|
There are a variety of concerns that I have about the Gunslinger, but at the top, it's cost prohibitive. I.e.,
10 gp for a single dose of powder and 1 gp per bullet? 11 gp to take one shot?
Also, there's quite a lot of sacrifice w. misfires and times for reloading that, quite frankly, aren't offset by the damage of the firearms. 1d8 and 1d12 aren't bad, but considering that a longbow does 1d8 and doesn't require the amount of sacrifice a gunslinger has, I'd say a bowslinger looks better.
Note that I'm not one of those purists who is opposed to firearms in Golarion. In fact, I'd like to see more of it. It's just that, given the costs v. gains of playing a gunslinger, I simply don't see the merit of focusing on firearms via a class.
There are a variety of concerns that I have about the Gunslinger, but at the top, it's cost prohibitive. I.e.,
10 gp for a single dose of powder and 1 gp per bullet? 11 gp to take one shot?
Also, there's quite a lot of sacrifice w. misfires and times for reloading that, quite frankly, aren't offset by the damage of the firearms. 1d8 and 1d12 aren't bad, but considering that a longbow does 1d8 and doesn't require the amount of sacrifice a gunslinger has, I'd say a bowslinger looks better.
Note that I'm not one of those purists who is opposed to firearms in Golarion. In fact, I'd like to see more of it. It's just that, given the costs v. gains of playing a gunslinger, I simply don't see the merit of focusing on firearms via a class.
Thank you for the feedback. This is something we are well aware of, and we did it on purpose because firearms are new, rare, and expensive in Golarion. The final rules in Ultimate Combat will have rules if you want to play with firearms that are not new, rare, expensive, and even easier to use, but those will be options rather than the baseline for the campaign.
That and I'm moving this thread to the discussion list. Please post to this forum when you have playtest reports or if you are commenting on a specific playtest report.
Thanks!
So you seek to balance/make functional the class with these weapons yet know that there will be weapons with variable advantages over the equipment presented (optional or not) that can and will impact the balance/ functionality of the class. But as they arent available for the playtest there is no way to troubleshoot the combination of the class and the item. Which will, in the fullness of time, require FAQ's erratas, and clarificatiosn, probably from day one of the product release.
And you dont see a problem with this?
So you seek to balance/make functional the class with these weapons yet know that there will be weapons with variable advantages over the equipment presented (optional or not) that can and will impact the balance/ functionality of the class. But as they arent available for the playtest there is no way to troubleshoot the combination of the class and the item. Which will, in the fullness of time, require FAQ's erratas, and clarificatiosn, probably from day one of the product release.
And you dont see a problem with this?
+infinity
I'm p. sure firearms will be rare not because they cost a lot, but because they're terrible.
Ok, and they cost a lot.
There are so many problems having the super expensive guns brings out. I get that you want there to be this fluff thing, but it really, really doesn't seem well thought out. I can't have any enemies that use guns. None! Not a single one! The gunslinger has to pay more then twice what almost every other class has to pay for masterwork or magic weapons. And for something that's for "fluff reasons," it doesn't make much sense to have each shot cost more then a full private army costs.
The economy in D&D has never made sense. All you're doing now is hamstringing an entire weapon while at the same time proving the economy doesn't make sense.
Thank you for the feedback. This is something we are well aware of, and we did it on purpose because firearms are new, rare, and expensive in Golarion. The final rules in Ultimate Combat will have rules if you want to play with firearms that are not new, rare, expensive, and even easier to use, but those will be options rather than the baseline for the campaign.That and I'm moving this thread to the discussion list. Please post to this forum when you have playtest reports or if you are commenting on a specific playtest report.
Yea...this is generally problematic.
I'm about *yea* close to wrapping work on a campaign setting for PFRPG, which does utilize firearms in a rare sense but no where near the rarity of Golarion, and I've been riffing off a few things in the absence of PF firearm rules (PF 3.5 rules, D&D rules, d20 Past rules, and a few other elements that are decent). I want the campaign to be generally modular, using rules that players already know, so the firearms coming out is great and could be a huge help, but the fact that our first look is one hamstrung by the house setting and won't be corrected until we see another print book six months after the fact?Next playtest release, as well as fixing the slinger, let us take a crack at the "universal" rules you've got hammered out. Probably reduce a lot of the complaints if we read you right and makes us less beholden to a campaign setting.
