# Ultimate Combat Playtest: Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai



## pawsplay (Jan 25, 2011)

In case you hadn't heard, the playtest PDF is available. Download it!

Let me preface my comments first by saying that, as has come to be expected from Paizo, the classes set forth with solid design principles and are pretty consistent with other designs. Thus, most of what I have to say is going to take the form of criticism. I don't feel the need to say, "Yeah, Paizo sure nailed another Cavalier Order" so I won't, but I don't want to give the impression my thoughts are intended as a slam.

The Gunslinger: I'm a little perplexed where this one is going to fit into most campaigns, but it's an intriguing and useful idea if you do want one. "Grit" is a cute ability name, but "grit user" is one of those horrible phrases invented by RPG writers who don't spend enough time around humans. "Grit user," really? I have a huge complaint here. The writeup includes firearm rules that state they are there so you can play the gunslinger, but are final and not open to discussion. The problem is that those rules are pretty crappy. Firearms are treated as touch attacks within the first range increment, which is stupid, as that implies that bullets easily penetrate plate armor or the skin of a steel or stone construct. Another issue I have is that the rules define firearms as an Exotic Weapon Proficiency but then go on to state that they don't fuction as discrete proficiencies after all. Why not simply define a new category of weapons, firearm weapons, and say the gunslinger is proficient in all of them? Is there a reason members of other classes need proficiency with all of them for a feat? If they are intended to be so accessible, why do they have different proficiencies for the purpose of Weapon Focus, etc.? It's just a mishmash that while only slightly consequential, really offends my sensibilities as a GM and designer. 

Samurai: Dude, the variations are interesting, but hardly distinguish an Eastern cavalier from a western one, substantially. I don't see what you're getting beyond a new Cavalier order, plus a slight variation that gives fighter-like specialization abilities. The Cavalier is already a very top notch samurai!

Ninja: The fact that "select any rogue talent" is even on the table lets me know this class is mostly rogue+. I was hoping for a class that is to the rogue what a magus is to the fighter. A "real" ninja class would combine stealth with elemental sorcery and demon powers. 

Asian weapons: This playtest repeats the completely misguided notion that the katana should be treated as a bastard sword. First of all, that could create the bizarre situation where a ninja can use bastard swords but not longswords. Second, it was, is, and will be incorrect. Yes, the majority of styles use the katana two-handed... just like the majority of historical longsword styles do! And there are plenty of styles, including Muashi's two sword style, that use a one-handed grip. Katanas are not especially heavy, far from it. A katana is just a basic variation on the longsword-type weapon, just a longsword with a twist of scimitar. It's neither long nor heavy enough to equivalent to a bastard sword, and there is no reason to suppose that hordes of Japanese Warriors all need to blow a feat on EWP (most common sword in feudal Japan).


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Jan 25, 2011)

Link to the release blog entry: http://paizo.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Store.woa/wa/browse?path=paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lbsx

Link to the document "purchase" page: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/v5748btpy8igw


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 26, 2011)

I have no interest in guns (in Pathfinder) whatsoever, so this will likely be the first book from Paizo that has a large chunk of it that will be of no value to me.

Hopefully they (guns) won't show up in an adventure path...  Blech.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 26, 2011)

I have some interest in Pathfinder guns, but I would definitely integrate them into the setting, either Renaissance style a la Warhammer or something like Planescape. I don't see a Gunslinger as a viable archetype, from a balance or story standpoint, in a world where his weapon is a 1000 gp item on par with a minor magical weapon.


----------



## jreyst (Jan 26, 2011)

*Personal Preference*: Those three classes will not be in any campaign I run and knowing the people I play with, will not be in any game I currently play in.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 26, 2011)

> I don't see what you're getting beyond a new Cavalier order, plus a slight variation that gives fighter-like specialization abilities.





> The fact that "select any rogue talent" is even on the table lets me know this class is mostly rogue+.



I haven't had a chance to read through them all yet, but apparently what you observe is intentional.


> three new alternate classes: the gunslinger, the ninja, and the samurai. Each alternate class replaces the class features from another class. When a character takes a level in one of these classes, he cannot later take levels in the other version of that class.



Samurai replaces cavalier, ninja replaces rogue. Interestingly, gunslinger replaces fighter.

I'm not sure if there is a good, rules-y reason they distinguished the "alternate class" concept from the alternate class features from the Advanced Player's Guide, though I suppose the Antipaladin is a precedent.


----------



## Volaran (Jan 26, 2011)

Kaisoku has a pretty good review of the Gunslinger class Here.  It summarizes many of my thoughts on the class.

Basically, I dislike how Paizo has chosen to handle firearms, and that colors my view of the class.  I would have very much liked to see _these_ rules Beta tested, but my understanding is that they are already complete for the release of the Inner Sea World Guide next month, as firearms tie heavily into the magic-dead nation of Alkenstar.  It is unlikely that they will see any major change before Ultimate Combat is released.

That said, they pistols as presented seem like reasonable one-off weapons for characters who _don't_ specialize in them.  They offer a neat option for a one-off weapon for characters who don't want to specialize in them beyond the initial proficiency.

For a character that specializes in firearms, as the gunslinger reasonable should, they offer several limitations.  Slow reloading, the potential to fail (sometimes catastrophically) 5-10% of the time, extremely expensive ammunition, etc.  That said, there are a lot of threads on the Paizo boards adequately  exploring all these things, and that is the whole point of the Beta test.  We are also apparently only getting a preview of the firearms in the two mentioned in the playtest document (revolvers are coming), so I'll be interested to see what happens.

As for the ninja:



			
				Pawsplay said:
			
		

> Ninja: The fact that "select any rogue talent" is even on the table lets me know this class is mostly rogue+. I was hoping for a class that is to the rogue what a magus is to the fighter. A "real" ninja class would combine stealth with elemental sorcery and demon powers.




I think Paizo is pretty aware that they won't please everyone with these alternative classes.  Not everyone wants firearms, or anything 'oriental' in their campaigns and that is okay.  Things like the ninja are certainly one of those hot buttons.  

By your description, you and I have very different ideas about what we want from a ninja class.  I basically want a rogue with a bit of mystic flavour.  Adding a ki pool in place of evasion, and having several tricks that use ki do this marvelously in my opinion. (Though full disclosure, my next character was going to be a monk/rogue, and will now be a monk/ninja).

Your description of a ninja as something that would 'combine stealth with elemental sorcery and demon powers' is not necessarily wrong, but does not jive with what I want from the class.  Your description sounds not just anime-esque, but as if you specifically want a Naruto-style ninja.  

I should note as well that the ninja trick 'Rogue Talent' and master trick 'Advanced Talent' can each only be selected once, limiting the amount of dipping into the standard rogue talents.  I fully expect that there will be Rogue Talents in Ultimate Combat offering some crossover into ninja tricks, but much the same way were are only getting the minimal gun preview for the gunslinger, we're not getting a general preview of any new rogue talents in UC, at least for now


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 26, 2011)

My view of the ninja is definitely influenced by the traditional stories of ninjas as people who turn invisible, move through walls, and dabble in everything from alchemy to black powder bombs. I know of Naruto, but I've never actually seen it. My view of the ninja would be familiar to the image held by many Japanese people. The mystical dude is a more of a Westernized archetype; ninja in Japan are not seen as religious, but sorcerous. Describing such a ninja as "Anime-esque" would be like describing Arthur's knights as WoW-esque. I remember having this discussion on the old Torg list with regard to ninjitsu in the Nippon Tech realm, and the Japanese posters agreed wholeheartedly with my assessment of the ninja archetype. 

I think the monk already handles the "mystical ninja" just fine. If you want to be a weapon wielder, the Martial Artist I wrote for AFoD works dandy. Add levels in Assassin to taste.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 26, 2011)

I would have preferred something along the lines of the Book of 9 Swords, or the Book of Iron Might, alternatively. Or both! 

Still, I suppose there's no knowing what else might be in there, when it comes to the final mixdown.

Even so, I'm also 100% certain I have no need of Gunslingers, Ninjae, nor Samurai.

I guess I'll pass. Pretty sure that for those to whom it _will_ appeal, Paizo will have done their usual excellent work, however.


----------



## Volaran (Jan 26, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> My view of the ninja is definitely influenced by the traditional stories of ninjas as people who turn invisible, move through walls, and dabble in everything from alchemy to black powder bombs. I know of Naruto, but I've never actually seen it. My view of the ninja would be familiar to the image held by many Japanese people.




So to you turning invisible, moving through walls, and alchemy/bombs translates to:



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> A "real" ninja class would combine stealth with elemental sorcery and demon powers.




Whereas to me, it translates to a rogue with a few specialized powers.  The ninjas in the beta test can:

1. Get bomb-related abilities (smoke bombs, choking bombs, poison bombs, etc.)
2. Turn invisible (general stealth abilities, Vanishing trick, fast stealth, invisible blade, etc.
3. Walk through walls (ghost step)
4. Dabble in alchemy (craft: alchemy)

among a host of other 'mystic rogue' type abilities.  If you want to describe those types of powers as 'demon-related' or 'elemental sorcery' I suppose you can, but those are not terms that jump to mind for me for the examples you provided.

If you want to call it westernized, that's fine, but this ninja does what you just described.  I can use it as a ninja, and can use it in a number of other settings, as I intend to with an upcoming character.

A monk certainly can be flavoured as a ninja.  So can a standard rogue, or fighter, or a bard, or a ranger, or an alchemist, etc.  

As I said, I like the way this class does things, and it seems a reasonable attempt at the archetype.  If you don't, I'm okay with that.


----------



## Kaisoku (Jan 26, 2011)

Considering some of the sentences you wrote are verbatim to a thread already going on over in the Beta test forums, I'll probably leave my thoughts on the Katana alone in this thread.

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.
Specifically, you've completely overlooked the Resolve, Greater Resolve, Honorable Stand, True Resolve, and Last Stand abilities. These replaced much of the mount focus and tactics stuff that the Cavalier was "saddled" with (pun intended!).
Simply from looking through each ability.. it really feels like the Samurai will have a completely different feel in play compared to the Cavalier.

Lastly, for the Gunslinger and Ninja, I don't have anything new to add to Volaran's posts, or the link he put up of my post on the Gunslinger.


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 26, 2011)

I like the Gunslinger and could fit neatly in a campaign were the GM is even moderately flexible. Played an Elf once who had a pistol, pretty much a one shot deal, and probably not the most effective weapon. But I thought it had style and I used i consistently in the same way for a long time instead of min-maxing and that made the GM somewhat more flexible, it scared the primitive goblinoids, and I could sometimes pull of a classic Indiana Jones moment. The class gives of a pretty perfect image of what I wanted to achieve, I do think that the 'Grit' mechanic is a bit more cumbersome then necessary, but I can live with it.

As for the Firearms mechanics *shrugs*, the touch attack makes it a very different weapon from normal, that makes you think twice how, when and on whom to use it on. 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?). Do you want to use them well and regularly in combat, you'll need to specialize, the Gunslinger still has the ability to use swords and stuff, so that is pretty much what you can use in close combat. 

Didn't the Ninja use a different sword then the Katana? A straighter sword called the Ninjato. I can understand they want to keep things simple and use things most westerners know from the movies. As for treating the Katana as a Bastard Sword, an excellent and time honored tradition, using it two handed it is a Martial Weapon, so Warriors can use it without a problem.

