Alternate name?


Gunslinger Class

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Sporkedup wrote:
Has there been any indication that the names of either of these classes are up for discussion at all? I wouldn't be upset to see a change to frankly either class's name, though gunslinger especially. Just curious if there is a reason to brainstorm or if Paizo has their plans set by now.

We can always give feedback. I'm fairly certain they've made up their minds already, but as they can't possibly have sent everything off to the printers yet (or they probably wouldn't be running a playtest at all), they still have the option to change their minds.

I will note that I ran a search of LO books, and I don't think I saw a single use of the word "Gunslinger". So there might be hope.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Way of the gun" is a thing. And yes, I presume it is meant to steal some spiritual gravitas for savage violence. Much like boxing is called the "sweet science", yet Tyson has published no research, though I do respect his tasty theory of "Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth" that he wrote in the Holyfield's Face Journal.*

*There's one argument for an unarmed attack that inflicts Stupefied. :)

Yet RPGs have long romanticized violent labels (i.e. Knight, Cavalier, Samurai, Paladin, etc.) which historically were applied to brutal often cruel killers. Or look how many modern fighters glorify their own dark deeds in the light of their beliefs. And so many modern narratives have outright evil heroes, but they're "good" since they have a (dubious) "code", approach their killing like an art instead of a job, or like children/nature/meditation/their soon-to-be-dead partner/loved ones/puppy.
Fantasy RPGs in particular have violence as the norm, with one's alignment/heroism determined more by target than methods.

Not that I'm saying Way couldn't go away anyway, but it'd likely be replaced by a similar term. Suggest an alternative that doesn't have such unearned gravitas.

---
Separately, when I hear Drifter I have to think of High Plains Drifter, which had the most iconic iteration who I'm unsure did much melee when conflicts got deadly. The label seemed more about his mystery, loneliness, and wandering than any martial tactics.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AnimatedPaper wrote:
Sporkedup wrote:
Has there been any indication that the names of either of these classes are up for discussion at all? I wouldn't be upset to see a change to frankly either class's name, though gunslinger especially. Just curious if there is a reason to brainstorm or if Paizo has their plans set by now.

We can always give feedback. I'm fairly certain they've made up their minds already, but as they can't possibly have sent everything off to the printers yet (or they probably wouldn't be running a playtest at all), they still have the option to change their minds.

I will note that I ran a search of LO books, and I don't think I saw a single use of the word "Gunslinger". So there might be hope.

Sounds good! I'm not trying to dissuade this suggestion, just curious if there was any room to hope we might make a dent on this.

Silver Crusade

Yep yep, haven’t seen any comment to the effect of “the name isn’t playtested, it’s here to stay” from the designers :3


Well the paladin name change I don’t believe was on the table... was it?


TheWayofPie wrote:
Well the paladin name change I don’t believe was on the table... was it?

As far as I recall it was a reaction to people disliking non-LG paladin options in the playtest, so they switched the names around.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tweezer wrote:
TheWayofPie wrote:
Well the paladin name change I don’t believe was on the table... was it?
As far as I recall it was a reaction to people disliking non-LG paladin options in the playtest, so they switched the names around.

There was only the Paladin in the playtest if I remember correctly. Liberator and Redeemer didn't exist and there was no Class path's at all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Correct that there was only the paladin in the playtest, and they were only Lawful Good (I just checked my copy).

When the latter changed is when I think the name changed, to keep LG attached to Paladins as a compromise between the "Paladins should stay LG" and "Paladins should be of any alignment" camp. I would have to check the forum threads to know for sure though. I vaguely recall a blog post about it announcing the name change ahead of the release.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Deadeye! Dead-eye! Deeeeead-Eye! DeeeeeeeAAAD-EYE! DEEEEEEAAAAADDDDDEEEEEYYYYYEEEEE!

Or something else. Really. But Deadeye is cool. Or Ace.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
But the ways don't really do a lot mechanically for you socially.

No, I mean I think if they make something called a Drifter, it should be an archetype like Celebrity and not related to Gunslinger at all. The narrative archetype of the Drifter or Stranger is much more than someone who fights a particular way. To me it is someone who flies below the radar really easily, often underestimated, doesn't have their reputation stick, and is tight lipped when they want to be. It's an archetype that is commonly seen in westerns, but can and does work in other genres too.

Sovereign Court

AnimatedPaper wrote:

Correct that there was only the paladin in the playtest, and they were only Lawful Good (I just checked my copy).

