Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

12th level gunslinger will take out a CR 17 red dragon each round with no effort


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

With RAW I have put together a gunslinger who can fire a colossal gun for 272 hp dmg/shot. "One shot one kill!".

The UC rules for inappropriately sized firearms allows the use of firearms of any size at a cumulative -2 penalty, but with no change to effort.

I am convinced that this cannot be intentional on part of the designers, but I would like to know what the intention of this rules exception is, and possible have an FAQ.

Right now this looks to me like a loop hole the size of The London Eye! Everyone reading this please press for FAQ.

My Math:

The Core Rulebook has the following to say about weapon size:

PRPG p. 144 wrote:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can’t make

optimum
use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A
cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size
category of difference between the size of its intended wielder
and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient
with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty
also applies.
The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon
(whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed,
or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered
by one step for each size category of difference between
the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the
weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would
wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed
weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to
something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by
this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.

Whereas Ultimate Combat says this:

UC p. 136 wrote:

Inappropriately Sized Firearms: You cannot make

optimum use of a firearm that is not properly sized for
you. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for
each size category of difference between your size and
the size of the firearm. If you are not proficient with the
firearm, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies. The
size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need
to use to shoot it
, the exception being siege firearms and
Large or larger creatures. In most cases, a Large or larger
creature can use a siege firearm as a two-handed firearm,
but the creature takes a –4 penalty for using it this way
because of its awkwardness.

This means a medium character could fire and load larger than medium firearms with no increase in effort.

In the extreme consequence that could be a colossal musket or worse a double hackbut at a -8 penealty. While -8 would normaly be a huge penalty for a firearm it is not so mutch, since it is often a ranged touch attack.

A semi-optimized 12th level dwarven gunslinger has Dexterity 22 (+6), BAB +12/+7/+2, Weapon Focus +1, Point-blank Shot +1, enhancement bonus +3, -8 inappropriate size, which sums up to +15/+10/+5 (with a double-barreled musket that is +11/+11/+6/+1). Considering that these are touch attacks they are not at all bad. On the damage side this character would be dealing 12d6+12 (avg. 54 hp/ shot).

With improved vital strike that is 36d6+12 (avg. 138 hp).
If we factor Deadly Aim, and a double-barreled musket into this we are looking at a +7 ranged touch attack for 72d6+20 (avg. 272 hp).

A semi-optimized 12th level human musket master gunslinger has Dexterity 24 (+7), BAB +12/+7/+2, Weapon Focus +1, Point-blank Shot +1, enhancement bonus +3, Rapid Shot -2, Deadly Aim -4, double barreled musket -4 which sums up to +13/+13/+13/+8/+3; for 1d12+20 (avg. 27 hp) which for 5 hits adds up to 135 hp / round.

I am sure someone can find minor errors in these calculations, as I am sure others would be able to squeeze even more damage out of this loop hole, but that is besides the point.


You have misread the rules for inappropriately sized weapons. I quote it here:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can't make optimum use of a weapon that isn't properly sized for it. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn't proficient with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder's size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed weapon. If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all.

Notice the end of the last paragraph: "If a weapon's designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can't wield the weapon at all."

A rifle is already a two-handed weapon, so even a size increase to a weapon appropriate for a large creature is unusable for a medium creature. You can take a one-handed weapon which is one size category larger as a two-handed weapon, and you can take a light weapon which is two size categories larger as a two-handed weapon (ie, a huge dagger can be wielded as a two-handed weapon by a medium creature), but beyond that, it is not about penalties, but simply the weapon can not be wielded at all.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

You just missed the rule from Ultimate Combat I quoted above, which explicitly deviates from the standard rule. Please re-read my post.


I did not miss that rule. The rule from ultimate combat does not contradict the rule from the core rulebook, it only specifies that you can not change the number of hands it takes to fire a firearm, thus if you are a medium creature, and you have a rifle which is designed for a small creature, you still need two hands to fire it, even though if it were a different type of weapon, you would be able to wield it with one hand.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

That goes both ways. I.e. if you are a small creature you can still fire a medium two-handed fire arm - or even a colossal one.