The Ninja as a class... I don't know, I really have to take a look at it, it comes across as needlessly complex. The same goes for the Samurai class. I like that they did some official work on classes that are used in oriental campaigns, not many of us play them though.

These three new classes only make up a small part of the new book, it holds many options for all the other classes.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 26, 2011)

I agree with Pawsplay's initial assessment 100%.

While I think the Gunslinger is cool mechanically, it doesn't mix well with standard frpg play.  How'd we jump to a Wild West gunslinger from swords-n-sorcery?  No musketeer's?  In emulating the pulp genre on another planet in Golarion's solar system, perhaps it has a place.  If this is the common fighter of Alkenstar, Paizo's ensuring that Alkenstar influences on my game will equal zero.

Ninja - seems to have fallen into the dreaded "I'm a rogue but better since I'm a ninja!" trap.

Samurai - why is this a class again?

Ninja & Samurai were made for the innovative archetype concept which debuted in the Advanced Player's Guide.  They don't warrant their own classes.

I still think the bulk of the book will be of use to me, but these classes --- I'm underwhelmed/disappointed.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 26, 2011)

DaveMage said:


> I have no interest in guns (in Pathfinder) whatsoever, so this will likely be the first book from Paizo that has a large chunk of it that will be of no value to me.
> 
> Hopefully they (guns) won't show up in an adventure path...  Blech.




Agreed and I share the concern.  While the PFRPG books are not Golarion-specific, many players will expect that anything contianed in a RPG book with PATHFINDER on the cover will be fair game in a Golarion campaign.  I have zero interest in seeing revolvers and gunslingers showing up in APs and modules set in Golarion.

If you're doing an Alkenstar module, sure.  Otherwise, no thanks.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 26, 2011)

1Mac said:


> I haven't had a chance to read through them all yet, but apparently what you observe is intentional.
> 
> Samurai replaces cavalier, ninja replaces rogue. Interestingly, gunslinger replaces fighter.
> 
> I'm not sure if there is a good, rules-y reason they distinguished the "alternate class" concept from the alternate class features from the Advanced Player's Guide, though I suppose the Antipaladin is a precedent.




I've seen this distinction thrown around the Paizo boards as well but haven't seen it confirmed by an official source.  The fact that the Antipaladin doesn't replace the Paladin kind of flies in the face of this assessment, however.


----------



## Volaran (Jan 26, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> I've seen this distinction thrown around the Paizo boards as well but haven't seen it confirmed by an official source.  The fact that the Antipaladin doesn't replace the Paladin kind of flies in the face of this assessment, however.




Here you go.



			
				Ultimate Combat Beta Forward by Jason Bulmahn said:
			
		

> Each alternate class replaces the class features from another class. When a character takes a level in one of these classes, he cannot later take levels in the other version of that class. For example, when a character takeslevels of ninja, he cannot later take levels of rogue. For the purposes of prerequisites or other effects, each of these alternate classes counts as the class that it is related to.


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 26, 2011)

Where did you guys see revolvers? I only saw single shot, front loading pistols (musket).


----------



## Volaran (Jan 26, 2011)

Only the musket and the pistol are in the playtest.  The other guns will be coming later in the Inner Sea Worldguide, and (presumably duplicated and/or expanded) in ultimate combat.  We've been given enough guns for the playtest and that's it.


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 26, 2011)

Volaran said:


> Only the musket and the pistol are in the playtest.  The other guns will be coming later in the Inner Sea Worldguide, and (presumably duplicated and/or expanded) in ultimate combat.  We've been given enough guns for the playtest and that's it.



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 ;-)


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 26, 2011)

Volaran said:


> Here you go.




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.


----------



## Azgulor (Jan 26, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2011)

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 (Jan 26, 2011)

Azgulor said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2011)

Kaisoku said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2011)

Kaisoku said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> 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 (Jan 26, 2011)

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 (Jan 26, 2011)

SlyDoubt said:


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




HECK YEAH!! Sign me up for that!


----------



## Azmyth (Jan 26, 2011)

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 (Jan 26, 2011)

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).


----------



## Kaisoku (Jan 26, 2011)

pawsplay said:


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




Considering the people talking about the class that I'm referencing are completely neglecting to mention whole features, I think the onus is on them for giving the impression that they aren't reading through the class.

I'm sorry if I annoyed you with my comment, but I'm only able to respond to what you posted: "_I don't see what you're getting beyond a new Cavalier order, plus a  slight variation that gives fighter-like specialization abilities._"

I'm not sure what other impression I was supposed to get from that.


----------



## 1Mac (Jan 26, 2011)

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



I only said "replace" because that's the word used in the intro of the playtest doc. I meant it in the sense that an alt class replaces a base class for a specific player.


> 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.



This is a really good point. I hadn't thought of alt classes as a way of expanding class ideas while avoiding rules bloat.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 26, 2011)

Kaisoku said:


> Considering the people talking about the class that I'm referencing are completely neglecting to mention whole features, I think the onus is on them for giving the impression that they aren't reading through the class.
> 
> I'm sorry if I annoyed you with my comment, but I'm only able to respond to what you posted: "_I don't see what you're getting beyond a new Cavalier order, plus a  slight variation that gives fighter-like specialization abilities._"
> 
> I'm not sure what other impression I was supposed to get from that.




They're very distinct and share almost nothing with the cavalier beyond the traits that allow him to fill a similar role (though in a totally different way). Last I checked the cavalier doesn't regain points by winning challenges and use those points to make himself ridiculously resilient. 

So like Kaisoku said, you should probably read or at least give some more information as to what makes the samurai uninteresting/not unique.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 26, 2011)

SlyDoubt said:


> He's nothing like a cavalier except in base function (challenge mechanic, has a mount, gives morale bonuses).




Yup, we entirely agree. He is nothing like a cavalier outside of all the abilities and traits they have in common. Or the fact that you could play a Cavalier as a samurai, or a Samurai as a cavalier.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 26, 2011)

Kaisoku said:


> Considering the people talking about the class that I'm referencing are completely neglecting to mention whole features, I think the onus is on them for giving the impression that they aren't reading through the class.
> 
> I'm sorry if I annoyed you with my comment, but I'm only able to respond to what you posted: "_I don't see what you're getting beyond a new Cavalier order, plus a  slight variation that gives fighter-like specialization abilities._"
> 
> I'm not sure what other impression I was supposed to get from that.




That I read the class and briefly touched on its most important characteristics in a way that let others know what to expect?


----------



## Cergorach (Jan 26, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> 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.




I would like to point out that 'steel' like we have now and plate armor from the middle ages aren't of the same quality. Also keep in mind that early on armor wasn't made to withstand bullets (or arrows/quarrels) from short range, this eventually changed. But I seriously doubt that firearms have insinuated themselves so much in D&D society that the plate mail is bulletproof. Look it up, wikipedia mentions it, they talk about short range. The first increment for pistols is 20ft and after that there are serious penalties, -2 for each additional 20ft. Also, a real-life gun instructor will warn you against shooting people and pets (aka. Monsters), so how much that impacts your gunslinger... ;-)

This is also the game where when you aim for the head, you hit the head, you only do a (little) damage and might stun someone for a round. So reality might be far fetched for RPGs anyway ;-)

Also, why a specific Ninja/Samurai class? Simple there's a lot of power in a name, Ninja/Samurai are iconic for asian (fantasy) RPGs. Just using the Rogue/Cavalier class, and calling them Ninja/Samurai doesn't do 'it' for a lot of people. You could ask yourself, why do we need a Ninja/Samurai class, simple, because a lot of folks do want it because their iconic for asian (fantasy) settings. Also, their not filling a 256 page book with these three classes, it's a relatively small section, if they fill 10% of the book with these classes (and directly related material) I'll be greatly surprised.

If you don't like them on principle, don't play (test) them. If you don't see the need for separate classes, again, these classes are not for you.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 27, 2011)

Cergorach said:


> I would like to point out that 'steel' like we have now and plate armor from the middle ages aren't of the same quality.




That's true, but I suspect a mass-produced street sign and a carefully crafted breastplate are in the same neighborhood. In fact, the breastplate is probably higher carbon.


----------



## Dragonblade (Jan 27, 2011)

I love the classes. As an anime fan, I'd love to make them even more over the top, but I think Paizo found a nice balance of making them cool but generally on par with the core classes.

I love the gunslinger in particular. Very cool and everything I ever wanted out of a gunslinger class in a d20 game. In contrast, while I loved the IK setting, I despised their d20 gun rules and their schizophrenic attempt at making some low magic gritty game which didn't in any way reflect the cool and over the top artwork and high magic feel of the miniatures game. Paizo nailed it.

The ninja and samurai are both well done and hit the right notes for me. I like the samurai's challenge and the ninja's blend of rogue and monk abilities.

I could see some minor balance tweaks but I think the classes are already pretty solid as is.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 27, 2011)

Speaking as someone who _has_ fired mediaeval weapons - yes, armor works against big, soft, slow lead balls. An exception is chainmail, which comes apart, with the links driven into the flesh. (We used a dead pig.)

The ball _will_ penetrate soft leather, but goes less distance into the meat, so the armor still qualifies.

Plate armor was not invented until _after_ the gonne. It was often 'proofed' - the armorer taking ten strides from the armor then shooting it with a pistol. Source of the term 'bullet proofed'.

If you _really_ want to see something penetrate armor then shoot a crossbow - a square headed bolt will be buried to the fletching in the pig. It pretty much ignores chainmail.

A hangonne/arquebus is _faster_ to load and fire than a heavy cranquin wound crossbow, but penetrates less and has a much shorter range.

And, for the record, on a foggy day blackpowder weapons stink like the Devil's own flatulence.

Gamers vastly overestimate the power of the early guns, but also vastly over rate the rate of fire of a heavy crossbow. Guns won out not because of their relative power but because of ease of training and rate of fire. The longbow took time to train (if you want a longbowman then start with the grandfather) while crossbows were easy to learn, but slow to fire. Gonnes were a compromise.

The Auld Grump


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 27, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> post




Cool info/history. Thanks. Some I knew some I didn't. 

On the topic and relevant to the post:

It's a fantasy game unfortunately. Verisimilitude is important to a degree but I think the idea or flavor of firearms in a fantasy setting needs to be strong for them to have any reason to exist. Like you said the main reason firearms took off is ease of use. In an RPG that means absolutely nothing, every PC is already above average so how else can firearms be distinguished? Absolutely crossbows SHOULD be armor piercing but for balance they aren't. 

I guess really firearms should be simple weapons. 

Let's assume though that since this is a fantasy game and Golarion is a fantasy setting that the firearms there are stronger than what we know. Maybe the bullets are made of denser harder material. Maybe their form of gunpowder is even faster burning, I don't know. You get my drift though.

They need to be distinct from bows and I think the armor piercing idea at close range is interesting and different. I like it although I well know it isn't necessarily realistic. 

It's annoying to sometimes err on the side of fantasy and sometimes not but I personally can let it slide in this case.


----------



## Adso (Jan 27, 2011)

*Thanks!*

Hey everyone, 

I just wanted to say thanks for discussing the classes here. And while I would love it if you could post over at Paizo messageboards, I also understand most of you are not going to.

I just wanted you to know, as a guy who lurks this board each day, I appreciate the candid conversation about the playtest classes. Keep it coming!