When the latter changed is when I think the name changed, to keep LG attached to Paladins as a compromise between the "Paladins should stay LG" and "Paladins should be of any alignment" camp. I would have to check the forum threads to know for sure though. I vaguely recall a blog post about it announcing the name change ahead of the release.

Which, if you look at it, worked out pretty well. The people who wanted a non-LG paladin seem happy enough with Champion/Redeemer/Liberator.

It'd be interesting to do a study which classes/subclasses get referred the most to by their subclass. People are pretty likely to say "paladin" and it's informative, because the retributive strike has a big impact on tactics. But how often do people bother declaring their wizard school choice? A wizard's gonna cast some arcane spells and that's the key thing to know.


The only other subclass that immediately springs to mind on primary nomenclature is the Warpriest.

Warpriest and Cloistered Clerics have very different expectations.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've often hears Wizards referred to by their school, especially for Illusionists and Necromancers, but maybe that's because their flavor differs from the standard enough.
And something about PF2 seems to make it common to tag on one's major choice to the class, i.e. Precision Ranger, Thief Rogue, or whatever Bloodline or Monk Stance one use. That's likely because those can make a significant difference in playstyle, even if not flavor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Ascalaphus wrote:
Which, if you look at it, worked out pretty well. The people who wanted a non-LG paladin seem happy enough with Champion/Redeemer/Liberator.

Well, mostly. The biggest voice of resistance to opening up paladins on the forum (because he based his personal sense of identity around the paladin class in RPGs) flipped out and quit Pathfinder after they announced this, but other than him, yes.

I don't think the gunslinger has nearly as ardent of a defender.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I really think that the developers have a decision to make about this class about what its core shtick is going to be, and that the name will really need to float towards what that decision is going to be.

If the class is going to be about using firearms as a primary weapon, with class features and feats tied primarily towards using a loud high damage potential weapon that requires incredible accuracy, then it should be called the gun slinger, focus entirely on how you use guns, and everything else about the class, even using other weapons with guns as switch hitter option, should be moved out of the class. Crossbows in particular are much better served with the kinds of class features you can get out of ranger, and the sling is still not a very well supported weapon to build a fighting style around. However, even just adding sling to weapons a gun slinger can use don't really do much for it that a fighter or a ranger doesn't already do. The sling, at the very least, needs an archetype to make it functional as a primary combat style and not a back up weapon.

Because of those facts, I actually like the playtest class we got as a gun slinger gunslinger for this purpose. It is pretty fun and flavorful, but only really if you use firearms. To make that work though, I think the flavor of the class and more class features should go to the care and maintenance of firearms specifically. Even with this model, I think the different ways should give an additional skill feat related to their style at level 1, in addition to a starting off combat feature.

If the class is going to offer something more than just being a hyper specialized fighter in a specific weapon group, I think that a number of things need to change about the chassis itself.

This is a terrible class to represent any character who uses a melee weapon with a firearm or one handed range weapon back up. You are too weak to really want to spend anytime ending your turn next to an enemy that is going to be able to attack you with 3 melee smashes. I am not sure the gun slinger should be the class for this, even if it was renamed to be the drifter. It really seems like a character like that should be worked into the swashbuckler mold.

The "reload 1+" class seems like a fighting style not a class. This is why basic slings don't really fit in the class. There is no flavor that makes a sling comparable to a gun, or the ways in which someone would dedicate their lives to learning their weapon. Crossbows do require a little more care, but if you were going to dedicate your life to mastering a weapon, the crossbow really wasn't the weapon for you, with the possible exception of the way of the sniper, since you really want a way to be able to have a weapon ready to fire for a long period of time if you are standing still waiting to take your shot...but the mechanics of PF2 make a Composite longbow fine for this because they have a reload time of 0 and the act of drawing an arrow and nocking it are not going to take you out of stealth. I mean really shooting with a bow is way, way, way more difficult to do stealthily (as far as the visual movements) than using any kind of weapon that can be preloaded. This is also why the sling is really not a very good weapon for the way of the sniper either, but the mechanics of holding a charge/load in PF2 don't handle that very well at all.

I really like the idea of a character who can be a whoopin' hollering ranged intimidating battlefield controller/striker. The pistolero works well for this, and actually, I think this is the class/sub-class where a sling would also work very well. There were slingers who drilled holes in their bullets that made them whistle when thrown and did very little else mechanically to the shot. Slingers would also really benefit from a combat style that made good use of having a free hand.

At the core though, the question about what should the name of this class be has to first be answered by what is the mechanical niche of the class, and I think that the different ways are so different from each other that, outside of firearms and being good at handling the finicky elements of those specific weapons, combining these 3 radically different combat styles might overly muddle what the class is good at.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Yep yep, haven’t seen any comment to the effect of “the name isn’t playtested, it’s here to stay” from the designers :3

Sadly, Michael Sayre said that on the Know Direction podcast.

I disagree with his reasoning, which is basically "people won't know it is the gunslinger if we don't call it that, and won't seek it out." The book is called "Guns and Gears." I think they'll be able to suss it out.

And like I said they'll have to call the firearm specific fighting style archetype something; Gunslinger would fit well and be a good throwback to both the old class name AND the fact that every class got a gun archetype almost purely because of the PF1 class's design.

Though I do agree with him that "Drifter" wouldn't be appropriate. It doesn't have enough thematic overlap for the class as a whole to be called that.

Unicore wrote:
At the core though, the question about what should the name of this class be has to first be answered by what is the mechanical niche of the class, and I think that the different ways are so different from each other that, outside of firearms and being good at handling the finicky elements of those specific weapons, combining these 3 radically different combat styles might overly muddle what the class is good at.

They go into this a little. It really is meant to service Reload+1 weapons, and enable some of the shootist style (his words) trick shots and actions, sniping in particular. They also do like the martial debuffing you mention. Since slings DO have some of the "one shot-one kill" pop-cultural association, especially if you grew up with "David and Goliath", I think they do fit in after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

With what we've seen, the Drifter/Stranger archetype is really not what we're looking at in this class. It is more "yeehaw" and less "steely stare". I like Maverick as a name, personally.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Well that’s disheartening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Albatoonoe wrote:
With what we've seen, the Drifter/Stranger archetype is really not what we're looking at in this class. It is more "yeehaw" and less "steely stare". I like Maverick as a name, personally.

Ha in a way, the Class plays like the enemies the Man with No Name fights more than it plays like the Man with No Name.

That's just me personally.

Hopefully a Class that can flex its themes into those tropes gets a name representative of that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Rysky wrote:
Well that’s disheartening.

Yep.

But as I said upthread, they haven't mailed it off yet. If they get enough comments in the survey, perhaps they'll reconsider that stance?

It's especially weird because this essentially comes down to marketing, where they want to keep the name to make sure it is marketed to the old fans of the gunslinger (which, alright). But in the same breath, they acknowledge that many, many gms will automatically push back against the gunslinger on the name alone, even if they have crossbow and/or sling options.

I also see that they renamed the Arcane Archer and Arcane Trickster in light of their mechanical broadening; I don't see why similar logic doesn't apply here. If they can figure out a name that is close to gunslinger without actually being that exact word, it might help pull in both the enthusiastic and the reluctant.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gunslinger terminology is iconic and sells. A lot of people like being a "Gunslinger." Gunslinger was something unique in PF1e and so became even more iconic to the game (unlike Arcane Archer/Trickster).

While I agree that accuracy in name would be best to be something like Sharpshooter, or Ace, the issue here is that it isn't so jarring as to take away from the iconic name in my opinion.

My head cannon justifies this by thinking that "gun" in Golarion terminology doesn't exclusively refer to firearms. Instead "gun" is a slang term for weapons that must be loaded. I mean, if you look at the weapons and weapon classes, the term "gun" is not used.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Invictus Novo wrote:

Gunslinger terminology is iconic and sells. A lot of people like being a "Gunslinger." Gunslinger was something unique in PF1e and so became even more iconic to the game (unlike Arcane Archer/Trickster).

While I agree that accuracy in name would be best to be something like Sharpshooter, or Ace, the issue here is that it isn't so jarring as to take away from the iconic name in my opinion.

My head cannon justifies this by thinking that "gun" in Golarion terminology doesn't exclusively refer to firearms. Instead "gun" is a slang term for weapons that must be loaded. I mean, if you look at the weapons and weapon classes, the term "gun" is not used.

As a point of interest, the word "gun" appears to originate from the name of a ballista. And of course, a ballista is basically a giant crossbow.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Invictus Novo wrote:

Gunslinger terminology is iconic and sells. A lot of people like being a "Gunslinger." Gunslinger was something unique in PF1e and so became even more iconic to the game (unlike Arcane Archer/Trickster).

While I agree that accuracy in name would be best to be something like Sharpshooter, or Ace, the issue here is that it isn't so jarring as to take away from the iconic name in my opinion.

My head cannon justifies this by thinking that "gun" in Golarion terminology doesn't exclusively refer to firearms. Instead "gun" is a slang term for weapons that must be loaded. I mean, if you look at the weapons and weapon classes, the term "gun" is not used.

I think the point is that, yes a lot of people have an impression of gunslinger already: the issue is that a LOT of it is a bad impression and I'm not sure that it "sells" as much as you think as a LOT of DM seemed to loathe it with a passion. With that in mind, and them saying they want to include options for non-gun users in the class, it seems prudent to say 'here's a class with an option for gunslingers' instead of 'here is a gun class with options for crossbows' because I think more people would give the 1st a chance while they'd just be turned off by the baseline gun inclusion.

So I think the brand recognition here isn't as much as a boon as you think.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

If Paladin got pushed into a subclass and we all made it through okay, so can Gunslinger.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

If there was a clear path to having the “gunslinger” be a distinct subset of the base class, I think the paladin solution could work. The problem is that “gunslinger” as a subset of this class makes no sense. The point is to make guns a part of Golarion that aren’t class restricted. The sniper and the drifter are 2 very different characters that are not going to be able to do well keying off the same class feature.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Unicore wrote:
The sniper and the drifter are 2 very different characters that are not going to be able to do well keying off the same class feature.

But that's what they are doing now aren't they?


I mean, they did make the choice to make a whole class Uncommon. Once you've done that then "people with this class just don't exist in this part of Golarion" is a valid choice for a campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, they did make the choice to make a whole class Uncommon. Once you've done that then "people with this class just don't exist in this part of Golarion" is a valid choice for a campaign.

Then why the push for crossbow use if it's a throw away class that only uses guns? Seems contradictory to both try it make it inclusive and also say 'take it or leave it'.


graystone wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I mean, they did make the choice to make a whole class Uncommon. Once you've done that then "people with this class just don't exist in this part of Golarion" is a valid choice for a campaign.
Then why the push for crossbow use if it's a throw away class that only uses guns? Seems contradictory to both try it make it inclusive and also say 'take it or leave it'.

Crossbows are for building in the "I like the flavor of the class, but I don't like guns" option. Like the Bolt Ace archetype for the PF1 gunslinger was popular, but it came out 3 years after the Gunslinger class. So now we're building it in from the start.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
graystone wrote:
Unicore wrote:
The sniper and the drifter are 2 very different characters that are not going to be able to do well keying off the same class feature.
But that's what they are doing now aren't they?

Not really unless each subclass is going to have its own way. Which, with legendary weapon proficiencies, means there wouldn’t really be much of room for those class features. And what would be the point of syphoning off guns into a sub class? What would the other sub classes be? Based exclusively on weapons? So the features of the class have to be tied to weapon groups that will unclude pistols and long arms together? How do you have a musketeer sword and pistol type along side a sniper?

It doesn’t make sense. I think the class is either named gun slinger or gunslinger is not a named thing, which is where I think there is marketing concerns with gun slingers being a definite thing in Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I still think the much larger issue for the class is that the chassis is built to be a crit fishing class, but there is no incentive with a crossbow or a sling to want to sink everything into one shot.

With the blunderbuss and those two other weapons, it seems like their could be a a whole path to wanting to shoot as often as possible, possibly even through a quick draw like feature instead of a reload feature, but the support isn’t there yet for it. Like eventually the pistolero feels pushed into wanting to use a one handed weapon.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
Unicore wrote:
Not really unless each subclass is going to have its own way.

Not at all. Call the overall class "Shotslingers" or "Boltslingers", or something along those line, and add a bit of flavor text that individual 'slingers are usually called by their preferred weapon, "Slugslinger", "Boltslinger", or "Gunslinger".

Unicore wrote:

I still think the much larger issue for the class is that the chassis is built to be a crit fishing class, but there is no incentive with a crossbow or a sling to want to sink everything into one shot.

With the blunderbuss and those two other weapons, it seems like their could be a a whole path to wanting to shoot as often as possible, possibly even through a quick draw like feature instead of a reload feature, but the support isn’t there yet for it. Like eventually the pistolero feels pushed into wanting to use a one handed weapon.

Simple fix. Add martial crossbows with the deadly or fatal trait in G&G.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the name of the class really matters beyond marketing, to be honest.

"Gunslinger" gets the people attracted to "cool, I can have guns in my elfgame" in the door, and everybody for whom that isn't a selling point is going to find out "oh, it can use other weapons too."

Classes are a top level choice; people are going to read all of them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I don't think the name of the class really matters beyond marketing, to be honest.