Next playtest release, as well as fixing the slinger, let us take a crack at the "universal" rules you've got hammered out. Probably reduce a lot of the complaints if we read you right and makes us less beholden to a campaign setting.
The optomist in me thinks, like the magus, we may not see a revision for round 2 but (I hope) we will see one (and the other guns) for round 3.
The final rules in Ultimate Combat will have rules if you want to play with firearms that are not new, rare, expensive, and even easier to use, but those will be options rather than the baseline for the campaign.
But we're not playtesting for the campaign, were playtesting for the basic rules. While I understand that the rules being presented with the Gunslinger will also be publish with a campaign setting supplement, this is the Ultimate Combat playtest, not a Golarion playtest.
Playtesting the Gunslinger is useless if we cannot also playtest firearms simultaneously.
Good. I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds the costs outlandishly pricey.
1rst, sling bullets & musket bullets are about the same size, so why do bullets cost 10x as much?
2nd, pour molten metal into a mold & there's your tube(it's not like it has to be rifled). Then attach it to a wooden handle. The hard part's the fairly simple firing mechanism. Considering that the overly complicated wheel lock was the among first firing systems for guns, I'd say a the much simpler flint-lock system that came later wouldn't be too hard to pull off. This all keeping in mind that item market price & production costs are directly connected in this game system.
The hardest part's rain-proofing the setup without using the more advanced primer cap system, but still quite do-able with standard fantasy level technology.3rd(& most importantly), coming from a background involving black powder firearms, I don't see how the gun powder's 10gp a shot. Black powder's not that hard to make(hell, the Mythbusters did it on a small scale with no tools or formula). Take a 5-pack of gum(like Big Red or something). Cut that in half. That's about as much black powder as you need to shoot... a mid-1800s Infield or Springfield rifle. Even with the inferior compression of the musket, the required gunpowder to fire a shot doesn't go up by much.
1: Size, maybe. Slings throw rocks muskets shoot lead. There is your price difference.
2: No. Early muskets were cast as a solid lump of metal, and then bored out, even assuming that you did cast it into a mold, it is much more than a "tube". The trigger needs to have access to the firing pan, the firing pan needs to be able to direct the ignited black powder into the musket, and even then it is much more complicated.
Also, as you stated, the flint lock came later, and the wheel lock was not the first way of doing it, that was the matchlock. Which is a lit length of slow-match lowered into the firing pan.
3: I can also use calculus. In 1,000 years, we may look back at the current civilization and say, 'What idiots! Why was space-travel so expensive! Future Mythbusters did it on a small scale with no tools or formula, they just knew how to make Anti-matter engines!' When technology comes out it is expensive and oft times prone to failure.
Playtesting the Gunslinger is useless if we cannot also playtest firearms simultaneously.I concur.
This is neither the first, nor I feel the last, time this [general sentiment] is going to come up.
My biggest issue is everything in the fluff states that the costs of firearms is inflated. As such they do not really cost that much. As such it is currently impossible to gauge where the prices are supposed to be for item creation and so on.
I get that firearms are rare in Golarion, but 1500 GP for a rifle seems ill conceived. A masterpiece sword only comes to 300 over the cost of a normal sword. A mail shirt made of mithral only comes to 1000 over the cost of a chainshirt. Hell, an adamantine (you know, the material that 2 tons of is more than most worlds can provide, according to the bestiary 2 anyway) weapon is only twice that. This is especially bizarre considering that firearms are mass produced in Alkenstar (albeit in limited numbers currently, but those figures inflate massively in times of war, so it's clearly not an issue of severe difficulty and I seriously don't think that artificial inflation is going to drive costs to the point that two muskets are as pricey as an adamantine greatsword.).
Maybe the inflation assumes not only are they solely constructed in Alkenstar & suffer wartime inflation, but the dearth in knowledge of repair for them unless you personally take the weapon to capital of Alkenstar; which the misfire rate essentially guarantees they'll be worthless in less than a handful of battles?
Maybe the inflation assumes not only are they solely constructed in Alkenstar & suffer wartime inflation, but the dearth in knowledge of repair for them unless you personally take the weapon to capital of Alkenstar; which the misfire rate essentially guarantees they'll be worthless in less than a handful of battles?