----------



## Drathir (Jan 27, 2011)

i really only have one thing to point out about guns... maybe two. one, other than our high powered exceptions (sniper rifles and other high caliber weapons) guns have actually gotten weaker as we progress in tech, we have traded raw power for firing rate and mass production the US military has even stated this and are currently working to bring guns the power that some of our older models had that our new ones now lack. Does this mean they should be touch in the first range increment? Not really, but at the same time it doesn't say the opposite. What does, in some ways, say they shouldn't would probably, and i am some what loathe to say it, be Deadliest Warrior. Watch the Knight v Pirate, Plate armor barely got dented by the pistol, although the blunderbuss did rip it a new one pretty easily.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 27, 2011)

SlyDoubt said:


> Cool info/history. Thanks. Some I knew some I didn't.
> 
> On the topic and relevant to the post:
> 
> ...



My means of handling guns has been to make them Martial (not Exotic, but they _are_ harder to use than a crossbow) give them good damage (D10 for pistol, D12 for carbine, 2d6 for musket), a 20/X3 Crit modifier, but a 50' range increment (30' for pistols). Like a heavy crossbow they take a round to load. The high damage and crit multiplier are because those big, fat, soft, slow lead balls are excellent at transmitting energy - bone does not so much break as shatter.

If I am using critical failure rules then a gun fails on 1-2, confirmed by a second failed to hit roll, much like the reverse of a critical hit. This is double the chance of most weapons. To make up for the increased fumbling I have been tempted to increase the X3 crit damage to X4, but only when using the chance of critical failure.

I have never had a gun explode on me, though I have had them fail to fire. And I have put several hundred rounds through archaic firearms. Keeping the guns _clean_ goes a long way to avoiding the failure. The guns I have fired most often have been Land Pattern (Brown Bess) - a friend of mine has one that saw a full century of service, first in the British army, then the British navy (where the barrel was shortened to carbine length and the muzzle flared), then to the Spanish navy, then the Spanish auxiliaries in Mexico. 

In play they don't feel much like a crossbow or a bow, most often the players take the pistol as a close range weapon and use a crossbow at range. A six foot long musket is just plain awkward, though with the invention of the plug bayonet this will become an advantage, allowing the use of the gun as a spear. And since the bayonet was invented ca. 1611 and my game takes place ca. 1630.... 

They don't need special rules, any more than a crossbow needs special rules. 

_However_, looking at the Pathfinder rules for firearms I am tempted to add a similar rule to the Broken quality to my own game - call it Fouled. If a Fouled weapon is fired without cleaning then it gains Broken if it misfires. If you are silly enough to fire it again without Repairing the gun and get another misfire, well... you had two warnings, eh? *BOOM!* (After a misfire I have _always_ cleaned the gun thoroughly. You are an idiot if you don't.)

I might even allow the 'Touch Attack' rule as a special ability for pistols - close range and aiming at things like the visor are a lot easier with a pistol than any other weapon. With a musket on the other hand... bleah. 

That said... I like some of what I see, but feel that all three classes should be in setting books rather than a more general book on combat. I say this in spite of the fact that I am thinking about adding gunslinger right away. I really like that class, even if I disagree with the attending rules for firearms.

The Auld Grump, who freely admits that he has not yet looked at either the Samurai or the Ninja.... He likes guns.  But taking a quick glance at Samurai... weren't the Samurai primarily horse archers?

*EDIT* The most serious self inflicted injury that I have ever had with an archaic firearm was tearing the webbing of my left thumb with a flintlock. Ye gods, that hurt, not life threatening, but damn....

*EDIT 2* Looking at the webbing, I still have the scar, some thirty years later.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 27, 2011)

I would actually give guns a small range increment. Although they have a long absolute range, at least once you get to the late 18th century or so, effective range and accuracy fall off pretty quickly.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jan 27, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> I would actually give guns a small range increment. Although they have a long absolute range, at least once you get to the late 18th century or so, effective range and accuracy fall off pretty quickly.



Until the invention of the flintlock there actually was not that much aiming taking place.  The match got in the way and it was not unknown for there to be flash from the touch hole. You could put your eye out that way, so often they would 'aim' then close their eyes and bring the match in contact with the primer. It helped if you were aiming at large units.

The wheellock did not have that problem, but was complicated, expensive, and fragile. It was primarily used on pistols, and allowed the holding of fire. A toy of the aristocracy for the most part.

For hunting or for personal use a scattergun or blunderbuss was preferred, close was good enough.

The flintlock changed _everything_. Simple, reliable, and inexpensive. 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Varthol (Jan 27, 2011)

*Re*

About the Gunslinger class:
I find the class pretty blanced. First of all, you have 1 attack per round, only with a pistol and only with Rapid Reload (however, I do think that attacking touch AC is kinda wrong, at least mechanically). Then you are a guy that wont have the best AC out there, a.k.a you have DEX but no Heavy Armor Prof. neither armor training... Your d10 hp help out of course. RPwise, Gunslingers naturally fit in a campaign featuring pirates and the like.

About the Ninja class:
I dont really have an opinion on this class, didnt read too much about it but I noticed it didn't have trapfinding  . RPwise you would probably play a Ninja in a western campaign setting as a hunted outlaw or exile.

About the Samurai class:
Well the samurai class has caught my eye. It seems like a cavalier that has less abilities about mounted combat and more about "himself". RPwise, I can't see why a Samurai would become an adventurer in a non-oriental campaign setting, and that's when the ronin kicks in. It's rather common that samurai who lost their status would travel away from their homeland.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jan 27, 2011)

Varthol said:


> I can't see why a Samurai would become an adventurer in a non-oriental campaign setting, and that's when the ronin kicks in. It's rather common that samurai who lost their status would travel away from their homeland.




You just can refluff it as a tough, weapon expert  Cavalier.

I find odd the cold response to the ninja in this thread.

Ninja is IMHO very well made, both from a fluff and mechanic standpoint. Everything you can think of about the fictional archetype of ninja is there.


----------



## TanisFrey (Jan 27, 2011)

Armors with fortification should get their % to determine a touch attack or standard when whit in the first range increment.

The early Firearms were inaccurate like AuldGrump mentioned.  I would let firearms have ten range increments but have the range increment.  

I would also import the 2ed rule for firearms damage, penetrating damage dice.  If you roll max damage on a die you roll an additional of the same type and add the 2 together.  Yes, each time you roll a damage die and got the max damage you rolled another.  This represented that bullet can bounce around inside a body.  It can bounce off a bone or armor and do more damage.

The other 2ed rule you might want to use is the range penalties are doubled.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Jan 27, 2011)

TanisFrey said:


> I would also import the 2ed rule for firearms damage, penetrating damage dice.  If you roll max damage on a die you roll an additional of the same type and add the 2 together.  Yes, each time you roll a damage die and got the max damage you rolled another.  This represented that bullet can bounce around inside a body.  It can bounce off a bone or armor and do more damage.




So a pistol bullet (d8) is more likely to bounce than a musket bullet (d12)?

I'm not sure I like it.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Jan 27, 2011)

I like the ninja too. I think it's different enough but I could see it being even more different. Regardless I think all the abilities are mechanically sound, seem fun to use and seem ninja'ish. Disguise stuff, concealed weapons, distractions and smoke bombs. All very cool. I think they did a good job not making it too fantastical or too realistic. It's got both qualities although i'd say it seems a bit on the conservative side compared to the radical gunslinger.


----------



## gamerprinter (Jan 27, 2011)

Gunslinger - while I too don't want guns in my game, so no gun bunnies either, I will say that the Gunslinger not getting any special gun skills until 7th and 11th level, compared to other classes and their 7th and 11th level abilities is a major weakness for this class. But since I won't play them, I don't care much.

Samurai - in my Kaidan setting, Samurai (buke) is a caste, not a class, and I'll include several classes in the Kaidan samurai caste. However one of those intended classes is Cavalier (hatamoto) - I think Paizo has been reading my notes, as this is very close to a Shogun's bannermen (hatamoto). While mine is more a Cavalier archetype, and this is an alternate class, in my archetyped version Charge will be replaced with the Vital Strike feat chain to be equivalent to Iaijutsu. However, I will be creating a more rural samurai class called Buke-Bushi, more of Yojimbo class, and I think will be more flavorful and preferrable to playing a hatamoto.

Ninja - hmmm, my ninja are shinobi, being archetypes for: Bard, Monk, Ranger, Rogue and Sorcerer. However, this ninja is not far from my Rogue (shinobi), so I can't complain too much. I am also creating a ninja prestige class, which will better follow cinematic ninja than this.

Since my setting features samurai and ninja, I am only pleased that Paizo is basically going the same direction as I intend, so at least gamers could use these classes with no changes into my game. While I will expand beyond what these classes are, at least their direction is not counter to mine, so I am happy about that.

Oh, and in Kaidan, katana is equivalent to the Curved Blade, it won't be a bastard sword, nor an Exotic Weapon.

There's a continuing argument on the Paizo boards in several threads regarding just what were ninja in compared to samurai. And the truth is Ninja were Samurai. All the famous Iga and Soga ninjas were samurai houses. Samurai were military servants of the noble caste. Even though the familiar samurai are the honor bound mounted archers, and later sword masters. Ninja were military cover ops specialist members of samurai caste also serving their lords.

Although my knowledge of this is older, one of the best sources for Samurai information is the Samurai-Archives.com. On its forum, the forum administrator confirms this... http://forums.samurai-archives.com/viewtopic.php?t=182


GP


----------



## TanisFrey (Jan 28, 2011)

Kaiyanwang said:


> So a pistol bullet (d8) is more likely to bounce than a musket bullet (d12)?
> 
> I'm not sure I like it.



Assuming the bullet are the same size, and the same amount of power is used; the longer barrel of the musket allows the expanding gasses to transfer more power to the musket ball.  This allows the musket ball to smash through bone and armor instead of bouncing around.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Feb 1, 2011)

I have to say, I agree about not wanting gunslingers in my game, although I'd be interested in playing one for playtesting purposes ... but they seem really, really underpowered compared to even halfway-decent builds of other classes.  Many of the playtest reports on Paizo's website bear this out: people are regularly reporting that the gunslingers just don't seem to keep up with the other members of the party.  

That makes it appear gunslinger is a class that is in need of some revision.  I hope it gets some before they include it in Ultimate Combat, but given how close that book is to release, I can't help but wonder whether it WILL get any changes or not.


----------



## coyote6 (Feb 2, 2011)

Ultimate Combat is due out at Gen Con, isn't it? That's 6 months away; that ought to give them a couple of months for playtesting.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 2, 2011)

Both the gunslinger and the gun rules themselves are utterly terrible to the point of being neigh unusable.

I like guns in my fantasy, but I guess Paizo did it this way to appease both crowds.  If you like guns, there, there's rules for them!  If you dislike guns, don't worry, the implimention is so awful nobody will use them!

Everyone "wins!"


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 2, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Both the gunslinger and the gun rules themselves are utterly terrible to the point of being neigh unusable.
> 
> I like guns in my fantasy, but I guess Paizo did it this way to appease both crowds.  If you like guns, there, there's rules for them!  If you dislike guns, don't worry, the implimention is so awful nobody will use them!
> 
> Everyone "wins!"




Ouch. And can someone pour this guy a round of XP for me?