I have emphasized the text and will remind you that the way the rules work the specific overrules the general.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Suddenly, I find myself wishing there was a Pathfinder conversion of the Giff floating around...

Edit: and, for what it's worth, I agree with Mabven's reading. The fact that the size of the firearm never effects how many hands you need to shoot it doesn't contradict or modify the core rules on how large a weapon can get before it can't be wielded at all.

To put it another way, the rule quoted in the OP states how the weapon can be used, the other rule states whether the weapon can even be used at all.


It seems like a gray area to me. The "Inappropriately Size Weapons" rules talk about a weapon's "designation," while the gun rules talk about "number of hands." Does the designation still change if the number of hands doesn't?

I would say The Grandfather is right, simply because the section seems to replace the standard rules. You could make an argument for "designation" still changing even though "number of hands required" doesn't, but that doesn't seem to have been the intent. Not saying it is a wrong interpretation, it is just not how I would read the rules.

The question I have is why does this rule even exist? Why couldn't someone fire a small musket with one hand, or need two hands to fire a Large pistol? Is there some particular reason this deviation from the norm is necessary?


4 people marked this as a favorite.

there is nothing in the wording of the rule in ultimate combat which specifies or even implies that it overrides the rule in the core rulebook. It simply says that you can't change the number of hands it takes to fire a weapon. An even more strict interpretation would say that you simply could not wield a weapon of any size category larger than yourself, since you are not allowed to fire a pistol as if it were a rifle, and your hand isn't large enough to wrap around the pistol grip, nor is your finger long enough to reach the trigger.

You are trying to find a broken rule where it does not exist. The two rules do not contradict each other, and even if they did, there is a place in gaming for a little common-sense.

Taldor RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Grandfather wrote:

That goes both ways. I.e. if you are a small creature you can still fire a medium two-handed fire arm - or even a colossal one.

I have emphasized the text and will remind you that the way the rules work the specific overrules the general.

I have to agree with Mabven here. The "weight category" or "designation" of weapons is different than the number of hands required to wield it, in the case of firearms of unusual size.

Examples:

A Medium pistol is a "one-handed weapon." For a Medium creature, it can be wielded in one hand. A Large pistol, per the general rule about increasing size, is a "two-handed weapon," in the hands of a Medium wielder. However, the specific rule about using oversized firearms says that the Medium creature can still wield this particular "two handed weapon" in one hand. A Huge pistol is "more than two-handed" to a Medium wielder, so it can't be used at all, but if it could, it would still take only one hand to do so.

This interpretation may be up to debate, but it clearly closes the "rule loophole" so that's the way I'd go if you really don't want Colossal rifles in the hands of PCs.

Though why a Fine rifle one half inch long requires two hands for a human to wield is another good question.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

@ Mort: I can only assume the designers did not want medium sized characters using superior range small rifles as pistols.

@ Mabven & Sebastian: I wish you were right, but this is so far into the gray area, that I think an FAQ is in order. While agree with you on the RAI I still disagree on RAW.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

@ ryric: Except that number of hands required is solely determined by designation. Trying to separate the two without further rules wording seems nonesensical to me (and other players I have talked to).

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Then why is there a "light" size? How many hands are required to wield a light weapon?

The two are separate, as demonstrated by the fact that "light" is a type of weapon and not a number of hands required to use.


with the handedness, Grandfather is right, as written you can wield that gargantuan weapon, but I highly doubt it was intended this way.

However the double hackbut doesn't work, as it is not double barreled. I regard double-barreled weapons as cheese, altough there can't be no different intention than to simply let them attack twice in a round. I have no idea who thought that was balanced with the rest.

so in my opinion: missing errata times cheese = death by munchking seems to be a very valid equation.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Also, in the quote from the core rules, it refers to the categories of weapon (light, 1h, 2h) as weapon designations. The UC rule does not say it changes a weapon's designation or even reference those designations. It talks in terms of how many hands are required to shoot (not wield) it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Tha fact that the last wording for inappropriately sized weapons was removed and substituted with wording of almost diametrically opposed meaning for inappropriately sized firearms obviously causes very different rules interpretations, which should be addressed.