Of course this is nice unless you remember we are talking about a character with the knowledge to do just that. As such the whole idea falls apart again.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
All you're doing now is hamstringing an entire weapon while at the same time proving the economy doesn't make sense.
I've got no problem with the cost, I think 11 gp/shot and 1,000 gp or more for a non-masterwork weapon is fine. Craft cost should be half (no point in coding the "inflated" into a cheaper crafting cost.)
I've got problems with the fact the weapons are 78% of the damage of a Light Crossbow (optimized 15th level PC) when using 16 Quick Draw guns (16,000 gp) to sustain rate of fire to get decent damage.
I've got problems with the jam/misfire/break/explode rules that don't exist in all other weapons. This forces me to either enforce this "roll a 1 and your weapon breaks" on everyone including Longsword fighters or ignore the rule of a 1 is a misfire. Both actions on my part are house rules, but I can't have guns in a game without picking one of these house rules.
I should note, that I don't think guns should be as damaging as an optimized Longbow PC. But if the cost is maintained, I don't have a problem if they are slightly better (in DPR terms.) I'd also be just as happy with them being slightly above Crossbow (which is a world away from Longbow DPR) and maintain the high cost.
Personally, I feel that setting the cost at 1/10th the current cost would be quite reasonable. That would set pistol costs at 100 GP and rifle costs at 150 GP. Making them comparable to the cost of a composite longbow (another item that requires a skilled craftsman with an extensive knowledge of his work to make).
Secondly, I'd abandon the idea of them being flintlock arms. I really see no reason why a cartridge firearm in a fantasy setting would be harder to swallow than a musket that you can reload in a six second round and still have time to get a shot off. I'm envisioning muskets resembling martini-henry rifles, and pistols resembling the thompson center contender (except of course older looking). Ammunition would be set at a flat gold piece per cartridge. Anachronistic? Sure, but so are flintlock arms. If you want to make them more appropriate to D&D, you could just rule that they're using a paper cartridge with an alchemist fire primer.
Finally, I'd suggest basing musket stats around the great crossbow stats that were present in races of stone and deriving your pistol stats from there. This would make them a pair of exotic weapons that I could conceivably see being worth the proficiency.
My issue with gun cost, as I have pointed out in a previous thread, is that guns are not Pathfinder Society compatable. In word they are, but in reality, they simply aren't.
I had an idea today for a Sniper archtype rogue, and thought of how much work it would take to use a gun with him. I could understand the feat requirements (2, one for usage, one for grit to keep the thing unjammed). The cost ended up being the thing that killed the concept.
To make my Sniper society viable, I HAVE to take a level in Gunslinger. For nothing but the free gear.
Again i will compare this to the Arcanis campaign, guns are expensive and not everyone is allowed to have them. They are slightly more powerful to compensate for this though.
The arguement with that is that they are not nearly powerful enough to carry the price tag they do. The most expensive mundane weapons are still less than a third the price (go go double crossbow!) and there is a region in the Golarion setting where they are more commonplace. One would think that they'd be a little cheaper (maybe 500g for a pistol rather than 1000).
|
|
Frankly I see the cost of ammunition for firearms to be prohibitive to the point of insanity. Despite the fact the humble sling bullet and the musket ball are very nearly the same thing the musket suffers from a massive inflation of it's ammunition prices. It's especially annoying considering your average sling bullet is very likely going to be made of lead due to it's superior capabilities as ammunition when compared to stone or baked clay.
I can easily see the gunpowder being a rarity in Golarion outside of Alkenstar but I believe the prices should be lowered or the amount per 'dose' increased simply to adhere to reality in even the most vague fashion (as it stands woe betide the player who would want to purchase powder to load a cannon, a lowly 6 pound cannon would likely require over a 1000 gold worth of powder if you go by the 'dose' method). As it stands your average low level Gunslinger is going to be relying on their 'secondary' weapons just as much if not more than their firearms as the extremely prohibitive price of ammunition coupled with their rather wonky rules makes them an unappealing choice in combat.
Truly though I'm not all that surprised the firearms rules are a little wonky given their parent country seems to be a rather illogical jumble of interesting ideas.
|
The issue is why I suggested a Gun Lore class feature in another thread. Gunslingers should get to add 1/2 their level at least to Craft: Alchemy checks to make gunpowder and Craft: Gunsmith checks. It would reduce their costs dramatically. Somebody complained that it didn't make thematic sense but I think they were being too narrow minded about what a Gunslinger is.
