[QUOTE=Crimor;48889078]Both of them can be, the best thing to remember is that pen and paper rpg rules aren't rules, they're suggestions.[/QUOTE]
Right. Thanks for the help and suggestions everyone!
I think I'll stick with Only War. Might get DH later down the road when I can afford it and have a look at that.
[QUOTE=GlebGuy;48889125]So I made a spastic, cowardly college nerd for a M&M3e game, with great powers and abilities, but absolutely no experience or training to use them.
Someone on /tg/ drew him because they liked the concept so much:
[img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/zSKPicK.png[/img_thumb]
Too bad I got called for extra shifts on the [I]exact[/I] same time and day I'd be playing.[/QUOTE]
oh are we waving our custom character arts again?
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13239915/Chars/mr.toadp2.png[/t]
do i win
[editline]12th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=elowin;48888937]No. You are absolutely wrong.
Archers don't have to worry about things like that, but the reason for that is those issues are what balances guns compared to bows. Because without those issues, guns are straight up better.
You are massively underestimating how powerful a well built gunslinger is. When it comes to DPS they outperform nearly anyone short of a flanking rogue.
Class ability wise, they don't get a whole lot of stuff with utility outside of combat. Most classes don't, though. The most useful things outside of combat are generally skills, and gunslingers get a decent selection of class skills and an okayish amount of skill points.[/QUOTE]
i can promise you gunslingers are weenie get destroyed tier against anyone who can actually build properly
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;48889915]oh are we waving our custom character arts again?
[t]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13239915/Chars/mr.toadp2.png[/t]
do i win[/QUOTE]
Yes, yes you do.
Here's my dwarf by our own lovely omarfr
[t]http://i.imgur.com/FCHN7kI.png[/t]
Character art that we got drawn?
[T]http://i.imgur.com/Ej4db8v.png[/T]
[T]http://i.imgur.com/E5yYelx.jpg[/T]
[T]http://i.imgur.com/7La6ZoI.png[/T]
From /tg/.
Making up creatures when existing ones would do fine just to set myself up for puns, I am the greatest GM.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;48889915]i can promise you gunslingers are weenie get destroyed tier against anyone who can actually build properly[/QUOTE]
maybe if you absolutely exploit shit and stack fifty thousand feats up for doing one specific thing¨
aka anti-fun
[QUOTE=elowin;48892482]maybe if you absolutely exploit shit and stack fifty thousand feats up for doing one specific thing¨
aka anti-fun[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the issue with gunslinger is that it's very easy to be very good at shooting things, but difficult to be good at anything else.
I GMed a game of Pathfinder with a Gunslinger, Paladin, Blackblade Magus, Archer Fighter, and a Ninja.
I can say without a doubt, bar some lucky crits from the Paladin (read: every single time he was separated from the group and couldn't hog up the glory), the Archer consistently dealt the most damage out of anyone else in the party.
@ Kobalt : That's because archery is extremely strong in pathfinder.
@ Elo : Oh, so, if I'm an archer, I'm not supposed to stack feats that make my character useful and viable? I didn't realize that I'm supposed to deliberately cripple myself if I'm not playing a shitty class like a Gunslinger. :v:
Again- You may have seen a game where your Gunslinger excelled. This is not the norm. They are a very, very weak class. As Party Hats was saying; Any tier list will show you how awful they are. They're literally one stage above the NPC classes.
I also understand that the tier lists are subjective, and heavily weighted towards classes with many options and abilities to make use of. I'm only using the tier lists as an example, however, as it's easier than going into great depth explaining why Gunslingers are generally outmatched by other classes.
Honestly I don't care how strong a class is so long as I'm having fun. Selecting your characters class because "its stronger then the others" is pretty dumb.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;48892860]Honestly I don't care how strong a class is so long as I'm having fun. Selecting your characters class because "its stronger then the others" is pretty dumb.[/QUOTE]
That was never the purpose of this discussion. I was arguing that the class isn't OP and doesn't need t be nerfed, because it's only good at one thing.