----------



## DumbPaladin (Feb 3, 2011)

coyote6 said:


> Ultimate Combat is due out at Gen Con, isn't it? That's 6 months away; that ought to give them a couple of months for playtesting.





True, but look at the depths of pretty valid and well-reasoned complaints about the gun system in Pathfinder and the class itself.  One of the more troubling aspects of the complaints is against some of the rules, as mentioned on this page, of gun usage.  These are described as NON-negotiable, and not under playtesting. 

If that's true, it means there's not a lot of "fixing" to do ...

EDIT: Having read the 3 playtest versions of Magus, and the changes that class underwent, I'm willing to hold out hope that some significant improvements will be coming.  This seems less like a rubber-stamp "please approve what we've already done" and more like a "No, we actually WANT feedback so we know what to tinker with" kind of playtest.


----------



## Volaran (Feb 3, 2011)

I just thought I would re-post something that Jason Bulmahn put up on the Paizo boards.



			
				Jason Bulmahn said:
			
		

> So, we've got this message, loud and clear. We are looking at a number of different ways to address this issue. You have to understand that we have a few conflicting interests here that we have to serve.
> 
> We don't want guns to be common in Golarion, hence the price.
> We do want a gunslinger character.
> ...




So, it looks like the gun rules that we have been given for the playtest are the Golarion setting-specific rules, and Ultimate Combat will contain multiple firearms options.  This pleases me, even if I think it means we still don't have adequate material with which to playtest the gunslinger at this time.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Feb 3, 2011)

I really am not yet ready to think that the Paizo team is willing to ignore all of the loud arguments about the flaws in the class as it stands right now in its first version, especially when so many people are presenting their arguments logically and with factual data from their own playtesting.

I am optimistic they'll straighten out the bugs.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 3, 2011)

I believe Mr. Bulmahn's sincerity and I predict they will do a good job with whatever direction they go, but you know... what kind of response do they expect when they state "these rules are final and will not change?" Yes, Paizo has a GREAT record of taking feedback and reworking their ideas, but sometimes these feedback has been heaped upon them over their objections, over through and around closed threads, and (such as in this case) blatantly ignoring their statements as to what is sacred cow. I am grateful to Paizo for being so great with their feedback; I hope they are equally grateful to their fans for being so cussedly sure about what they want!


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 3, 2011)

I was thinking....Swashbuckling Adventures from AEG had some variant firearm rules that might give a means of simulating the power of firearms without resorting to ranged touch attacks etc.

I think they basically dictated that at short range, a firearm gave *up to +5 to attack rolls, with a maximum based on the armor value of the target*.  Thus, at short range, a firearm would give +5 to hit plate armor (which has a +8 armor bonus), but only +2 to hit leather armor (which has a +2 armor bonus).  At medium range, they gave up to +2 to attack rolls, and at long range, nothing.

Then, they also included the misfire rules, and tended to have higher critical modifiers.

Finally, the had slow reload times.  Pistols took 8 rounds to load, and muskets took 8 rounds to load.  In a sidebar, the book referenced that firearms in the period took about a minute to load.  The book included a feat that allowed a character to cut those reload times in half.  But the quickest a character could reload a firearm was about 4 rounds for a pistol, or 5 rounds for a musket.

Having run a Swashbuckling Adventures campaign for a year, I can attest from play experience that it had a desired effect (I guess compared to what I wanted):

1-Firearms, with their high crit modifiers, could be very dangerous.  If a gun could do 1d10 (x3) on crits, it was conceivable for even low level minions to score sizable damage.

2-Because of the armor penetration edge they had, they encouraged a progression to lighter armor, and much more prevalent use of cover in games.  We had lots of sessions where PCs were in fights with enemies, using carriages or walls or barrels or whatever, popping up, taking shots, ducking behind cover, etc.

This also meant that even low level minions could be effective against armored and trained higher level fighters....a lvl 2 warrior with a musket could still be effective against a lvl 5 fighter in chainmail or halfplate.

To me, this kind of simulated the idea that firearms were easier to outfit mass numbers of less well trained soldiers with....rather than spending years teaching them to use a longbow.

3-The slow reload times encouraged the use of cover (as #2 above), and they also encouraged the use of traditional weapons.  Very often, at the start of a fight, opponents would pull out their pistols, fire off shots against each other, and then either drop a pistol and pull a second one out (some characters carried 4 pistols, and just took their one shot with each, then entered melee).  Once the pistols had expended their shots, characters typically pulled out their swords, and then engaged opponents in melee.

Reloading was typically left to be conducted after the battle had been finished.

Which to me, seems pretty cinematic, and realistic (in my limited understanding).

Now, I know someone'll likely point out balance issues with that book..but I don't think they're relevant to the discussion.  Most only appeared when you tried to combine the feats from that game with regular levels of magic items etc.  I removed all magic items from the game, and the problem vanished.

The firearms rules however, encouraged a refreshing difference in gameplay, without changing it too much.  I didn't find those particular rules unbalanced.

And in a setting like Golarion, the proliferation of firearms could still be limited by the effectiveness of wizards and sorcerers, which didn't exist on Earth.

A wizard's magic missile or sleep spell can still be quicker and as or more effective as a warrior with a musket.....but an army with 500 musket wielding warriors?  That's a different story.  They could do a lot of damage to another army, unless a wizard came along and fireballed them.

Banshee


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2011)

TanisFrey said:


> Assuming the bullet are the same size, and the same amount of power is used; the longer barrel of the musket allows the expanding gasses to transfer more power to the musket ball.  This allows the musket ball to smash through bone and armor instead of bouncing around.



Ummm, no, not really. 

Neither of those balls is likely to pass through - by modern standards they were _ssllooww_, they will enter, and then get lodged in the flesh.

A pistol ball is _less_ damaging and _less_ likely to deal extra damage - more likely to be stopped by bone rather than pulverize it.

Easier just to give guns a decent damage to start with and a good critical multiplier. Effectively giving a pistol a one in eight chance of criticaling with the standard chance of a normal critical is just silly.

The Auld Grump, it's what criticals are _for_, eh?


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> I was thinking....Swashbuckling Adventures from AEG had some variant firearm rules that might give a means of simulating the power of firearms without resorting to ranged touch attacks etc.
> 
> I think they basically dictated that at short range, a firearm gave *up to +5 to attack rolls, with a maximum based on the armor value of the target*.  Thus, at short range, a firearm would give +5 to hit plate armor (which has a +8 armor bonus), but only +2 to hit leather armor (which has a +2 armor bonus).  At medium range, they gave up to +2 to attack rolls, and at long range, nothing.
> 
> ...




I had a good deal of fun with Swashbuckling Adventures and stole great gobs of its systems for my game - the loss of limbs rules in particular. (They also got pressed into services for my Steampunk D&D game - after all Philip Reed had done those nice rules for prostheses to accompany EN Publishing's Steam & Steel, might as well make them necessary....

My one really big caveat is that if you are going to have those ridiculously long reload times (I can load and fire a flintlock about two and a half times per minute - and I wasn't by any means the fastest on the range) then you _really_ have to slow the rate of fire for the crossbows. Slow as guns were the crossbows were slower still.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 3, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> I had a good deal of fun with Swashbuckling Adventures and stole great gobs of its systems for my game - the loss of limbs rules in particular. (They also got pressed into services for my Steampunk D&D game - after all Philip Reed had done those nice rules for prostheses to accompany EN Publishing's Steam & Steel, might as well make them necessary....
> 
> My one really big caveat is that if you are going to have those ridiculously long reload times (I can load and fire a flintlock about two and a half times per minute - and I wasn't by any means the fastest on the range) then you _really_ have to slow the rate of fire for the crossbows. Slow as guns were the crossbows were slower still.
> 
> The Auld Grump




I forgot about the loss of limbs rules....those were great.

I also liked the chain of Parry feats, Parry, Continuous Parry, Riposte, Sidestep, etc. etc.  They really made fencing/fighting a lot of fun.

I've got a soft spot in my heart for those kinds of rules in D&D.  A setting with the trappings of high fantasy, but also including things like smokepowder weapons, wizards, dragons and other monsters etc could be a lot of fun.  The Spirosblaak setting had a lot of that, and was rather cool..but it was at the tail end of 3E, and I don't think a lot of people got to try it.

I'm not sure if you can easily have the whole smoke powder + swashbucklers style in regular D&D/Pathfinder without really throwing off the feel.  It's hard to imagine barbarians with great axes fighting against a fighter with rapier and maingauche, and a brace of pistols.  I think that's where most of the disagreements in this thread are coming from.

However, I can recognize what Paizo is trying to do.  They're trying to provide a ruleset that would allow this, but limit its standard implementation to a particular area of the game world, and make it up to the GM and players to determine if it'll ever go beyond there.

What I think makes things more confusing, however, is that D&D has always been a mishmash of periods.  Many elements of the game harken to the Dark Ages, where plate armor wasn't even in use yet......I mean, into the 1100's and 1200's they were pretty much still running around in chainmail, weren't they?  Yet D&D has plate armor, which is more indicative of the 1200's and 1300's isn't it?  Yet firearms were in use in the late 1200's, and in widespread use in Europe by the 1300's, from what I understand.

So in the periods that D&D seeks to emulate, firearms were already in use, yet people get hung up about it.

If you don't want them in the game, don't use them.

As to slowing reload times of crossbows, I'm not necessarily averse to that.  They're already listed as simple weapons, meaning the most number of possible characters can use them, vs. bows which are martial weapons.  Maybe give them similar penetrating rules as what the firearms are given.

Now you've got firearms and crossbows both being readily available, for use by masses of troops, as opposed to highly trained archers, with lethal penetrating power through armor, yet very slow reload times.

Give heavy crossbows a reload time of 10 rounds, light crossbows 8 rounds, and hand crossbows 6 rounds.  And include the feat that lets you halve the reload times.

Firearms might keep the better critical multiplier.

Now you have them as effective weapons that have both advantages and disadvantages.  And the firearms and crossbows statistically would be very similar....so there wouldn't be the concern about firearms overriding the game....yet they'd still be a viable option.

Banshee


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 3, 2011)

Well, to be fair, getting off interative attacks with bows, under the assumption of aimed shots, is pretty optimistic, as is target shooting any moving target more than fifty feet away. Meanwhile, "realistically" a sword or club can kill or disable someone in six seconds, easily. 

I'm okay with some level of time dilation with regards to firearms, so long as the thematics are preserved.


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 3, 2011)

TheAuldGrump said:


> My one really big caveat is that if you are going to have those ridiculously long reload times (I can load and fire a flintlock about two and a half times per minute - and I wasn't by any means the fastest on the range) then you _really_ have to slow the rate of fire for the crossbows. Slow as guns were the crossbows were slower still.
> 
> The Auld Grump




The only thing I'll say is that the reload times are only ridiculous if you haven't tried actually fencing before.  I can admit I haven't tried firing or reloading a musket or pistol.....so I have no idea how much time it takes....but everything I've read seems to indicate you're looking at about 1 shot a minute.