Frankly, in a world where everything is so much better than a gun, Gunslingers would have to people that wanted to use guns, make guns, and engineer better guns or they might as well take up the bow.
A mechanic then which also allowed each 'Slinger to engineer a customized gun would make them playable while still having a high barrier to entry for any schlub that wants to shoot a gun. This ability would probably work somewhere along the lines of an Eidolon, a Kensai's sword, and an Alchemist's infusions.
The cost of a Full Plate is 1500 gp, so the 1000 gp doesn't seem so out of place considering the complexity of making Full Plate vs a gun.
True. However, Full Plate is functionally better than other armors, not just on par, and does not require quite as many feats to see use. Also, Full Plate doesn't need reloaded.
*EDIT* I've come to realize that the real reason I don't like the gun cost ist that it devalues the Gunslinger class as a whole. Gunslinger feels like a class that I would dip into on any character [strikeout]just to make the bloody gun work[/strikeout] just to have guns, not for the merits of the class itself. I've dipped into classes to pick up things before: Monk with my preist for Temple of Elemental Evil just for the wisdom to AC, Fighter on a cleric for Heavy Armor Prof and Tower Sheild Prof (and that bonus feat was nice too), Rogue for skill points, Arcane classes for Prestigue class prereques, ect. However, this would be the first time I'd consider doing it just for gear itself, and that makes me feel dirty.
The issue is why I suggested a Gun Lore class feature in another thread. Gunslingers should get to add 1/2 their level at least to Craft: Alchemy checks to make gunpowder and Craft: Gunsmith checks. It would reduce their costs dramatically. Somebody complained that it didn't make thematic sense but I think they were being too narrow minded about what a Gunslinger is.
Frankly, in a world where everything is so much better than a gun, Gunslingers would have to people that wanted to use guns, make guns, and engineer better guns or they might as well take up the bow.
A mechanic then which also allowed each 'Slinger to engineer a customized gun would make them playable while still having a high barrier to entry for any schlub that wants to shoot a gun. This ability would probably work somewhere along the lines of an Eidolon, a Kensai's sword, and an Alchemist's infusions.
that why i said they make better alchemist base class than fighter.
|
|
Agreed. I've been compairing the damage and costs for three level 6 "slinger" type Characters.
Standard ranged Inquisitor build.
Archer Ranger
And the Gunslinger.
So far the Ranger is doing the best for hits. The Inquisitor is doing respectable damage, The Gunslinger seems undergeared, and on average costs 150 or so gold a battle. The ranger and the Inquisitor ar costing about 28 gold.
Tempted to compar a throwing style Inquisitor, Fighter, Ranger, and Zen Archer Monk against the Gunslinger.
Main problem is that my gunslinger is not really benefitting from grit and spending roughly 17 to 25 gold a shot is just not helping him. Note I tend to buy masterwork ammo at low levels or enchanted ammos to make up for characters issues with ranged attacks.
Tempted to compar a throwing style Inquisitor, Fighter, Ranger, and Zen Archer Monk against the Gunslinger.
Main problem is that my gunslinger is not really benefitting from grit and spending roughly 17 to 25 gold a shot is just not helping him. Note I tend to buy masterwork ammo at low levels or enchanted ammos to make up for characters issues with ranged attacks.
Grit at 6th level (7th level is better getting Targetting):
You'll be relying on Deadeye to shoot touch AC past 1st range increment (keeping out of range so they can't melee you).And if using ranged: leap for cover (granted any ranged attacker should be prone anyway if against non-melee targets).
... Note I tend to buy masterwork ammo at low levels or enchanted ammos to make up for characters issues with ranged attacks.
I think masterwork or enchanted weapons are more costeffective than ammo, and since enhancement modifiers from weapon and ammo do not stack, there is no real need for enchanted ammo, unless you want to stack different special abilities (eg. flaming gun and shock bullets).
+infinitySo you seek to balance/make functional the class with these weapons yet know that there will be weapons with variable advantages over the equipment presented (optional or not) that can and will impact the balance/ functionality of the class. But as they arent available for the playtest there is no way to troubleshoot the combination of the class and the item. Which will, in the fullness of time, require FAQ's erratas, and clarificatiosn, probably from day one of the product release.
