firearm.

You mean like just saying no? I don't know about you but Mad Scientist making Chemical Warfare weapons isn't very Fantasy either, and yet the Alchemist made it in.

Also Gunslingers won't be all that rare. That's an issue here. No class should be 'rare' at all. That's just my opinion though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Charlie Brooks wrote:
It might be too much to hope for, but I'd love to see the eldritch knight become obsolete in 2nd edition. That would mean that multiclassing works better, so you can do a proper fighter/mage without needing a third class to glue the two together.

If the Eldritch Knight as a build can live on without the Eldritch Knight as a class due to better multiclassing support, then I can accept that. I'll miss the Eldritch Knight, since it was the banner-carrier for an interesting and underappreciated PF1E build, but if it's no longer needed for its own signature build then its inclusion isn't necessary.

However, I'm going to keep bringing it up until I see the rules for myself and can confirm that the EK is either present or truly unnecessary. The reason is that this build is important to me, I like the Eldritch Knight build and everything it represents (and everything it does that the Magus doesn't) and want to see it in PF2E.

Darafern wrote:
They also mentioned that they want gunslingers and firearms to remain rare, so that every fighter won't easily have a backup firearm.

This was part of the problem with PF1E firearms. They required so much investment and effort to be competent with that it turned all gun-users into dedicated gun-specialists who eschewed all other weapon types. This in turn meant many iconic firearm-based concepts (like the musketeer or pirate) that mix firearms and melee combat were completely unworkable. So I disagree entirely; a fighter should be able to pick a firearm as his secondary weapon with little effort if he wants to. If that's not the game you want to play... then play with no-firearm rules.

It also created a very real problem that gun-user builds were basically indistinguishable from level 1-5 because they had to take the same class and the same feat chains. Your build only started going in the direction you wanted it to starting at 6th level, which is very late to start getting genuine customization choices.


Dragonborn3 wrote:


You mean like just saying no? I don't know about you but Mad Scientist making Chemical Warfare weapons isn't very Fantasy either, and yet the Alchemist made it in.

I read that as basically variations on the theme of Greek fire, fwiw, which entirely fits as an element in even fairly restrictive fantasy settings.

ETA: got the quote-nesting wrong, sorry.


Dasrak wrote:


This was part of the problem with PF1E firearms. They required so much investment and effort to be competent with that it turned all gun-users into dedicated gun-specialists who eschewed all other weapon types.

This would also be something I regard as a feature rather than a bug, and doubly so given the rarity and strangeness of firearms on most of Golarion.


I loved the fact that Pathfinder included guns as part of their system, and the gunslinger as a class option. I do believe they should be part of the core system, as having base firearms in the book will make their integration with rules in the future easier. That's my belief anyway.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I think what I dislike most about gunslingers is their ridiculous rates of fire with black powder muzzle loading weapons. Yes, I know this is fantasy game where fantastic things happen, but 6 shots + per round, equivalent to one or more reloads per second, is just plain dumb in my book.


The only problem with guns in core is that will mean a GM may have a harder time banning them if he doesn't want them in the book. All the time people request no gunslingers sans bolt ace for games. And gunslinger is much more than just "Shoots guns" it's "Shoots guns with authority/style." And all gun proficiency takes is a single feat to get all of them, and with feats a plenty now, i dont think it's too much to ask someone be trained to use firearms


Dragonborn3 wrote:
Darafern wrote:

In the Know Direction interview with Erik Mona and Logan Bonner it was mentioned that Gunslingers and firearms won't be in the playtest or the Core rulebook, since they don't fit the standard fantasy trope. They want to give GMs an easy way to exclude firearms in their games if they want to, by not integrating them deeply into core.

They also mentioned that they want gunslingers and firearms to remain rare, so that every fighter won't easily have a backup firearm.

You mean like just saying no? I don't know about you but Mad Scientist making Chemical Warfare weapons isn't very Fantasy either, and yet the Alchemist made it in.

Also Gunslingers won't be all that rare. That's an issue here. No class should be 'rare' at all. That's just my opinion though.

I don't think it's so much that they want the class to be rare among players as they don't want a world in which guns and firearm tech is commonplace. Occasional wandering gunslingers and Alkenstar with its weapons, but not the average town militia drilling with muskets or raiding parties of goblins with braces of pistols.

Which they wouldn't have because guns are so expensive, but guns are theoretically so expensive because they're rare, so ...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm highly amused that people complain about Alchemists being too far out of the realm of pathfinder when, in a sense, they've been there since the beginning of pathfinder. Who do you think made those Alechemist's Fires you used to kill swarms?

And actual alchemy, unless I'm mistaken, is in fact older than the medieval era, even if it wasn't really introduced to that area until till about halfway through it. (Medieval setting being between 5th and 15th century, with alchemy being introduced to the era in 1144)


Garfaulk Sharpstone wrote:
The only problem with guns in core is that will mean a GM may have a harder time banning them if he doesn't want them in the book.

From whom ?


Garfaulk Sharpstone wrote:
The only problem with guns in core is that will mean a GM may have a harder time banning them if he doesn't want them in the book.

GMing for people who won't accept your authority for something as "session 0" as that sort of campaign-setting decision seems likely to be a non-starter anyway IMO, so better to find the conflicts early.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

A couple of things here.

The Gunslinger class needed to be a 3/4ths BAB class, not a full one.

The gun needs to have touch attacks through abilities and activation, not as a default.

The fighter main weapon should still be a sword.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / Keeping The Gunslinger and other Unique Ideas All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion