Ultimate Combat Playtest: Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai

[Azgulor]

I do think that a revolver probably is outside of most D&D games, the pistol/musket as written in the playtest I have no problem with. As I can only 'judge' what is in the playtest and not some future product that might or might not transfer to the end product of this playtest, I think reffering to unknowns and judging something (the gunslinger class) based on assumptions, is a bit like jumping the gun ;-)

May I direct you to Ed Greenwood's Golarion web fiction on Paizo's webpage:

http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/tales/serial

Unfortunately, Alkenstar is in Golarion.

Fortunately, to date at least, per the Campaign Setting, the influence of firearms has been minimal as magic is more effective. Players, on the other hand, often choose not to conform to campaign setting canon & frameworks. So when a PC wants to try out their shiny new gunslinger, you can say they can't find any ammo, but there are countless posters on this site alone that will tell your player that you're being a crappy GM for limiting the player's "fun".

Frankly, Greenwood's Alkenstar web fiction is as jarring to the setting as the (thankfully) aborted/redacted artwork of pith-helmet & cartridge-firing rifle-weilding explorers that debuted early in the setting's history. It DOESN'T FIT.

There are plenty of things that are cool. Not all of them belong in a single campaign setting. Some people like guns in the frpgs. I get it. But I think advanced firearms & a gunslinger class take it too far, and since I'm not a fan of the retcon, I'd prefer not to throw open this particular Pandora's Box in Golarion. The fact that it was cracked open at all was quite enough for my tastes. YMMV.

 

[thundershot]

I LIKE Firearms in D&D. Not tons of them, but if a character concept warranted firearms, more power to 'em.

I don't, however, like the Gunslinger alt-class. I think the whole grit thing is clunky and would do best with bonus feats or special abilities. It should also be its own class.

The Ninja and Samurai, if not their own unique classes (isn't a PF OA coming out this year? Wouldn't they fit better there?), should just be alternate class sets instead of making it look like a class.

As for firearms rules... they don't bother me, but I'd rather just KISS (keep it simple, stupid) and have a bunch of them listed like 3.5 for use in games with some minor rules. I don't like the misfiring returning...

 

[Kaisoku]

This I had seen. However, this is addressing class features & multi-classing. It is not saying that ninja replaces rogue or gunslinger replaces the fighter class in the campaign.

Thanks for finding that quote, though.

The classes don't replace them. They are choices alongside them. However, you can't be a Fighter 1 / Gunslinger 1, and that's what people are talking about.

These classes are meant to be similar to the Cavalier/Rogue/Fighter because they are meant to be alternative versions.

But no one is saying that you cannot have one PC playing a Fighter and another playing a Gunslinger.

 

[Azgulor]

The classes don't replace them. They are choices alongside them. However, you can't be a Fighter 1 / Gunslinger 1, and that's what people are talking about.

These classes are meant to be similar to the Cavalier/Rogue/Fighter because they are meant to be alternative versions.

But no one is saying that you cannot have one PC playing a Fighter and another playing a Gunslinger.

Fair enough, but earlier in this thread, as well as in others on Paizo's boards, replace is the term being used.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[pawsplay]

I've seen some of the comments you've made for the Samurai repeated by more than a few others in the beta test forums, and I'll have to echo my sentiments from there here: I don't think people have really looked through the class fully.

What if you're wrong, and people have scrutinized it carefully? Do you think they might feel annoyed by your comment?

 

[pawsplay]

Personally I think it gives a more strategic depth to the fighter class, it might not be the most realistic mechanic, but neither are hitpoints (as a side note, a classic pistol bullet goes pretty good through plate armor and don't have things like Golems DR?).

Any real-life gun instructor will warn you against shooting traffic signs and garage doors, much less a contoured steel plate. You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

 

[SlyDoubt]

I just stumbled upon the download this morning while checking which issues of Dragon I was missing. Very cool.

I think Paizo is doing an awesome job letting people take a look and test for them, it keeps us engaged and it allows them to release a product they know has a good deal of support already.

It's really a genius idea (not a new one) and shows they have balls (compared to wotc...)

The alternate class idea I think is to cut those options out. You cannot be a gunslinger/fighter or a ninja/rogue. I think that's probably the most important note here and what will keep PF from bloating into a terrible mess down the line. Alternate classes are really a great idea because they isolate some issues that might arise and conflicts with class direction/function being unique. Really everything should follow this format from here on out.

The alternate class abilities were great to give classes other than sorcerer, cleric, wizard, etc more variety in style. That should be done now though, I really do not want to see more of that, there's already a ridiculous amount of material to go through.

I think Paizo struck gold with alternate classes. the anti-paladin seemed lame and sort of meh thrown in the book when I first read it. Now seeing that alternate classes will be a specific trend/mechanic I'm pretty excited. Extremely basic and obvious idea that immediately reduces bloat drastically and keeps class themes firmly in place. It's much like the essentials 4e builds which I also thought were an excellent way of doing things. The alternate classes are alternate class sets. It would be the same as being called a Rogue and looking at the 'Ninja' subsection and choosing abilities from that instead of the standard rogue stuff. The difference is it forces someone to make a choice immediately. Rogue or ninja, you can't have both. That's huge.

They all look fun and interesting. I really don't care how much bleed over there is between core class and alternate. Honestly. You can look at both core and alternate and decide which fits better. They're different just not drastically so because they're meant to fill the same kind of function just go about it a bit differently. This is a good thing. Classes should each live in their own design space but they need flexibility within that to be interesting.

I wouldn't be surprised to see an alternate class for every class currently available. The important thing will be to make them different but also gain use from similar feat choices/magic items. In this case each relies on a point pool to use abilities as opposed to having x rounds per day. This changes things considerably and when you add feats I think we'll find they're quite different. This is also the first playtest.

Edit: Come on, gunslinger/inquisitor sounds awesome. How can anyone dislike that.

 

[Vrex]

snip...

Edit: Come on, gunslinger/inquisitor sounds awesome. How can anyone dislike that.

HECK YEAH!! Sign me up for that!

 

[Azmyth]

FYI: I am not the target audience of the Ultimate Combat Playtest!
1) I've always been opposed to firearm technology in fantasy RPGs.
2) I've never had any affinity toward Asian settings or arch-types (in gaming).

Upon first look-no reading.
Gunslinger, really?
Ninja, no way.
Samurai, meh.

I know that my tastes are not representative of the average RP gamer. That's fine, I still want to help Paizo smooth out the design and I value their efforts to involve the community in the process.

We had a Gunslinger on my PFS table last night...
[Society play is the bleeding edge of play testing for the PFRPG]

Playing along side a (1st level) Gunslinger:
The action economy of the class seemed a bit awkward. He appeared to be burdened by the reload action and it's drain on his options in combat.
Spending Grit appeared to be essential to the character being effective in combat. Grit being equal to your WIS mod per day. He used his last on the second encounter. This is balanced by gaining Grit back on Critical hits, Kill shots and (non-Society legal) Daring Acts. Our 'Slinger didn't have much luck with crits or kill shots. His damage output was far lower than the Human Archer of the same level. I suspect that will always be the case, just short of Feat and/or Equipment compensation.

I suspect that a good deal of combat strength is being sacrificed for the GS's flavor. I'm not certain why the gunslinger is an alternate class for the fighter core class. Perception is not a class skill for shooter?! I'm sure there's solid debate why you wouldn't want the GS based on the Rogue core. Personally, I'd like to see it lean in that design direction. It's more natural than shoe-horning it into a Fighter.

The cost of operating a 'Slinger is very high and I suspect that this was a balancing effort for regular campaigns. It Society play starting GS builds get between 2,000-2,500gp of gear for free. I suppose this is on par with the Cavalier's horse.

I hope this arch-type will undergo severe edits in play-testing.
I believe it needs it in order to achieve the Paizo bar of quality.

 

[SlyDoubt]

Anyone who thinks the Samurai is like the Cavalier or in some way not unique hasn't read the class all the way through. He's nothing like a cavalier except in base function (challenge mechanic, has a mount, gives morale bonuses). He has resolve points which he gains back anytime he succeeds in a challenge that can make him ridiculously tough. I don't see how that has anything to do with cavalier or even fighter. Neither have that function and afaik no feats grant these kinds of abilities.

Cavaliers buff allies with feats and order abilities while challenging. They're tactical guys who give the whole party an edge in a fight. Samurai are just ridiculously tough guys who everyone in the party can probably count on to make it out alive. I can see Samurai/Cleric or Oracle being incredibly useful/interesting. For me the least interesting is the ninja. Samurai seems very cool, not for the look specifically but the idea. I think the mechanics are flavorful and fun while still being plenty useful. Replace 'samurai' with 'juggernaut' if the flavor is so offensive.

Azmyth: As for Gunslinger being rogue alternate. No I disagree entirely. The gunslinger is a professional soldier trained to use firearms. If gunslinger was alt for rogue you couldn't make a rogue/gunslinger which means no sudden pistol draw sneak attacks or cool moments possible with that combination. So no, I think that's a terrible idea all around.

In play I haven't seen it yet so I'm sure you're right about how grit functions as it stands right now.

Gunslinger goes well with so many classes which is why it should be an alt for fighter. Gunslinger/ranger makes me think of monster hunter which is awesome (imho).