And you dont see a problem with this?
+1
A feat combo I like for gunslinger at eleventh level and higher is Secret Stash Deed and Signature Deed. Basically, it gives unlimited ammo.
Not to mention technically generating 16.5 gold a round if you just keep pulling this stuff from mid air....
What I'm really curious is how they intend to get around the capacity limit since each gun can only hold one bullet, with a reload time of a standard action (even move with rapid reload, by level 6 at the latest if you don't take rapid shot or anything you have multiple attacks a round.
Am I expected to carry around and try to enchant 4 guns? We can have clock work constructs yet we're not advanced enough to have a revolvers or clip loading weapons?
Yes because clockwork constructs don't work by technology, they're magical short-cuts. The Incas mastered extremely sophisticated building techniques that we're just learning to understand, built an extensive road system, yet they never thought of the wheel as more than some something to put on a children's toy. As I recall it took several centuries after the first flintlocks to actually come up with cartridge ammunition, let alone the revolver.
Except because of the same access to magic why wouldn't mages be using spells like fabricate and polymorph any object to experiment with advanced firearms prototypes that could then be mass produced?
Don't use the "well magic" argument its actually a far more internally logical reason for why there would be advanced firearms.
Yes because clockwork constructs don't work by technology, they're magical short-cuts. The Incas mastered extremely sophisticated building techniques that we're just learning to understand, built an extensive road system, yet they never thought of the wheel as more than some something to put on a children's toy. As I recall it took several centuries after the first flintlocks to actually come up with cartridge ammunition, let alone the revolver.Except because of the same access to magic why wouldn't mages be using spells like fabricate and polymorph any object to experiment with advanced firearms prototypes that could then be mass produced?
Don't use the "well magic" argument its actually a far more internally logical reason for why there would be advanced firearms.
Sorry I should have been more clear, yes i realize that as a construct it is powered by magic, but there is still some extremely complicated crap going on in there gear wise for it to be clock work.
D&D already has cartridge ammunition in the form of the repeating crossbow, it's not too far of a leap to think that someone wouldn't be thinking why can't we have this for guns.
|
|
Technology has it's limits. We've not designed planes as fuel efficient as birds and battery technology seems to be pretty much stalled. And cars for that matter haven't really changed that much since Henry Ford put them on mass production.
You're not reading enough.
First batteries. Info from Envia on new cathode technology that will allow lithium Ion batteries to stone twice their current capacity.
Cars haven't changed? You might want to watch this video about the differences in safety or any of the other ones on that page. You might want to take note of the hybrid electric cars and electric cars available now. Chrysler is coming out with a hydraulic hybrid. BMW is making a battery powered car made from aluminium and carbon fiber to save weight.
And I don't think anyone's giving up on hydrogen fuel cells either.
And this is just the tiniest portion of the energy market. I haven't even gotten to cool stuff they're doing with wind and photovoltaics.
Human ingenuity has taken us from rock connected to stick for more bashy power to airplanes and moon landings in a remarkably short time. I wouldn't bet against us inventing the tech to move about without gasoline.
Edit: Oh and planes as fuel efficient as birds? Are you kidding me? Name me the bird that has to carry a hundred passengers and their luggage as well as chairs, snacks, drinks, and equipment.
Once again, I recommend single shot cartridge firearms. I believe they'd fit in just fine in many Pathfinder settings, even Golarion (which has a nation dedicated to technology).
The Thompson Center Contender makes an excellent model for a pistol.
http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/firearmDetails.php?ID=3566
The Martini-henry rifle is a similarly excellent model for a rifle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Martini_Henry_Mk_IV.jpg
The former would need to be fluffed up a bit differently, but I really see no reason that either of these would look all that out of place for a Pathfinder. With the fluff out of the way, all that's needed are stats. As I said before, basing the rifle off the great crossbow stats and extrapolating pistol stats from that point would probably get you a fairly satisfactory stat-line. Ammunition costs would be a flat 1gp per shot, and since the T/C contender is already designed to fire rifle ammunition, I really don't see ammunition being interchangeable as a problem. The shorter barrel and the accompanying loss of velocity would more than adequately explain the lower damage of the pistol.
