|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 3:39PM
#131
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Any idea why people want to create such a character in a D&D world? I am completely mystified as to how and why people want to apply that archetype to fantasy RPG's. There must be some movie or manga that flipped this idea. I would love to know what it is, just so that I can be ready for it if my players want to run that sort of thing.
This is actually a very good question, and the answer goes back to 1972 apparently.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murlynd
TL;DR: Some people like westerns.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 3:48PM
#132
|
|
|
They have a working gunslinger in pathfinder. But even then it's mostly feats/class abilities that allow the constant use of guns and not the guns themselves.
Which is a prime example of guns in past editions. They make the guns so strong they would be OP if they could be used like normal weapons, so they gimp them so hard that you need to burn a significant portion of your resources (class levels and feats) if you want to use them consistently. That's just poor design. Guns don't need to be special, they just need to work in a way that allows you to contribute consistently.
Be an archer if thats what you want. You could even write Gun and bullets in place of bow and arrows, and wear a duster with a wide brimmed hat. But if there is no change in mechanics then there is no need to make any changes to the rules, no need to say anything about the matter. You can have exactly what you want right now, with no further discussion, just go to your character sheet and erase bow and then write in gun.
+1. Only add rules if there are rules to add 
There is a rule to add. You can make it a single sentence: "Firearms: If your DM allows firearms in his/her campaign, then pistols have the same stats as hand crossbows and rifles have the same stats as crossbows."
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 3:53PM
#133
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
That's the answer that could be given for any weapon, though. Hell, again, look at the current weapon rules - a massive chunk of military weapons are almost identical, mechanically. Is the answer "Don't bother including Longswords, Morningstars, Flails, Warhammers, etc - just write whatever you want in place of 'Battleaxe', and have it now"?
Yes absolutely; nothing wrong with that at all. I once had a warrior who used a plow in combat, we just used the stats for pole arm. It was great fun =)
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 3:54PM
#134
|
|
|
They have a working gunslinger in pathfinder. But even then it's mostly feats/class abilities that allow the constant use of guns and not the guns themselves.
Which is a prime example of guns in past editions. They make the guns so strong they would be OP if they could be used like normal weapons, so they gimp them so hard that you need to burn a significant portion of your resources (class levels and feats) if you want to use them consistently. That's just poor design. Guns don't need to be special, they just need to work in a way that allows you to contribute consistently.
Be an archer if thats what you want. You could even write Gun and bullets in place of bow and arrows, and wear a duster with a wide brimmed hat. But if there is no change in mechanics then there is no need to make any changes to the rules, no need to say anything about the matter. You can have exactly what you want right now, with no further discussion, just go to your character sheet and erase bow and then write in gun.
That's not strictly true for 2 reasons. 1: crossbows have reload times. 2: Players who want to do something often need a rule they can ask about in order to get it. As a DM, I can certainly treat all firearms as crossbows, or even as bows. As a player, not only do I need to get my DM to approve my character's use of firearms (which is as it should be because the DM has final say on the setting), but, in the absence of a rule on firearms, I have to hope that he/she will decide on rules that don't make the use of firearms not fun for me.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 3:54PM
#135
|
|
|
I had a jackie chan style monk who used anything and everything in combat situations. DMs never get used to hearing "Whats the damage if I bang two potlids around his head?"
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 3:56PM
#136
|
|
|
That's the answer that could be given for any weapon, though. Hell, again, look at the current weapon rules - a massive chunk of military weapons are almost identical, mechanically. Is the answer "Don't bother including Longswords, Morningstars, Flails, Warhammers, etc - just write whatever you want in place of 'Battleaxe', and have it now"?
Yes absolutely; nothing wrong with that at all. I once had a warrior who used a plow in combat, we just used the stats for pole arm. It was great fun =)
A while ago, a few different people proposed a very bare-bones weapons system. Something like reducing all weapons to 4 simple weapons: 1-handed melee, 2-handed melee, 1-handed ranged, and 2-handed ranged.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 3:57PM
#137
|
|
|
That's the answer that could be given for any weapon, though. Hell, again, look at the current weapon rules - a massive chunk of military weapons are almost identical, mechanically. Is the answer "Don't bother including Longswords, Morningstars, Flails, Warhammers, etc - just write whatever you want in place of 'Battleaxe', and have it now"?