Having been a fencer when I was younger, I can say that in the space of 1 minute, you can have *a lot* of attacks......many fencing bouts only last a minute, and in that time you may have had 10-20 attacks each...or more.  I remember trying to get my brother into the sport.  So, we taught him the basics at a beginner class, and kitted him out and all that, and I went onto the piste with him.....he didn't *get* the idea of right of way/priority.  Though I'd been fencing for a year or so at the time, I was totally on the retreat...simply because all he did was attack, over and over.  Now, in  terms of points, the first parry/riposte would have resulted in a point.  But with someone who didn't get it, it just resulted in me parrying, riposting, and getting hit again....until I was finally able to get him to learn why it doesn't work that way, at which point, he said "well, that's stupid" 

Point being that in a swordfight, you can get in *alot* of attacks in a minute.....whereas if you have a musket that realistically *does* take a minute to load...well, then, I guess that's why they had bayonets.....so when the soldier was charged by a sword wielding officer, after having expended his one shot, he wasn't going to have his clock cleaned in the space of 5 seconds.

So, from a game perspective, those reload times may be inconvenient......but they likely would help keep firearms in a position where they are one option among many, but in a world including dragons and ogres and fireball throwing wizards, they're simply one option.  They might be a great option to oufit an army of lvl 1 warriors and commoners with, but not so great an option for a lvl 10 fighter.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 3, 2011)

pawsplay said:


> Well, to be fair, getting off interative attacks with bows, under the assumption of aimed shots, is pretty optimistic, as is target shooting any moving target more than fifty feet away. Meanwhile, "realistically" a sword or club can kill or disable someone in six seconds, easily.
> 
> I'm okay with some level of time dilation with regards to firearms, so long as the thematics are preserved.




Maybe somewhere in the middle?  I'm sure there's a huge difference between shooting an arrow to arc into the sky, and fall into a mass of hundreds of soldiers.  Statistically, it has a good chance to hit *somebody*.  It would likely take longer to shoot at a single person moving across a courtyard.  But it is still possible to get multiple arrows into the air in a minute.  I've heard up to 10.  Compared to early firearms which supposedly took a minute to load, no matter how the gun was shot.

1 round reloads still seem kind of low....but maybe that's because in games I've been in, people seemed to interpret it as Rnd 1, I shoot.  Then I'm reloading.  Rnd 2, I shoot again.  Basically, it was interpreted as 1 attack per round.

When in fact what I think was meant was Round 1 you shoot.  Round 2, you do nothing, as you're busy reloading.  Round 3 you shoot again.

Banshee


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 3, 2011)

Guns and crossbows should be exactly as realistic as bows are.

That is to say, "not."


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 3, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> The only thing I'll say is that the reload times are only ridiculous if you haven't tried actually fencing before.  I can admit I haven't tried firing or reloading a musket or pistol.....so I have no idea how much time it takes....but everything I've read seems to indicate you're looking at about 1 shot a minute.
> 
> Having been a fencer when I was younger, I can say that in the space of 1 minute, you can have *a lot* of attacks......many fencing bouts only last a minute, and in that time you may have had 10-20 attacks each...or more.  I remember trying to get my brother into the sport.  So, we taught him the basics at a beginner class, and kitted him out and all that, and I went onto the piste with him.....he didn't *get* the idea of right of way/priority.  Though I'd been fencing for a year or so at the time, I was totally on the retreat...simply because all he did was attack, over and over.  Now, in  terms of points, the first parry/riposte would have resulted in a point.  But with someone who didn't get it, it just resulted in me parrying, riposting, and getting hit again....until I was finally able to get him to learn why it doesn't work that way, at which point, he said "well, that's stupid"
> 
> ...



Heh, I'm the other way 'round - a fair amount of practice with blackpowder weapons (though I do admit that I was boastfully lying overly generous with my speed there - more like a round and a half/round and a quarter a minute - my brain fled to the kitchen and left my body behind to do the typing, I think), but no fencing to speak of aside from the basic stances. Faster than one shot a minute though. There _were_ folks who I am pretty sure could put two balls, or almost two balls, through their guns in a minute - mostly Land Pattern but a few ACW guns as well.

In field use the standard was rank and volley, even after the flintlock became common - depending on period their might be anywhere between three and thirty ranks.... the last few ranks of a tercio were likely never going to get a shot off in the course of the battle.  (And don't get me started on the caracole... bloody waste of horseflesh, powder, and wealth.)

And yeah - the crossbow and the gonne both favor large numbers of low level grunts.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 3, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> The only thing I'll say is that the reload times are only ridiculous if you haven't tried actually fencing before.




The disconnect in your post (and in the rules!) is that one melee attack roll represents multiple swings, parries, thrusts, and reversals, while one ranged attack roll is (almost always) one unit of ammo expenditure.


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 4, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> The disconnect in your post (and in the rules!) is that one melee attack roll represents multiple swings, parries, thrusts, and reversals, while one ranged attack roll is (almost always) one unit of ammo expenditure.




Why do you say that?  I haven't assumed that at all.  If you break it down, this was more inherently true in 2nd Ed. than it was in 3E, because the standard round was 60 seconds, as opposed to 6 seconds.

Back in 2nd Ed., a fighter might have 2 attacks a round....maybe 3, if they are fighting with two weapons.  And that's for a lvl 20 fighter.  I think the absolute best was a lvl 20 fighter, with the two-weapon fighting proficiencies/skills, and weapon specialization in the weapon they were fighting with.  And it had to be paired weapons....since I think they could only specialize in one weapon.  So if you were specialized in shortsword, and had two of them, and were lvl 20, you had 5/2 attack for each weapon, or 5 in total for the two weapons (3 with your main hand, and 2 with your second).  Most characters had far less.

So, at most, if taken literally, a lvl 20 fighter in 2nd Ed. could have 5 attacks in 60 seconds....or one every 12 seconds.  In a fencing bout, 12 seconds is an *eternity*.  And for most characters, they only had 1-2 attacks per round.  A rogue with two weapons would be 2 attacks in a round, and a cleric or mage would be 1 attack in a round.  One action in 60 seconds.  That just doesn't make sense....hence, it was interpreted that they're not just standing there for 55 seconds twiddling their thumbs, and then taking 5 seconds to take an action.  It was stated that they were moving back and forth, circling, feinting, attacking and parrying etc. and all this was resolved by the one attack roll.  It was abstracted.

3E was abstract with respect to hp, but I'm not so sure it was with actions.  The round was much shorter.  In 3E, a lvl 20 fighter would have 4 actions, minimum, unless he was moving around more than 5'.  If he had two weapons and also the feat chain leading to greater numbers of attacks with his second weapon, he could get up to 4 extra attacks, for a total of 8 in a round.  So, 4 actions in a round could be 1 action every 1.5 seconds......or as much as 1 action every 0.75 seconds.  This is far closer to realistic than 2nd Ed. was, so I'm not convinced that melee attacks are abstracted whereas ranged attacks are not.

Thinking back to fencing, and what my the master at our salon had mentioned, fencers tend to be quicker than those who fight with "real" blades.  It's a different mentality.  He commented about an argument/dispute that arose between a fencer and a sword fighter about which discipline was better.  The fencer won in seconds...but only because he was working under a different set of parameters than someone using live blades would be used to.  He was just looking for a touch.  Fencing tends to be more direct, with fewer flourishes than are used in sword fighting.  It likely may have been a different story if live blades were being used.  The point being that fencing is faster.  Some hits are scored so quickly that the eye doesn't even register it.  It's all counted via the sound of hits, or the signal going off to indicate a point scored.  So though I'm convinced that there may be more than 1 attack a second occurring at certain points of a fencing bout, it's averaged out, because there are also spans where it's all footwork and manouvering, where there are no actual attacks with the sword taking place.  And in a battle with live blades, it might be a little slower, because even more work has to be put into defense.  

So, with two experienced fighters, each getting 4 attacks per 6 seconds, that's a total of 8 exchanges in 6 seconds, or one every 0.75 seconds. 

If you break it down that way, I'm not so sure that the # of actions in melee are nearly as abstract as it was in 2E.

Banshee


----------



## Starbuck_II (Feb 4, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> Why do you say that? I haven't assumed that at all. If you break it down, this was more inherently true in 2nd Ed. than it was in 3E, because the standard round was 60 seconds, as opposed to 6 seconds.
> 
> Back in 2nd Ed., a fighter might have 2 attacks a round....maybe 3, if they are fighting with two weapons. And that's for a lvl 20 fighter. I think the absolute best was a lvl 20 fighter, with the two-weapon fighting proficiencies/skills, and weapon specialization in the weapon they were fighting with. And it had to be paired weapons....since I think they could only specialize in one weapon.



Incorrect, a Dart Fighter had 5-6 attacks a round with weapon mastery, etc. Weapon speeds are important back then (darts were very fast).


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 4, 2011)

Yeah, in 2e weapon speed factor was very important. In fact its what made katana badass in 2e, It had the damage properties of a long sword, but the speed factor of a short sword - which was a big deal. Its interesting all the different ways to go with 3x/Pathfinder - how to make katana a better sword without making it too much better. Its never been achieved well, that I've seen.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 4, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> Why do you say that?




Because you said:



			
				Banshee16 said:
			
		

> Having been a fencer when I was younger, I can say that in the space of 1 minute, you can have *a lot* of attacks......many fencing bouts only last a minute, and in that time you may have had 10-20 attacks each...or more.


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 5, 2011)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Because you said:




But nowhere in what you quoted did I make the statement that a round in 3E accounts for a bunch of attacks.  As I stated......in a minute in a fencing match, you could easily have 10-20 attacks each....or more.

10 rounds a 1 minute.  Thus, *minimum* of 1-2 attacks per 6 seconds.

You sure the analogy of one melee round representing multiple swings, parries etc. isn't a 2nd Ed-ism?  Because I was just reading through the Actions in Combat section of PHB 3.5, and didn't see anything stating that.....though I seem to remember it *was* in the 2nd Ed. PHB.  

The impression I had in 3E was that the contention that 1 action didn't actually equate to one action was no longer true.

Unless you want to do something like equate one attack action = step in, balestra, feint or disengage, then strike.  Theoretically, yes, those are multiple actions, but they are part of one attack sequence.  I'd still credit them as one 5 foot step + attack.

It's not exact....obviously....but the point remains that melee combat appears much faster than missile combat (before the arrival of automatic weapons etc.).  There's no reload time.  The multiple actions you have in a round are a better approximation of the speed of melee combat.  But I'm not so sure about bows, crossbows, or primitive firearms. The Auld Gump has me there....sounds like he's got much more experience with those than I.  The only one of the three I've shot was the bow and arrow......and I frankly don't remember how quick or slow it was.  Pawsnplay made the valid point that the whole 10 arrows a minute thing probably didn't involve shots at single, moving targets.  Theoretically, a 20th lvl fighter with a longbow and rapid shot would be a veritable medieval machine gun, launching 50 arrows a minute, which seems a tad fast   I found a few posts online, indicating a rate of about 1 arrow every 4 seconds is realistic, hitting a target at 40 yards...but that's about it.

Anyways, I think we've kind of gone off topic here.  All I had intended to say was that the combination of rules suggestions I was referencing for firearms, based on the rules I found in Swashbuckling Adventures, gave the quality of verisimilutude to the inclusion of firearms in the game, and might work a bit better than making firearms touch attacks at short range.

I figure they should be dangerous, but limited somehow, and firing rate seemed a good way to do it.  I remember a quote on a plaque in the Canadian War Museum....it was from a Canadian officer in the Boer War, I believe....he said something to the effect that "a new recruit with a $20 pistol could end the best trained swordsman in the world from 50' away, or something to that effect."

Sounds like Paizo still has some work to do to get it right...but hopefully they're able to.  They still have like 6 months or so, so you'd think they could work it out.