[QUOTE=Oliolio;48892803]@ Elo : Oh, so, if I'm an archer, I'm not supposed to stack feats that make my character useful and viable? I didn't realize that I'm supposed to deliberately cripple myself if I'm not playing a shitty class like a Gunslinger. :v:[/QUOTE]
right that's deffo what I said
l o l
[QUOTE=Oliolio;48892803]Again- You may have seen a game where your Gunslinger excelled. This is not the norm. They are a very, very weak class. As Party Hats was saying; Any tier list will show you how awful they are. They're literally one stage above the NPC classes.
I also understand that the tier lists are subjective, and heavily weighted towards classes with many options and abilities to make use of. I'm only using the tier lists as an example, however, as it's easier than going into great depth explaining why Gunslingers are generally outmatched by other classes.[/QUOTE]
So in other words you have no argument.
If you're too lazy to actually produce an argument, you shouldn't be getting into a discussion about it.
[QUOTE=elowin;48893024]right that's deffo what I said
l o l
So in other words you have no argument.
If you're too lazy to actually produce an argument, you shouldn't be getting into a discussion about it.[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE=elowin;48892482]maybe if you absolutely exploit shit and stack fifty thousand feats up for doing one specific thing¨
aka anti-fun[/QUOTE]
You say 'exploit', but it's intended that you stack feats that are relevant, else feats wouldn't stack at all.
As for your suggestion that I'm not producing an argument; I already explained why they're a shit class, and then referenced material easily available online to support my argument... Not to wave it away.
[QUOTE=Oliolio;48893059]No.
You say 'exploit', but it's intended that you stack feats that are relevant, else feats wouldn't stack at all.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm specifically talking about some of the dumb exploity combinations you can produce through the fact that not every feat ever was balanced with every other feat ever in mind.
[QUOTE=Oliolio;48893059]As for your suggestion that I'm not producing an argument; I already explained why they're a shit class, and then referenced material easily available online to support my argument... Not to wave it away.[/QUOTE]
When was this? I see literally nothing except for this
[QUOTE=Oliolio;48888623]All these enchantments to fix problems with the class that an archer needn't worry about. A Slayer, Zen Archer Monk, Fighter or Ranger could all outclass you at your role and have considerably more utility besides. Yes, you shoot versus touch within 30 feet. Your sorcerer or wizard can do that with disintegrate at 200. Your Kineticist can shoot versus touch all day long at a thousand yards, and still have considerably more utility than you.
The problem with Gunslingers is that they only have one job, and they don't even excel at it- They just manage a passing grade. This isn't to say you can't play a fun gunslinger, but it's far from a powerful class, and is in no need of a nerf.[/QUOTE]
To which I've already made a counter argument that you never adressed. Other than that you've quite literally only said that they're terrible.
Honestly, at least in the early levels, my gunslinger is pulling far more damage on average then the rest of my groups (fighter, druid, wizard, gunslinger) simply because I'm far more likely to hit with my attacks then everyone else. Add to that the fact that each of my shots does 1d8+5+6 electricity damage and bypasses most of the DR's we encounter (Silver and Adamantine so far) by simply loading a different ammo type as a free action (revolvers) I end up doing quite a bit of damage. Not to mention the x4 crits are pretty fucking insane.
[editline]13th October 2015[/editline]
Not to mention that I can fire three shots a round. The only thing that really fucks gunslingers is ammo costs and thats hardly an issue since you get ammo at 10% base price anyways.
[QUOTE=elowin;48893091]Yeah, I'm specifically talking about some of the dumb exploity combinations you can produce through the fact that not every feat ever was balanced with every other feat ever in mind.
When was this? I see literally nothing except for this
To which I've already made a counter argument that you never adressed. Other than that you've quite literally only said that they're terrible.[/QUOTE]
My argument, repeated and with greater description at your request;
The only thing they are good at, other classes can do better. They are only good at one thing (murder), and they aren't even very good at it. In later levels, you can take feats and enchantments to help overcome the considerable penalties you take (I'm looking at you, misfire), but another class in the same situation wouldn't need to worry about it.