EDIT: Thanks to those of you who have marked this topic for FAQ.

Cheliax Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

*shrug* As ryric points out, one interpretation results in game balance, one results in CR 17 dragons getting one-shot killed by 12th level gunslingers. Even assuming both are supported by RAW, it should be pretty easy to figure out which interpretation is correct.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Gotta agree with Mabven and, dare I say it, Sebastian on this one.

Additionally, in the realm of common sense, if we are looking at an increase by 4 size increments, you have to look at all aspects of this, sorry to say, ridiculous mental image.

Weight
Using a double hackbut as an example, the base weight on the thing would be 288lbs <EDIT: removed an extra '8'> (18x2x2x2x2). Kinda crazy, but the concept is kinda crazy anyway, so let's run with it.

Reloading
Sticking with the Hackbut, barrel length for these weapons ranged between 4' and 6'. Even running with the low end of the range (and assuming the double weight rule results in a double size), you are looking at a weapon that is 64' in length(4x2x2x2x2)! Even giving benefit of the doubt, and running with a 1.5 multipler for actual size, you're looking at almost 30' in length.

On the 64' length, the reload time becomes a full move to get to the end of the barrel (these are not breach load weapons), full round to reload, full round to get back, then fire. After the first shot add in one additional round as you will need to stand up as it will knock you prone per RAW. So one shot per 5 rounds in effect.

Ammo
One would assume the ammo expenditures would also scale similarly, so you are looking at 16 doses of black powder (which is also 60% more than required for a cannon per RAW) and you would be shooting a bullet a little over 1/2 lb in weight. Now I could very well be mistaken in this, as RAW is not clear as to the effect of ammo on larger weapons, but using the scaling rules for weight (doubling for each size increment) this would be the result.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

RAW doesn't support this as I read it, and it probably shouldn't.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

@zulphryx:

18x2x2x2x2=288 lbs; relatively easy for an Str 18 dwarf.

RAW reloading is a free action for a 12th level musket master. In addition multiplying mass and/or volume does not correspond with multiplying proportions by the same amount.

RAW there is nothing supporting your extrapolations for ammo expenditure.
A colossal gun uses one dose of black powder. While bullets could be argued to weight up to 8 lbs apiece I really cannot see this stupping the Canon-dwarf-from-Hell. He has the strength for it and a handy haversack makes the theory possible by RAW. Any way a 12th level character would probably think it was ok to spend 16 gp worth of black powder to take down red dragon.

But make no mistake about it. I am the first to think that what I have outlined in my original post is extremely cheesy - that is why I would like this adressed by Paizo staff. As a PFS official I really don't want to have this argument with people either.

Grand Lodge

I hate these RAW wars. Every rule is open to the interpretation of the GM. So it does not matter what is implicitly written, if it is not accepted by the GM.

There, done.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Aeshuura wrote:

I hate these RAW wars. Every rule is open to the interpretation of the GM. So it does not matter what is implicitly written, if it is not accepted by the GM.

There, done.

I agree 100%.

And while assume that my red-dragon-skeet shooter was not intended by the design team an erratum or FAQ would ensure PFS GMs don't have to battle rules lawyers unnecesarily.

With regard to PFS the RAW becomes somewhat important.

Grand Lodge

I can see that... I just see so many of them that it feels like people want the developers to "hold their hand" as they play. That they don't have any authority to simply say, "No!"

I guess you are correct in terms of PFS, it draws all sorts, and it is better to cover your bases. :)

Taldor

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Grandfather wrote:
<poked holes in previous assumptions based off of RAW>

What I was addressing wasn't RAW, but instead common sense (as I stated prior to my extrapolations, sorry if I did not make it clear I was not addressing RAW). This is the issue with sticking solely with RAW, it will never address all possibilities, which is why RAW (as far as I have always been concerned with home games) are more guidelines rather than etched-in-stone-can't-be-broken. Basically, my statements would be how I would address it in a home game if a player brought this to the table.