I just hope "True Grit" doesn't stay.  Two years from now, that name is going to seem kind of silly 

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 5, 2011)

With respect to the thread topic.....

It would be good if the ninja had a few more non-magical type abilities.  Evasion......maybe Improved Unarmed Strike....and some kind of bonus to AC when not wearing armor.

I haven't really read many accounts of ninja running around in armor, and all the depictions I've seen have typically been the "black pajamas" type.  With AC of 10+Dex Mod, this class will get creamed if it gets into a fight.

Maybe Improved Unarmed Strike could be a Ninja Trick.  If you don't want the martial artist ninja, don't use one of your tricks on the ability.  If you do, then take the ability.  And there is already an example of a ninja trick being equal to a feat......Weapon Training, which gives the Weapon Focus feat.

Hidden Master seems pretty powerful in some ways.  At lvl 20, I basically have a choice:

1-Sneak attack an opponent and do 10d6 damage (average of 35).
2-Sneak attack an opponent and give up all the sneak attack dice, to do 10 points of CON damage.  Against a lvl 20 opponent, that would do 100 points of damage in one attack, and....I think....force a save vs. massive damage.

I guess it makes their sneak attack still pretty scary at high levels.  Maybe that's what they're going for.

Banshee


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 5, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> With respect to the thread topic.....
> 
> It would be good if the ninja had a few more non-magical type abilities.  Evasion......maybe Improved Unarmed Strike....and some kind of bonus to AC when not wearing armor.




Why would you want to make Rogue completely ineffective compared to a Ninja? Ninja fit one role, a rogue fits another. Evasion fits the rogue and would make Ninja a lot more powerful compared to a rogue, because of its already existing ki powers access. I don't want to eliminate Rogue with Ninja. Giving ninja Evasion would do just that.



Banshee16 said:


> I haven't really read many accounts of ninja running around in armor, and all the depictions I've seen have typically been the "black pajamas" type.  With AC of 10+Dex Mod, this class will get creamed if it gets into a fight.




Of course 'black pajamas' are a complete fiction invented by Japanese theater to help the audience know who the ninja is. At no time in history did ninja ever wear black pajamas. You won't see 'black pajama wearing' ninja in my soon to be published setting which will include Shinobi as a subculture.



Banshee16 said:


> Maybe Improved Unarmed Strike could be a Ninja Trick.  If you don't want the martial artist ninja, don't use one of your tricks on the ability.  If you do, then take the ability.  And there is already an example of a ninja trick being equal to a feat......Weapon Training, which gives the Weapon Focus feat.




I can agree with this, Improved Unarmed Strike is fairly marginal of an ability that Ninja shouldn't be denied access to that too.



Banshee16 said:


> Hidden Master seems pretty powerful in some ways.  At lvl 20, I basically have a choice:
> 
> 1-Sneak attack an opponent and do 10d6 damage (average of 35).
> 2-Sneak attack an opponent and give up all the sneak attack dice, to do 10 points of CON damage.  Against a lvl 20 opponent, that would do 100 points of damage in one attack, and....I think....force a save vs. massive damage.




Of course shinobi of my setting don't get Sneak Attack at all, instead they get a tweaked version of Death Attack, as that is far more ninja like than SA could ever be.

In my Kaidan setting, Shinobi is an archetype for Bard, Monk, Ranger, Rogue and Sorcerer, with the possibilities of an included Prestige Class ninja.

Sneak Attack is precision damage in combat. To me a Ninja should avoid combat at all costs (not always possible, but definitely a preference.) A ninja is supposed to be a spy and an assassin, not a tricked out fighter for combat.

GP


----------



## Adso (Feb 5, 2011)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Both the gunslinger and the gun rules themselves are utterly terrible to the point of being neigh unusable.




I would say that is an uncharitable way of looking at it, but not without a glimmer of truth. Guns in the oldest RPG are a difficult nut to crack. They need to be different but not overpowering. They need to feel right. With the gun rules and the gunslinger we are attempting to achieve those very important design goals.

Another design goal is that guns in Golarion are rare and expensive. That's part of the world’s story. 

What you are seeing now in the playtest is a partial and targeted design. I had specific questions I need to have answers for about the gunslinger. The structure of the current class was designed to give me those answers, and give a taste of what they’ll see in the final book. 

Yes, the playtest serves a lot of masters…that’s the nature of playtest. The class needs work; that is why we have a playtest. Problems come to light, and they get fixed thanks to the dedication of the fans and the many folks working on the product.

Just add to the feedback, and wait for the final result. I think you’ll be much happier with it than you are with the current iteration.


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 5, 2011)

Adso said:


> Just add to the feedback, and wait for the final result. I think you’ll be much happier with it than you are with the current iteration.




That's pretty much what I thought.

You can't get feedback and improve it, without putting *something* down on paper, and identifying what people like/don't like about it.

Hopefully you can do make the changes needed to try and find the sweet spot.

If it's any use, I think you can still do fantasy with guns.  Tad Williams' Shadowmarch series includes guns and cannons....but still knights and armor, gods and faeries, shadechanging, and magic spells.  And it works.

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Feb 5, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> Of course 'black pajamas' are a complete fiction invented by Japanese theater to help the audience know who the ninja is. At no time in history did ninja ever wear black pajamas. You won't see 'black pajama wearing' ninja in my soon to be published setting which will include Shinobi as a subculture.




Apparently I don't have any "good" sources on ninjas.  The books I've read seemed to indicate that they did wear camo which might be black at night, or white in the snow, or whatever....but it was only for specific assignments, and in many cases, they were "invisible" by looking like the regular populace so they couldn't be distinguished from any other peasant.

But that armor was cumbersome, and difficult to use stealth with, and they tended not to wear it, unless it was specific items like a very light chainmail, or metal arm bracers or nekode used for blocking sword blows, etc...

In any case, that's what I've read.  Doesn't mean it's right.  I'm not a historian, nor have I taken Japanese history courses or anything of the sort.

I have a book "Art of the Ninja" by Peter Lewis, and "Warriors of Medieval Japan" by Stephen Turnbull....that's about as much as I've read about them.  I'm not saying this to argue...I'm just establishing that I know I don't have a good historical knowledge of the period, and my understanding of the topic has ranged from "they were real", to "they were a complete fabrication and never existed" to "they might have been some form of special forces" and people made up stories about them to exaggerate their exploits.

Banshee


----------



## Borthos (Feb 5, 2011)

What about making them hit against flat footed?  Once fired, you can't really dodge a bullet.  Make it hit vs flat footed within like 2 range increments? But after that, if the person you're shooting is paying any attention, he can duck or something to try and get out of the line of fire.  Also make it to where you can't sneak attack with them, even though it's against flat footed?


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 5, 2011)

Banshee16 said:


> Apparently I don't have any "good" sources on ninjas.  The books I've read seemed to indicate that they did wear camo which might be black at night, or white in the snow, or whatever....but it was only for specific assignments, and in many cases, they were "invisible" by looking like the regular populace so they couldn't be distinguished from any other peasant.
> 
> But that armor was cumbersome, and difficult to use stealth with, and they tended not to wear it, unless it was specific items like a very light chainmail, or metal arm bracers or nekode used for blocking sword blows, etc...
> 
> ...




Yes, the myth about the 'black pajamas' is a Kabuki theater thing. A kabuki theater has no back stage area. The stage handlers wear those black pajama outfits so they are not well seen while moving stage sets around. While the audience can certainly see them, the intent is that they aren't really there - they are 'invisible'. The actors wear garish outfits, much more colorful than their equivalent in real world society.

In the 15th century one particular Kabuki play introduced a ninja as an assassin used against some noble lord in the story line. The actor representing the 'ninja' wore the black stage handlers suit, so as to be kept out of sight/out of mind of the audience, until the moment that he pulled the mask off his face, drew a sword and slew the noble on stage.

This was an OMG moment for the audience, for their assumption that the guy in the black suit was a stage handler and not an actor representing a ninja. This is where the black suit idea originally came from. It was not a ninja standard outfit - of course ninja were known, but little was known about them even by normal Japanese at that time.

Ever since that one play, black pajamas have been used to represent ninja in all media since then. Its a media thing, not an historic thing.

As you mentioned ninja typically dress in disguise whether as a peasant, a monk or other outfit so he can blend in with those around him while he is on mission. So a ninja should be wearing something normal. 

If you were caught not on stage wearing a black stage handlers outfit, you would stand out as something that doesn't belong there, and most likely slain on sight by a samurai viewing him. If he was instead dressed as a peasant, he could say, he was lost, looking for his pet, or using the bathroom and might escape with his life.

I'm familiar with Turnbull's work, but most critics consider much of his work to be poorly researched. Some things he got right, but much was way off. There are samurai sites online that regularly consider his work as empty, and not worth relying upon.

I'm half Japanese and have studied all things Japanese for the last 30 years. I have a cousin who is a history professor at the University of Tokyo, and I regularly use him for my research. I trust my sources versus most other sources available.

Edit: Japanese never had chain-mail as an armor type. Ninja wore 'leather armor' if they wore armor at all.

GP


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 6, 2011)

gamerprinter said:


> Edit: Japanese never had chain-mail as an armor type. Ninja wore 'leather armor' if they wore armor at all.
> 
> GP




I assume you meant "ninja" and not Japanese. Japanese wore lots of chainmail.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 6, 2011)

Sorry, yes, I meant Ninja did not wear chain armor, the Japanese had kusari katabira, which was worn primarily during the Edo Period 1600 to 1868, though to a lesser extent during an earlier 1300's period.

Since my setting though fictional and not Japan, it follows a similar historical track of the earlier 1200 to 1500 period when it was used to a much lesser degree, which would be before the Edo Period. Kaidan won't have a Sengoku nor Edo Period similarity to Japan in its future.

Since ninja were always 'special operatives' specializing in spying, sabotage, assassination, scouting and other covert activity. The wearing of armor was almost non-existent - they were never intended as a fighting force. Combat was circumstantial never something intentional, as that wouldn't be very clandestine. At best they hit and run, not stand trading blows in mortal combat, that was not their purpose.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 6, 2011)

I tend to think of ninjas as either guys in black pajamas learning sorcery from forest demons, or as samurai spies planting black powder bombs in toilets. I am familiar with the 1980s Western action movie vesion, but it doesn't resonate as strongly with me, simply because it doesn't run as deep. I have sympathy for people who learned everything they know about ninja from American Ninja, but it's really difficult for me to talk to people on that level about what I think a ninja is. Some folks on the old Torg list were so _sure_ ninja had something to do with Zen and mysticism and such, and balked at my suggestion that supenatural ninja, to the Japanese, were more likely to be theurgists, alchemists, and perhaps even cursed by demons. I'm fine with the "samurai of the night" archetype, but in that case, I think hewing more closely to the specops model feels better than trying to come up with something that jibes with TMNT and yet fits into a feudal fantasy setting.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 7, 2011)

I'll be fully tackling the shinobi archetypes for Kaidan soon, which will fill special roles for bards, monks, rangers, rogues and sorcerers, with the possibility of building a Ninja prestige class as well (though I'm generally not fond of PrC's).

However, the next class I'm working on with its own clandestine nuance are *Metsuki* - shogunal/state religion secret police which will be an Inquisitor archetype. The new ninja class is just giving me some ideas on those lines.