Human ingenuity has taken us from rock connected to stick for more bashy power to airplanes and moon landings in a remarkably short time.
In all fairness, for most of our existence as a species, we didn't have much in the way of tools at all. Even the more advanced periods of the stone ages represent a comparatively small fraction of our time on planet earth compared to the time where we really didn't live much better than chimps and our time with advanced tools represents a comparative drop in the bucket. But if we wanted realistic technological advancement, we really wouldn't be playing fantasy games. Where technology is often found via the works of elder races that were created with the knowledge, through flashes of (literally) divine inspiration, and through basic "It's magic, I aint gotta explain s+*+".
You are confusing cartridge ammunition with magazine feed.
Cartridge ammunition is when the bullet and powder (and usually primer) are packaged together as a single unit.
Magazine feed is a device for feeding multiple rounds of ammunition (cartridges, or in the case of a crossbow bolts) into the firing mechanism.
Magazine feed for firearms requires cartridges with an integral impact primer (percussion cap) as you would otherwise still need to re-prime for each shot and additionally create an opening in the cartridge for the primer to ignite the main charge.
What you are looking for is more along the line of a turnover pistol or pepperbox. Multiple barrels that rotate on a central axis, each loaded and primed, which are indexed to the hammer to be fired. (yes, you can use it for long guns as well as pistols)
The downside to this system is that reloading is even more time intensive since each barrel takes as much time to load as a single barrel firearm, so the reload time would be multiplied by the number of barrels to be loaded. In other words - once you have fired all of your barrels you will now need to reload for several rounds unless you want to fire each barrel as you reload it as a single shot firearm.
Theoretically, I suppose one could swap out the entire empty barrel assembly for a fresh one that is fully loaded as a full round action (I'm hesitant to suggest Rapid Reload applying since you are effectively dismantling the firearm.). Of course the weight of this would be about 2/3-3/4 that of the completed firearm, and the cost would be at least 1/2 that of the firearm per set of barrels. Not to mention the question of which part of the firearm counts as magic and the associated question of having...
You are correct, a revolver style would make more sense than a cartridge. I was trying to draw lines to multiple capacity guns vs other weapons, and once again trying to form a coherent thought in the morning before work and coffee failed me.
I find that style actually a much more elegant solution in the contexts of what paizo has given us with black powder. I really don't see much of an issue with a gun with capacity 6 or something. At level 6, with rapid reload and rapid shot that gives you 3 shots. That's two full rounds of full attack, then one shot a round using rapid reload. Two if you take lightning reload. Then being able to reload out of combat by taking the 30 some odd seconds is completely reasonable. Being told you can only take one shot a round with what we have so far isn't.
If you posit the technology to make a blasting cap (which is not all that difficult, once someone figures out how to make blast powder, which is actually very easy, just not intuitive), then Cap and Ball revolvers make a lot of sense. That's why they were very common in the 'wild west'. It required a lot of time to reload a cylinder (you basically loaded up 6 cylinders with balls, poured in powder, then put the cap on the back, thus the name Cap & Ball). Guns and rifles used them, and you just popped the cylinders out and replaced them (full action to reload). This gives you six shots between loads, and a feat to reload as a move action seems fair. Also drop the cost of the round to say, 2gp per shot (1.5 for powder, .5 for lead) and the gun cost to about 300gp per, and it's all very reasonable.
EDIT : Keep the misfire mechanic for normal guns, and remove it for MW firearms, and you've got a decent set of weapons for actual usage, rather than the broken pile of bull hockey guns are now.
|
|
In all fairness, for most of our existence as a species, we didn't have much in the way of tools at all. Even the more advanced periods of the stone ages represent a comparatively small fraction of our time on planet earth compared to the time where we really didn't live much better than chimps and our time with advanced tools represents a comparative drop in the bucket.
That's why I didn't say "we went from chimp to putting chimps in rockets in a remarkably short period of time." Tools represented a quantum leap for mankind which allowed for nearly exponential growth in knowledge and technology.
Back on topic, guns could also use a quantum leap forward. See what I did there? Brought it all together. All slick-like.
Historical accuracy sorta goes out the window when wizards can create perpetual energy.
Historical accuracy sorta goes out the window when wizards can create perpetual energy.
+1