Don't get me wrong, I did get a chuckle out of the build and the concept, but it wouldn't pass muster at a table I run (unless I was running an over the top campaign ... but then everyone would be running something wonky).

EDIT: You do have a a valid point re: PFS (I have seen some heavy cheese attempts in that arena). A shame that it happens and that such clarification can be needed, but such is life.


Sebastian wrote:

Suddenly, I find myself wishing there was a Pathfinder conversion of the Giff floating around...

Edit: and, for what it's worth, I agree with Mabven's reading. The fact that the size of the firearm never effects how many hands you need to shoot it doesn't contradict or modify the core rules on how large a weapon can get before it can't be wielded at all.

To put it another way, the rule quoted in the OP states how the weapon can be used, the other rule states whether the weapon can even be used at all.

Going one step further, interpreting the rules this way does not change the fact that your character may not even be able to lift the weapon in the first place. Weapons list their weight mostly for reasons of measuring encumbrance, but in such a case, the weight listings might also indicate to your GM that the weapon is just not hoistiable in the first place.

I think this falls again into the realm of "things the designers should not have to explain because they ought to be common sense."

You might be able to read the rules as if my gunslinger could accurately fire a cannon-sized musket with one hand, but being a halfling, I will still have a hard time seeing it.


The Grandfather wrote:

@zulphryx:

18x2x2x2x2=288 lbs; relatively easy for an Str 18 dwarf.

A heavy load for an 18 Str begins at 201 lbs.

It would be like aiming a large and heavy man holding him by the knees.

A light load for Str 18 is 100 or lower. Medium is 101 up to 200. Now, I am not a total firearms expert, but I have fired many rifles in my time, and had any of them weighed even a 10th of my weight, and had a barrel six feet long, I would not have been able to accurately fire them.

Again, things the designers should never have to explain to you.


14 people marked this as a favorite.

Rob Liefeld called.....
he said that gun's too big, man.

Shadow Lodge

The Grandfather wrote:
18x2x2x2x2=288 lbs; relatively easy for an Str 18 dwarf.

1) What kind of gunslinger has 18 strength? Isn't strength is considered a dump stat for gunslingers?

2) 288 is 12 pounds off max load for an 18 strength. Sure you can lift it, but don't count on having much of anything else, Although with a gun that size you probably won't be able to afford anything else. remember you want a 64000 gold weapon

Quote:
While bullets could be argued to weight up to 8 lbs apiece I really cannot see this stupping the Canon-dwarf-from-Hell. He has the strength for it and a handy haversack makes the theory possible by RAW.

I'd like to see this dwarf from hell, 22 dex and 18 strength have been mentioned already

Quote:
As a PFS official I really don't want to have this argument with people either.

if some one came to a PFS session with something like this, i'd either a) audit their character on the spot, b) wait till the come up against something they can't defeat with bullets, or diplomacy or anything really... a 5ft wide door... ok they might try to blow a hole in the wall, but hell a hole in a wall to allow a colossal weapon though, not going to be very good for the structure of the building


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
zylphryx wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
<poked holes in previous assumptions based off of RAW>

What I was addressing wasn't RAW, but instead common sense (as I stated prior to my ...

Don't get me wrong, I did get a chuckle out of the build and the concept, but it wouldn't pass muster at a table I run (unless I was running an over the top campaign ... but then everyone would be running something wonky).

EDIT: You do have a a valid point re: PFS (I have seen some heavy cheese attempts in that arena). A shame that it happens and that such clarification can be needed, but such is life.

In a home game I would probably disregard the UC wording entirely and go by the core rules. If anything I could be persuaded to allow a weapon one step larger than the core permits if the player is willing to spend a feat on it. Home games don't really concerne me, as I trust players out there are doing xavtly what they think is the most fun.

PFS is different and while some os you might not have any interest in that campaign general rules are not to be discussed on PFS boards, but on general rules boards.

The build I am adressing os an extreme, but already now I have seen a musket master with a large musket, and while the player may not be able to pull off a colossal musket a gargantuan or huge musket is definitely something within grasp by RAW.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Skerek wrote:
...