"Gunslinger" gets the people attracted to "cool, I can have guns in my elfgame" in the door, and everybody for whom that isn't a selling point is going to find out "oh, it can use other weapons too."

Classes are a top level choice; people are going to read all of them.

Except, no. The host of the podcast explicitly mentioned that he didn't even want to read the class because of the name. And wouldn't have, if he wasn't hosting a podcast on the topic.

You yourself argued quite strenuously against an inventor class because it did not fit your concept of Golarian. The name itself, without any solid information about the underlying mechanics, caught your ire. In that case, the name does match the mechanics, but there was no way to know that last month.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, "Gunslinger" doesn't sell from what I've seen.

The name Gunslinger gets it and its products banned/not bought more often than it draws people to it.

Even in P1 with the release of Bolt Ace, it was still the most banned class I saw, even more so than Summoner. People reflexively didn't want anything to do with it or want it or guns in their campaigns.

So saying they have to keep calling it Gunslinger for marketing purposes or what not I just blatantly disagree with. I do not believe it's helping them like they think it does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My point about "names don't really matter" is that if you called the PF1 class "maverick" or "ace" or whatever, and you still had the line "At 1st level, a g̶u̶n̶s̶l̶i̶n̶g̶e̶r̶ gains one of the following firearms of her choice: blunderbuss, musket, or pistol." it would have been banned at all those same tables.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I've never played at a table that banned Gunslinger, and I don't know any groups IRL my friends have played with that have either.

It's clearly not all the time and I for one would be massively disappointed if they changed the name. Gunslinger is an iconic name and it's not like Alkenstar hasn't existed since forever.

And a book called "Guns and Gears" should have a class called Gunslinger, and I think having one book with a class some tables might ban sometimes isn't that much of a deal. They still put out a bunch of stuff for Gunslinger in 1E and clearly there's enough interest in the class to put it out in 2E.

We don't have access to their internal data, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
AnimatedPaper wrote:
The host of the podcast explicitly mentioned that he didn't even want to read the class because of the name.

I mean there are people online who have bad reactions to just about anything.

We just had a massive thread blow up not too long ago because someone was complaining that PF2 didn't give them enough build diversity and combat flexibility compared to 5e of all things.

There were people who said they'd swear off PF2 over the "Champion" name, or over goblins being in core.

So if someone wants to be all reactionary about the class... that's just how it is.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
My point about "names don't really matter" is that if you called the PF1 class "maverick" or "ace" or whatever, and you still had the line "At 1st level, a g̶u̶n̶s̶l̶i̶n̶g̶e̶r̶ gains one of the following firearms of her choice: blunderbuss, musket, or pistol." it would have been banned at all those same tables.

Which isn't a scenario that's occurring in P2.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GameDesignerDM wrote:

I've never played at a table that banned Gunslinger, and I don't know any groups IRL my friends have played with that have either.

It's clearly not all the time and I for one would be massively disappointed if they changed the name. Gunslinger is an iconic name and it's not like Alkenstar hasn't existed since forever.

And a book called "Guns and Gears" should have a class called Gunslinger, and I think having one book with a class some tables might ban sometimes isn't that much of a deal. They still put out a bunch of stuff for Gunslinger in 1E and clearly there's enough interest in the class to put it out in 2E.

We don't have access to their internal data, after all.

So if the name was changed the class wouldn't be iconic anymore?

I don't think anyone's claimed there's no interest, that doesn't change that Gunslinger was in fact banned from a lot of tables I saw.


Squiggit wrote:
There were people who said they'd swear off PF2 over the "Champion" name

To be fair, it was more 1 person that REALLY, REALLY, REALLY hated it and started a few dozen threads to say so. I'm sure there where others that disliked it too but I only recall a single person that was taking his dice and going home. ;)

Squiggit wrote:
We just had a massive thread blow up not too long ago because someone was complaining that PF2 didn't give them enough build diversity and combat flexibility compared to 5e of all things.

Sure, you can always find "someone" that's different than the norm: I don't recall a lot of people agreeing with that someone, do you?

Squiggit wrote:
goblins being in core

Well, you did find one here that's similar: myself, I just don't play a game with a goblin much like I don't play with a kender either. The thing is is that it's not TOO similar as it's not only the class but the equipment that goes with it: guns. It means buying into a completely different type of fantasy in a way shifting the rarity of goblin PC's never will.

51 to 91 of 91 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Guns and Gears Playtest / Gunslinger Class / Alternate name? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Gunslinger Class