Yes, you shoot versus touch within thirty feet. Again- There are other people in your group who will outclass you at this (Casters), and the number of creatures where shooting versus touch is actually helpful is considerably smaller than you might think. Many creatures will maintain a distance considerably higher than 30 feet- Namely dragons and such, and your damage is NOT that much higher than an archers would be. Guns, on average, do one to two points more damage. That's it. An archer with a mighty bow isn't going to have difficulty competing with you for damage.
Your utility is barely worth mentioning, and almost all of it relies on the grit mechanic, which is just bad; You don't get many grit points, and even when you spend them, the payout isn't very impressive. At least a Monk is ridiculously fast, has evasion, and can cherry pick magical abilities as he levels up thanks to Ki Mystic. A monk can also just punch you in the face if you get close enough to threaten them, which you won't. A Slayer comes packed with a moderate amount of precision damage and you can make a passingly good rogue for when your real rogue gets hit by falling boulder. A Kineticist won't be making three attacks each turn, but his one blast is probably going to out damage all of your combined attacks, and he gets cool little elemental tricks every other level to round out his capabilities.
[QUOTE=Oliolio;48893201]My argument, repeated and with greater description at your request;
The only thing they are good at, other classes can do better. They are only good at one thing (murder), and they aren't even very good at it. In later levels, you can take feats and enchantments to help overcome the considerable penalties you take (I'm looking at you, misfire), but another class in the same situation wouldn't need to worry about it.
Yes, you shoot versus touch within thirty feet. Again- There are other people in your group who will outclass you at this (Casters), and the number of creatures where shooting versus touch is actually helpful is considerably smaller than you might think. Many creatures will maintain a distance considerably higher than 30 feet- Namely dragons and such, and your damage is NOT that much higher than an archers would be. Guns, on average, do one to two points more damage. That's it. An archer with a mighty bow isn't going to have difficulty competing with you for damage.
Your utility is barely worth mentioning, and almost all of it relies on the grit mechanic, which is just bad; You don't get many grit points, and even when you spend them, the payout isn't very impressive. At least a Monk is ridiculously fast, has evasion, and can cherry pick magical abilities as he levels up thanks to Ki Mystic. A monk can also just punch you in the face if you get close enough to threaten them, which you won't. A Slayer comes packed with a moderate amount of precision damage and you can make a passingly good rogue for when your real rogue gets hit by falling boulder. A Kineticist won't be making three attacks each turn, but his one blast is probably going to out damage all of your combined attacks, and he gets cool little elemental tricks every other level to round out his capabilities.[/QUOTE]
They are exceptionally good at killing things, though. This is quite literally a fact. Before any weapon enchantments or feats or grit abilities, you're getting a full attack each round, at range, against touch AC (and yes, that is a huge deal. Almost everyone has some armor), and once you're at level 5, you even add your dexterity modifier to the damage of each attack.
Comparing to casters is an utter joke. A caster can outperform basically anyone in the short term, but then they run out of spells of their current level, and get significantly less useful. That's the idea. And besides, casters have shit BAB.
Their utility isn't amazing, but as I pointed out, most classes don't have amazing utility through class abilities. They mostly depend on skills, and even the classes that do get some neat utility abilities still usually rely mostly on skills for non-combat situations.
your argument was 'you can't out dps a gs without having a super focused character that's shit at other stuff'
sounds like gunslingers in a nutshell 2 me lol
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;48893486]your argument was 'you can't out dps a gs without having a super focused character that's shit at other stuff'
sounds like gunslingers in a nutshell 2 me lol[/QUOTE]
I think you may want to reread my statement as you appear to have a fundamentally flawed understanding of it.
[QUOTE=elowin;48893091]Yeah, I'm specifically talking about some of the dumb exploity combinations you can produce through the fact that not every feat ever was balanced with every other feat ever in mind.
[/QUOTE]
Why is designing one-shot adventures so hard? I'm always afraid that my adventure would be too boring, too strong, or end up getting everyone killed.
[QUOTE=slayer20;48893880]Why is designing one-shot adventures so hard? I'm always afraid that my adventure would be too boring, too strong, or end up getting everyone killed.[/QUOTE]
Or way longer than intended, that's my issue.