RAW a naked dwarf with Str 18 could wield a 300 lbs weapon relatibely unhindered.

I agree it does not make sense, but thats the RAW. I am bringing this up for the sake of the RAW and because I am very interested in hearing a designers reasoning behind the CRB vs. UC discrepancy (what I perceive as a discrepancy).


I kind of want to do this now. Not as an all the time thing, but as another option. Say an artificer-type mad scientist gunsmith/alchemist who drops bombs, uses that crazy new black powder technology, and is constantly tinkering with what he considers to be his masterpiece. drags it out into a large battle and sets that thing off, if only once.

Again, it's total cheese if it's meant to be 'lolz super leet dmgz all teh time"- It's impractical. But it's really a great concept for something to have up your sleeves, given the right type of character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And any reasonable and most unreasonable DM's will say "NO, start over with somthing less stupid."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps Subscriber
Xabulba wrote:
And any reasonable and most unreasonable DM's will say "NO, start over with somthing less stupid."

...agreed, but as Grandfather's mentioned before, when you're GMing a PFS game, you need to go with RAW. If there's ambiguity in the RAW - and the discussion here demonstrates that there is - then it opens the door to GMs spending time arguing with players when they should be ensuring that everyone at the table is having fun.

Regardless of how stupid you think the build/concept/weapon is, can we at least agree that there is ambiguity that would cause problems for PFS GMs, and let the developers FAQ it for us?

In short, if it's not a problem for you because you only GM home games, that's fine. But please keep in mind that if there is a PFS-centric problem with the rules themselves, it'll show up here, because this is where it needs to be discussed. One doesn't need to - in fact, shouldn't - shut down discussion on these potential problems just because one is comfortable banning things in one's home game.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Feegle wrote:
Xabulba wrote:
And any reasonable and most unreasonable DM's will say "NO, start over with somthing less stupid."

...agreed, but as Grandfather's mentioned before, when you're GMing a PFS game, you need to go with RAW. If there's ambiguity in the RAW - and the discussion here demonstrates that there is - then it opens the door to GMs spending time arguing with players when they should be ensuring that everyone at the table is having fun.

Regardless of how stupid you think the build/concept/weapon is, can we at least agree that there is ambiguity that would cause problems for PFS GMs, and let the developers FAQ it for us?

As a PFS GM, myself I would have no problem dismissing such nonsense from my table. For one thing, you can't even purchase such items in PFS which is considerably more strict about such things than homebrew campaigns. And another, I have yet to meet any PFS gamer that would try to pass a fraction of the wackiness that munchkiners try to pass off on these boards.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Maps Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Feegle wrote:
Xabulba wrote:
And any reasonable and most unreasonable DM's will say "NO, start over with somthing less stupid."

...agreed, but as Grandfather's mentioned before, when you're GMing a PFS game, you need to go with RAW. If there's ambiguity in the RAW - and the discussion here demonstrates that there is - then it opens the door to GMs spending time arguing with players when they should be ensuring that everyone at the table is having fun.

Regardless of how stupid you think the build/concept/weapon is, can we at least agree that there is ambiguity that would cause problems for PFS GMs, and let the developers FAQ it for us?

As a PFS GM, myself I would have no problem dismissing such nonsense from my table. For one thing, you can't even purchase such items in PFS which is considerably more strict about such things than homebrew campaigns. And another, I have yet to meet any PFS gamer that would try to pass a fraction of the wackiness that munchkiners try to pass off on these boards.

Leaving aside the question of purchasing power - because I'm not sure of the rules off the top of my head - I can say that I have had a couple of ridiculous munchkin-builds show up at my table over the past six months. (For what it's worth, they're usually experimental rather than players gaming the system, and they rarely last longer than one scenario.) I've also GMed a player who will stand and argue RAW - though in a different public game than PFS. He stood over the table and attempted to disrupt play when I wouldn't let him play what he wanted.