I just finished my *Yojimbo* (ranger archetype samurai), and my full Yakuza class lineup, including *Machi-yakko* (non-spellcasting inquisitor archetype), *Hinin Bushi* (fighter archetype), *Bakushi* (bard archetype) and the *Bakuto* (rogue gambler archetype.)

Its been fun development so far!

GP


----------



## Winterthorn (Feb 7, 2011)

@ gamerprinter: Your efforts appear interesting! 

But I have to wonder: is medieval Japan over represented in fantasy RPGs?  There are great movies on Chinese and Koren heros, yet I've seen little in fantasy RPGs that touch on asian themes outside of Japan. Hopefully Paizo will address this in the future as they expand upon Golarion.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 7, 2011)

*re*

No martial arts for the ninja and no swordsmanship for the samurai automatically kill the class for me. If _Pathfinder_ doesn't want to do the class justice, then why bother making them? 

It is on historical record that hand to hand fighting was an important part of training for the ninja and swordsmanship for the samurai. Failing to incorporate that element into both classes is moving away from _Pathfinder_ closer adherence to simulation versus balance for class design. I don't care for it.

Do the classes right or don't do them at all.

I don't mind when _Pathfinder_ adds to a class for world flavor. But when they fail to properly model the basics of an archetype, it makes the class hollow and false.

Why do people love ninjas and samurais? Just for the name?

No.

A big reason the samurai is loved is the katana. The class should focus on a two combat paths: sword mastery and archery mastery, coupled with mounted combat. That's the base samurai besides all the flavor material. That should be what the class focuses on.

Now for the ninja it is martial arts, acrobatics, and assassination. That is the classic ninja.

A ninja should be designed as though it were a monk/rogue with different weapons useable with the flurry. It should not be designed without martial arts as part of the class and the common weapons associated with the ninja.

A ninja is more about variety than sheer combat power. Part of that variety should be incorporating usable and effective martial arts.

Any ninja designed without incorporating their hand to hand style and weapons into the common class path is a failure by _Pathfinder_, period, end of story. Utter and complete failure.

Just like any samurai that doesn't incorporate the sword fighting techniques such such as iajutsu and the the precision cutting or the extraordinary mounted archery is as two different optional paths is a failure of the samurai.

It's very easy to design both classes as their combat focus is known by anyone who even slightly studies either archetype. I hope Paizo does not produce a fail ninja like WotC did.

There are a few things a real ninja should be able to do:

1. Fight in hand to hand as effectively as with weapons.

2. Grapple an opponent to silence them and choke them until they die.

3. Use poison

Both of those are easy to incorporate into the class without making it overpowered using the bonus feat system.

DO NOT FAIL PAIZO!!!

A ninja without martial arts aka hand to hand combat is not a ninja to anyone that loves the archetype.

A samurai that can't draw his sword and cut super fast and with extreme precision or plant an arrow into a bullseye from horseback isn't a samurai. They don't necessarily need to do both, but one or the other.

Once again I say, DO NOT FAIL PAIZO!!

On either of these archetypes.

For those of us that will use them if they are done right, we demand martial arts for the ninja and swordsmanship or archery for the samurai.

Get it done. Don't mess up the two best known archetypes of the Asian world.

I will say it again hoping that this information gets to Paizo.

Do not make a ninja without martial arts of you are will have failed. The most attractive part of playing a ninja for anyone that loves them is fighting hand to hand on a stealthy assassination mission. That's the fun of a ninja. Being able to stealthily sneak in, choke out some guard with your arm or garrote, and keep on going is what playing a ninja is all about. That's the fun of it.

Don't mess it up. Please, for the love of the gaming gods, don't mess up the ninja like WotC did. No martial arts is an utter failure by Paizo when it comes to the ninja.

No martial arts for ninja = failure

If your game designers can look into their hearts and design a ninja that can't fight hand to hand, they don't really love ninjas. I don't care if the ninja is imbalanced, what I care about is if the ninja is done right. 

It's up to us DMs to control class access and it's up to you Paizo to provide us with a ninja that fits what all us ninja lovers dream of playing, at least at the most basic level. 

Don't make a "ninja in name only" like WotC did. Make a real darn ninja according to what we love about them. 

Martial arts must be included.

I cannot state enough how important the ability to effectively hand to hand fight means to the ninja class. You better incorporate it or I will spit on your ninja and say to my players "Sure you can play that piece of garbage class so called 'ninja'. Don't sell me that is anything like a real ninja. He's some stupid class given the name 'ninja', but doesn't much represent the archetype well."

Get the ninja right, Paizo. For the love of the gaming gods, get the ninja right.


----------



## Kaiyanwang (Feb 7, 2011)

What about taking improved unarmed strike, improved grapple, stunning fist and call it a day?


----------



## Mojo_Rat (Feb 7, 2011)

there is a whole thread on the paizo boards on martial Rts for ideas for ultimate combat. pretty sure they will be in the book if you want your ninja to have them I am sure they can.

but the ninja as it is now was supposed to mirror the rogue in design.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 7, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> It is on historical record that hand to hand fighting was an important part of training for the ninja and swordsmanship for the samurai. Failing to incorporate that element into both classes is moving away from _Pathfinder_ closer adherence to simulation versus balance for class design. I don't care for it.
> 
> Get the ninja right, Paizo. For the love of the gaming gods, get the ninja right.





The question begs to be asked, in which slice of the historical record are you speaking. Samurai were epitomized with different weapons and tactics for different periods of time. If you're Japan adventure simulates the Edo Period (1600 - 1868) then yeah, swordmastery was a very important aspect to what is the samurai.

However, before 1600, especially 1200 to 1500, samurai is epitomized as the quintessential mounted archer. Katana was a secondary weapon only. Once you ran out of arrows or dropped your bow, that would be the only time your katana is unsheathed in combat.

The historic record is large and differentiated between one part from another. So no, one weapon is essentially samurai throughout the entire historic record.

Regarding the historic ninja - I can easily point to differing authorities on ninja that suggest their information is correct, yet completely opposite to one another. So which is correct? Both and neither. Ninja have always been a secret organization, so what martial arts schools call ninjutsu today, may or may not have any relationship to how the real ninja was, as there is no one resource to tell us for certain what is a real ninja. There is no definite ninja of history described in such detail that a specific class build could be attributed.

So which resources on anything make a ninja or samurai correct to you, may be incorrect or completely different that other sources. Only thing I can say for certain is that you nor I have the exact truth historically.

So claiming Paizo or anyone else is not fitting history - is only a blind guess by you and is just as likely a complete fiction. How one movie depicted a samurai or ninja is no kind of authority at all.

You have an empty argument, IMO.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 7, 2011)

Female samurai traditionally used the naginata. 

During many periods, the wakizashi, often constructed with a more rugged design than the katana, was often the main batle sword. Due to its special tempering, the classic katana was very sharp but also relatively brittle as a parrying weapon, and at around 36" could be considered a little long for close quarters fighting. During the older periods, samurai transitioned first from the Chinese-style straight sword to the Mongolian curved sword, which became the tachi, and then from the tachi to the distinctive compromise-curved katana.

Samurai were associated with the spear for many parts of history. During the high period of the samurai, with iajitsu and tea ceremonies and seppuku and all that stuff, they were early adopters of firearms as well. 

Ninja probably were regularly trained in the martial arts, but not in the sense of going toe to toe with armed opponents. Tai-jitsu was a part of samurai training and undoubtedly extended to their assassins. However, there is reason to suspect that many "ninja" were cultural outsiders adopted into or hired by samurai clans. The classic ninja assassination tend to take the form of a particularly cruel practical joke. For instance, several samurai were killed by ninja hiding in the outhouse with a spear or by a bomb planted there. Sniping a samurai with a gun or bow while he went out at night to use the outhouse was another good one. They also placed wires along forest paths, poisoned food, and infiltrated households with assassins using daggers or strangulation. None of that particularly requires Improved Unarmed Strike, much less flurry of blows.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 7, 2011)

While not necessarily the definitive source on samurai and ninja, Samurai-archives.com is considered by many in historical circles as the best online resource for the samurai - I use it regularly to confer on samurai questions.

Claimed in the Forum, but its site administrator is the consideration that ninja weren't outsiders, lower caste members of Japanese society, rather a different specialist samurai, on equal political level as any samurai. They weren't hired by samurai house, they were samurai houses.

The Samurai Archives Citadel // View topic - Some misconceptions about the Samurai

Of course Wikipedia will relay the complete opposite information regarding the origins of ninja. Best answer, nobody knows for sure. But I do consider samurai-archives as a much better historical resource than many others.


----------



## pawsplay (Feb 7, 2011)

Adoption was a huge part of the Japanese social order. Obviously there is no definitive way to know but I would probably say that the powerful groups of ninja were samurai clans, or households within samurai clans, but that they also acquired household members from the outsider segments of society. The ninja may have been active in the late 19th century, but since they were almost certainly extinct by WWII, it's really impossible to know a lot of details about their activities.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 7, 2011)

Oh, certainly adoption which was exercised constantly throughout Japanese history, makes the idea of bloodlines a very muddy situation. Adoption was a political practice, even considering the Tokugawa Ieyasu required Minamoto blood to be considered shogun, so the emperor adopted Ieyasu, so the claim could be true.

Besides, much history is written by the victors in a war, so accuracy is out the window for that, or history is written hundreds after the fact, so no kind of accuracy relied on. My previous posts confirm my belief in that.

When talking about non-Japanese members in Japanese society after Heian Period (700 - 1185), such as Koreans and Chinese, most fell into the Hinin (eta) 'tainted' caste and not as true members of Japanese society. The only organization that regularly accepts non-Japanese is the Yakuza, and that's an organization of the Hinin caste only.

Really the last time Chinese/Korean immigrants were allowed in Japanese society was prior to 700 AD, and as the possible original Japanese having arrived from the continent prior to 400 AD.

The idea of non-Buddhist monks who were non-Japanese to be accepted into Japanese society at all, after the founding years is only the yakuza, not as adopted members in samurai clans and certainly not the noble caste. I have to completely disagree with you on that point (I could be wrong, but my sources say otherwise.)


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Feb 8, 2011)

Hmmm, I need to modify my stance a bit - it did not occur to me that maybe the more off the wall or niche classes might need playtesting more, and that the whole point of putting them up _is_ to test them. If there was an eye roll smiley here then I would be rolling them at myself.

The Auld Grump, oy!


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 8, 2011)

Adso said:


> I would say that is an uncharitable way of looking at it, but not without a glimmer of truth. Guns in the oldest RPG are a difficult nut to crack. They need to be different but not overpowering. They need to feel right. With the gun rules and the gunslinger we are attempting to achieve those very important design goals.
> 
> Another design goal is that guns in Golarion are rare and expensive. That's part of the world’s story.
> 
> ...




I've already been posting extensivrly on the gunslinger discussion board, along with a m-m-m-megathread on the class and _another_ thread on the weapons themselves.

I just, you know, didn't do it here 

In both threads I presented my own questions regarding both class and weapons, for what it's worth.


----------



## Celtavian (Feb 9, 2011)

*re*



gamerprinter said:


> The question begs to be asked, in which slice of the historical record are you speaking. Samurai were epitomized with different weapons and tactics for different periods of time. If you're Japan adventure simulates the Edo Period (1600 - 1868) then yeah, swordmastery was a very important aspect to what is the samurai.
> 
> However, before 1600, especially 1200 to 1500, samurai is epitomized as the quintessential mounted archer. Katana was a secondary weapon only. Once you ran out of arrows or dropped your bow, that would be the only time your katana is unsheathed in combat.
> 
> ...