[QUOTE=Rents;48893886]Or way longer than intended, that's my issue.[/QUOTE]
Or way too short. It doesn't help that my friends play characters that range from level 1s to 14s. Getting an average party level together is incredibly difficult. I want to give the higher level players a challenge, but I don't want to end up killing one of the low level players by accident.
And if I hand them something to easy, the higher level players will just breeze through whatever monsters or traps I set up for them.
One of the guys I play with has only ever played this one character, who is the highest of the group. He had to make a new character for one of our "real" campaigns, but he only made a copy-cat of his first. He doesn't want to make anything different because of how "op" his character is. Everyone else has no problem making new characters.
[QUOTE=slayer20;48894017]Or way too short. It doesn't help that my friends play characters that range from level 1s to 14s. Getting an average party level together is incredibly difficult. I want to give the higher level players a challenge, but I don't want to end up killing one of the low level players by accident.
And if I hand them something to easy, the higher level players will just breeze through whatever monsters or traps I set up for them.
One of the guys I play with has only ever played this one character, who is the highest of the group. He had to make a new character for one of our "real" campaigns, but he only made a copy-cat of his first. He doesn't want to make anything different because of how "op" his character is. Everyone else has no problem making new characters.[/QUOTE]
jesus christ that is a way too large level gap, holy fuck
[QUOTE=slayer20;48894017]Or way too short. It doesn't help that my friends play characters that range from level 1s to 14s. Getting an average party level together is incredibly difficult. I want to give the higher level players a challenge, but I don't want to end up killing one of the low level players by accident.
And if I hand them something to easy, the higher level players will just breeze through whatever monsters or traps I set up for them.
One of the guys I play with has only ever played this one character, who is the highest of the group. He had to make a new character for one of our "real" campaigns, but he only made a copy-cat of his first. He doesn't want to make anything different because of how "op" his character is. Everyone else has no problem making new characters.[/QUOTE]
Totally unworkable, I'd tell that guy to wind his neck in and make something at level 1, or let everyone else make level 14 characters.
[QUOTE=elowin;48894280]jesus christ that is a way too large level gap, holy fuck[/QUOTE]
I know, and I hate it. But a couple of the players, including the highest player, don't care about anything else other than "killing everything". They are literally ok with just "xp grinding" in pathfinder, if given the chance.
[QUOTE=slayer20;48894556]I know, and I hate it. But a couple of the players, including the highest player, don't care about anything else other than "killing everything". They are literally ok with just "xp grinding" in pathfinder, if given the chance.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly why basically nobody actually uses the XP system. And also because it's way, way easier not to.
Generally most people, myself included, either just give out the XP they think is appropriate at the end of the session, or just not give out any at all and level up the characters when they think it's appropriate.
[QUOTE=slayer20;48894556]I know, and I hate it. But a couple of the players, including the highest player, don't care about anything else other than "killing everything". They are literally ok with just "xp grinding" in pathfinder, if given the chance.[/QUOTE]
Gross. I could understand not wanting to play something else if you're really attached to a character, but that I don't really get.
[QUOTE=elowin;48894580]This is exactly why basically nobody actually uses the XP system. And also because it's way, way easier not to.
Generally most people, myself included, either just give out the XP they think is appropriate at the end of the session, or just not give out any at all and level up the characters when they think it's appropriate.[/QUOTE]
"You did shit, congrats, have a level" is way easier as a GM, yeah. Also means there's no point in going murderhobo on things, since you'll only get stronger if you make actual progress.
[QUOTE=elowin;48894580]This is exactly why basically nobody actually uses the XP system. And also because it's way, way easier not to.
Generally most people, myself included, either just give out the XP they think is appropriate at the end of the session, or just not give out any at all and level up the characters when they think it's appropriate.[/QUOTE]
The characters we usually play are just for made-up one shot adventures that only last a few hours.
I mean, I could probably ask everyone to roll up new characters, but I don't want to force them to roll up a new character for a 3 hour adventure that they'll only play once.
The solution is simple. Make the characters yourself, and then let them choose whom they want to play.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