Yes absolutely; nothing wrong with that at all. I once had a warrior who used a plow in combat, we just used the stats for pole arm. It was great fun =)
A while ago, a few different people proposed a very bare-bones weapons system. Something like reducing all weapons to 4 simple weapons: 1-handed melee, 2-handed melee, 1-handed ranged, and 2-handed ranged.
They did something very similar in Gamma Worlds 7e. Light melee, Heavy melee, Light Ranged, Heavy Ranged.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 4:01PM
#138
|
|
|
That's the answer that could be given for any weapon, though. Hell, again, look at the current weapon rules - a massive chunk of military weapons are almost identical, mechanically. Is the answer "Don't bother including Longswords, Morningstars, Flails, Warhammers, etc - just write whatever you want in place of 'Battleaxe', and have it now"?
Yes absolutely; nothing wrong with that at all. I once had a warrior who used a plow in combat, we just used the stats for pole arm. It was great fun =)
A while ago, a few different people proposed a very bare-bones weapons system. Something like reducing all weapons to 4 simple weapons: 1-handed melee, 2-handed melee, 1-handed ranged, and 2-handed ranged.
They did something very similar in Gamma Worlds 7e. Light melee, Heavy melee, Light Ranged, Heavy Ranged.
Now that you bring it up, I believe they referenced gamma world when they mentioned it. Personally, I find that to be ideal. If DMs want weapons to have further mechanical differentiation, that can easily be done at the table. However, I don't mind seeing the current weapons table and getting the GW-style rules-light weapons as an option.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 4:24PM
#139
|
Date Joined:
Oct 21, 2012
|
That's not strictly true for 2 reasons. 1: crossbows have reload times. 2: Players who want to do something often need a rule they can ask about in order to get it. As a DM, I can certainly treat all firearms as crossbows, or even as bows. As a player, not only do I need to get my DM to approve my character's use of firearms (which is as it should be because the DM has final say on the setting), but, in the absence of a rule on firearms, I have to hope that he/she will decide on rules that don't make the use of firearms not fun for me.
No you can't have crossbows with no reload times in my game. I got the feeling that you want your gunslinger to be a fast shooter, that’s why I used bow and not crossbow.
As for "hoping the DM lets you do something" You don't need to hope for anything, present your case and if the DM is OK running it then you stay in the game, if the DM is not OK running it then you go find another game. And that holds true for everything in D&D and all ttRPG's. Rule’s are no guarantee that the DM will allow something anyway. The DM could say "there's no fighters in my world." So the players who just have to play a fighter are going to have to find another table. Rules cannot prevent that sort of thing.
When rules get added to fill a need or desire that is actually something outside of the game (i.e. the DM PC social contract) what they do create is a headache, and turn the "game" from a pleasant pass-time of telling stories and making things up and exploring imaginary worlds into a painful contest of wills. The rules should be detailed enough that there are tactical decisions to be made regarding rules based choices, they should appear to govern real situations, but they should not try and model real situations, that leads to a boggy, slow system that has no spark. I’m sure there’s some people who want highly “realistic” simulation games. D&D is a poor platform for that sort of thing because so much of it is role-play. Most people that I have played with can do one or the other well on any given night, and each hobby involves some acting and some tactics, but there is a definite limit to how much the average human mind can do and enjoy in a given span of time. So please don’t try and regulate the behavior of fellow gamers with in system rules, it just leads to bloated rules systems that are no fun to actually play.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 29, 2012 - 4:25PM
#140
|
|
|
Any idea why people want to create such a character in a D&D world? I am completely mystified as to how and why people want to apply that archetype to fantasy RPG's. There must be some movie or manga that flipped this idea. I would love to know what it is, just so that I can be ready for it if my players want to run that sort of thing.
Fantasy Cowboys- Roland Deschain from the Dark Tower; Lee Scoresby from His Dark Materials. (Harry Dresden is sort of one but fits more of a noir detective archetype)
Things generating interest in guns and magic: the rise of steampunk from the obscure to mainstream.
Some specifics? In Warhammer lore dwarves are master crafters who use relatively advanced firearms. In Fable 3 you can rapidly fire off flintlocks pistols/rifles. In Dragon Age 2 you never see gunpowder but it come up in the story as a relatively major way to hook you into the plot.
As far as manga is concerned, the closest influence is One Piece, where their effectiveness is downplayed by the fact the main character is made of rubber.
|
|
|