You are getting way too detailed. Your response is without merit when it comes to game design. It's like arguing that Full Plate armor should be excluded as an option in the game because it came hundreds of years after the development of chain armor and wasn't available to warriors throughout most of the period when swords, shields, and armor were in primary use. It wasn't the armor of the unmounted soldier ever. We're not getting that detailed.

We're talking simple historical truth here all wrapped up into what ninja and samurai lovers enjoy. Those of us that will use the class if designed properly. And it is on historical record that ninja did practice martial arts, usually varying by clan. The real ninja were rumored to be anything from dishonored samurai clans to Chinese clans that had to run from China to clans specifically sanctioned by the varying powers that ruled over Japan to perform less than honorable actions on behalf of the emperor or shogun.

And I included both swordsmanship and archery in the samurai.

When you're designing a game, you go with the ideas in the history of an archetype that people enjoy. Such as Full Plate armor for knights. Greatswords or Greataxes for barbarians. Katanas and bows for samurai, Martial arts for the ninja.

I didn't go into distinct historical detail not because I was unaware, but because I'm trying to go by the basic history of the ninja. 

Amazing that you could somehow state the argument was "empty" without bothering to think about what game design does.

So is _Pathfinder[_'s game design empty because they decided to include armor technology that most likely wouldn't work as it does?

I don't think so.

And as I stated before, your attempt to support any decision by Paizo to not incorporate martial arts into the ninja archetype shows you don't have much love for the ninja. If you did, you would want martial arts as part of the archetype. I enjoy the ninja. I would play an Asian flavored campaign such as the Jade Regent coming up. So would my players.

But none of my players would play a ninja without martial arts as part of the class and swordsmanship as part of the samurai class. It is what is best known about both archetypes.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 9, 2011)

I may be way too detailed, but you're way to general.

I'm not designing the samurai for everybody's game, I'm designing one specifically for Kaidan only.

Honestly, I'm publishing a Japan inspired fantasy setting called Kaidan. I am definitely not interested in guns or a 'time of peace' in my Japan analog, so a samurai designed like 1600 onward samurai is too modern for my needs. I'm going for a more feudal period design. The Portuguese don't show up in my analog, so no guns available.

This means my samurai emulates 12th century samurai - 'the way of the horse and bow'. In this earlier time, more people believed in ghosts and goblins, so it fits better with a fantasy setting.

Paizo's samurai class is similar to one of my samurai designs (in Kaidan, Samurai is a caste of many classes, not just one class.) They've got optional bow or sword specialty, which in my mind is correct. Your assumption that it can only the 'way of the sword' is wrong historically and too limited for viability in a game setting.

Your post mentioned 'Samurai should be a sword master' or something like that. Its only that, that I disagree. Now you say both 'sword and archery' in your last post. Had you included that in your previous post, I wouldn't have responded as I did. But you did not, which suggested to me a misconception on your part - which I was correcting.

I posted a link in my response to PawsPlay in this thread that points Samurai-Archives.com (number one source for authentic samurai info) which suggests ninja were 'honorable' full status samurai houses. Traditional samurai filled the role as battlefield warriors. Ninja are only covert ops versions of standard samurai. There is nothing dishonorable or criminal about them - that's a misconception based on post Tokugawa Era samurai and the media. Ninja was a full status samurai, not a fallen samurai. (Incidentally, I learned this long ago, samurai-archives only confirms this.)

Me, I'm going for a specific era in a feudal Japan setting, not a general one, and the whole setting is wrapped in authenticity - not just the character classes. The setting has lots of verisimilitude and better for it. I don't want some general old Japan tropes (many of which are wrong BTW). I'm trying to re-educate my fans on what makes a more authentic Japan enviroment. To do otherwise seems lazy to me.

Granted others might want a more over-the-top, or trope following version of a Japan game. Somebody else will have to create that game, I'm building a horror setting that is in keeping with Japanese concepts, history, religion, legend and folklore. Its not based on anime, James Clavell, Rokugan, or anybody else's fantasy job. Mine is based on 16th century and earlier ideas of what is Japan, in a Japan analog that frees me from actual history.

Good design is my only goal with samurai and my other classes, basing it on real Japan and not misconceptions of Japan.


My setting has for Samurai: Hatamoto (cavalier archetype - similar to Paizo's Samurai), Meika (courtier bard archetype), Onmyoji (wizard archetype) and Yojimbo (ranger archetype.) However my setting isn't intended to be a samurai-centric game, rather focusing on all the social castes. So the Commoner caste classes include: Bakushi (bard), Budoka (monk), Heimin Bushi (fighter), Jugondo (sorcerer), Kannushi (cleric) Matagi (ranger), Miko (oracle) Metsuki (inquisitor 'secret police), Shinobi (bard, monk, ranger, sorcerer archetypes and a prestige class ninja), Sohei (fighter-monk archetype), and Yamabushi (paladin).

The setting also features an Animal caste mostly kappa, tengu, henge classes which include druids as well.

Hinin (eta) caste: Bakushi (bard) and Yakuza subculture (bard, fighter, monk and rogue archetypes.)

So using all the classes of Pathfinder, and several versions of some, based on how they best fit their social niche.

I was never satisfied by Kara-tur, Oriental Adventures nor Rokugan - Kaidan intends to be the fix for all that.

GP

PS: its also because you brought up the words "in the historic record", that there is even a dispute. Had you said Japanese tropes for a fantasy game, that would be completely different and cover a wide assortment of best fit ideas.


----------



## BobROE (Feb 9, 2011)

Celtavian said:


> Your response is without merit when it comes to game design.




I'd argue that your's is as well.  You're making the assumption that what you want out of a ninja class (and by proxy the game as a whole) is what everyone else wants out of the ninja.  This isn't true.

I don't care one way or the other if the ninja has martial arts skills (where martial arts is weapon free combat), so it looks fine to me.  Perhaps that means I don't care about the ninja, but paizo has to design a class for all people not just those who love ninjas and everything about them.

There are some people who obviously would want a more historically accurate take on the class and I've seen posts on the Paizo boards saying they want a ninja that's based on a power source coming from demons.  So there's obviously a wide range of possibilities.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 10, 2011)

BobROE said:


> There are some people who obviously would want a more historically accurate take on the class and I've seen posts on the Paizo boards saying they want a ninja that's based on a power source coming from demons.  So there's obviously a wide range of possibilities.





I'm definitely not creating a real world Japan analog, there's plenty of magic and monsters (especially yurei ghosts and oni demons), my ninja, like the monk will get improvements from a wide array of new ki powers. My intentions are making them subtle, rather than overly powerful, yet ki magic will certainly enhance the ninja.

*Ki Step* (for example) for 1 ki point (as a swift action) allows you to remove one aspect of terrain for a single round, allowing you to move through thickets, on ice, or walking on water. Spend 2 ki points (as a swift action) to extend the duration to a number of rounds equal to your WIS bonus.

I am allowing a Ki Potential Trait, and a 4th level Activate Ki feat that will allow any class to have a ki pool of 2 ki points (3 ki with Extra Ki feat) and learn up to five different ki powers. Ki is something that should be inherent in all Japanese classes, not just monk. Except for monks and ninja (and certain other class archetypes) other classes cannot increase their ki pool by normal means beyond 3 points, however. (Artificed ki battery magic items might allow an extra point or two.)

I am also introducing new or extended lines of feat chains that emulate Jujitsu, Karate and Aikijutsu. Jujitsu (the original judo) uses Ki Throw and Improved Ki Throw from the APG, adding a greater one that allows you to throw an opponent to hit and damage other opponents in adjacent squares, plus some side feats for lessening falling damage, and meditative strengths.

So I am expanding martial arts through feat chains, without getting weird like OA 3.0 did. I think that martial arts capability and techniques should be wide spread across a Japan-inspired setting - not just relegated to monks and ninja. Because Shinobi is an archetype for a wide array of classes, including sorceror, arcane enhancements are only expected. Shinobi (sorceror archetype) have an alternate Shadow bloodline.

So my ninja aren't truly historic, but their subculture exists within the framework of what is known historically about them applied to a fantasy setting.


----------



## BobROE (Feb 10, 2011)

Fair enough, I was using you as an example of someone who's done a crap load of historical research (obviously) and that a person like that  might want a ninja that was more historically accurate.  I wasn't trying to imply that you did.


----------



## gamerprinter (Feb 10, 2011)

Yeah, the crapload of research is just for verisimilitude and authenticity only, not to make a realistic non-standarad Pathfinder game setting.


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Feb 12, 2011)

My question is....if the Ninja is going to be using a Ki-pool type mechanic, than why isn't it based on the Monk Class instead, which ALREADY has a Ki-pool type mechanic??? Plus, would the Ninja just fit better with the Monk rather than the Rogue, with the martial arts like emphasis that the Monk appears to simulate??? 

Just my questions.

I also think the Gunslinger based on either Ranger or Alchemist would be good.

Samurai to me would be a more ideal fit for the Fighter than the Cavalier, but I could be wrong on this...


----------



## Borthos (Feb 13, 2011)

Stacie GmrGrl said:


> My question is....if the Ninja is going to be using a Ki-pool type mechanic, than why isn't it based on the Monk Class instead, which ALREADY has a Ki-pool type mechanic??? Plus, would the Ninja just fit better with the Monk rather than the Rogue, with the martial arts like emphasis that the Monk appears to simulate???
> 
> Just my questions.
> 
> ...




May not be entirely what you're looking for but I think it was UC that was going to have a gunmage. Might be UM but I forget.  I can't wait for it.  Any Alchemist variants would be fun to play.  The Alc is my favorite base class ever.  I'm running one now called Crazy Jim


----------



## Stacie GmrGrl (Feb 13, 2011)

How do the gun rules for the gunslinger compare for those rules for firearms found in both Iron Kingdoms and Freeport Pathfinder Companion?


----------



## TanisFrey (Feb 14, 2011)

Here is a question about guns in PF or 3.5.

A character decides to use pistols and wields two at a time, they choose to firing both in a single round.  Do you allow them to do this with the *Rapid Shot* Feat or the *Two-Weapon Fighting* Feat?


----------



## KainG (Feb 14, 2011)

I would rule Two-Weapon Fighting, due to the character having to use his actual off-hand to fire the gun.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 14, 2011)

TanisFrey said:


> Here is a question about guns in PF or 3.5.
> 
> A character decides to use pistols and wields two at a time, they choose to firing both in a single round.  Do you allow them to do this with the *Rapid Shot* Feat or the *Two-Weapon Fighting* Feat?




TWF.

Note that pistols are one handed weapons, not light, and to my understanding nothing was set out to allow them to be TWF'd without penalties.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Feb 14, 2011)

TanisFrey said:


> Here is a question about guns in PF or 3.5.
> 
> A character decides to use pistols and wields two at a time, they choose to firing both in a single round.  Do you allow them to do this with the *Rapid Shot* Feat or the *Two-Weapon Fighting* Feat?




Honestly, I'd probably let you do it either way (I also allow this in SW Saga Ed) - with the proviso that, if it works out to be overpowered, we'd revisit the decision.


----------