Extreme cases, I'll agree. But they happen from time to time, and a simple FAQ can resolve the issue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't see why this discussion continues. Anyone with reasonable reading comprehension skills can see that the two rules don't contradict each other, and the rule from ultimate combat simply creates an additional restriction for firearms, and does not take away the weapon category restrictions for inappropriately sized weapons. Please let this die, the developers are not going to faq this, because there is nothing too clarify.

Cheliax

As a PFS GM, I would have no problem refusing a gargantuan-sized hackbutt even without RAW behind me as to being able to fire it. I would just bug the person playing it with constant questions:

"Hey, are you dragging your gun around while all this is happening? Hey, how are you moving that thing through the city? Hey, how do you load something from the back when the barrel is 20 feet that way? Where do you keep your ammunition?"

There's also, as a last resort: "Uh oh, all the goblins are more interested in finding out how your cannon works than in fighting you guys! They're trying to take it apart!"

Taldor RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Mergy wrote:

As a PFS GM, I would have no problem refusing a gargantuan-sized hackbutt even without RAW behind me as to being able to fire it. I would just bug the person playing it with constant questions:

"Hey, are you dragging your gun around while all this is happening? Hey, how are you moving that thing through the city? Hey, how do you load something from the back when the barrel is 20 feet that way? Where do you keep your ammunition?"

There's also, as a last resort: "Uh oh, all the goblins are more interested in finding out how your cannon works than in fighting you guys! They're trying to take it apart!"

This is also how I would control it in a PFS context if the player absolutely insisted on their reading of RAW. Play up all the actual physical limitations of having a ginormous weapon.

Weapon size rules have always been a little funky. Once as an exercise in 3.5, a friend and I came up with a way for a Medium character to wield a Colossal longsword. We had the comical mental image of a 6 foot tall dude wielding a sword 15-20 feet long with only 5' reach. Because none of the feats/spells/etc involved increased the reach of the wielder.

Andoran

The Grandfather wrote:
Skerek wrote:
...

RAW a naked dwarf with Str 18 could wield a 300 lbs weapon relatibely unhindered.

Try again. He's 12 lbs off his max weight (meaning he would only be able to carry one bullet, max), and since he is carrying so much, he is encumbered, and takes a -6 to all his skill checks (the ones that ACP applies to, anyway).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
LazarX wrote:


As a PFS GM, myself I would have no problem dismissing such nonsense from my table. For one thing, you can't even purchase such items in PFS which is considerably more strict about such things than homebrew campaigns. And another, I have yet to meet any PFS gamer that would try to pass a fraction of the wackiness that munchkiners try to pass off on these boards.

Where do you get it, that a PFS charcter cannot buy oversized firearms?

Cheliax

The trick for dealing with people who stretch the rules to accommodate power-gaming in this way is to make them role-play every single thing they do. The guy who always has an army of mules carrying his stuff around had better mention how he's tying them up, and he'd better have enough rope to do so. The guy who lugs around 10 bags of holding is going to get robbed, likely enough, because what thief wouldn't look at that and say "SCORE!"? The guy who tries to use a musket the size of a small house will have difficulty getting it into a small house. "Nope, doesn't look like it fits through the door. I sure hope you have some way of keeping it safe and unmolested while you're inside."

What's more, if a player successfully answers all of the stupid and mundane questions you put to him, and navigates the difficulty of his munchkining choices smoothly, congratulate him. He is playing the game well, and should be proud.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
I don't see why this discussion continues. Anyone with reasonable reading comprehension skills can see that the two rules don't contradict each other, and the rule from ultimate combat simply creates an additional restriction for firearms, and does not take away the weapon category restrictions for inappropriately sized weapons. Please let this die, the developers are not going to faq this, because there is nothing too clarify.

Sadly, by your definition I am both illiterate and somewhat stupid. Disregarding your poorly veiled insults, I don't think it is your call to shut down this discussion.

While I understand your reading of the rules, I do not agree that they are as plain as you state, or that we can even take for granted what the design team intended when they wrote that bit of text into the UC.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Mergy wrote:

As a PFS GM, I would have no problem refusing a gargantuan-sized hackbutt even without RAW behind me as to being able to fire it. I would just bug the person playing it with constant questions:

"Hey, are you dragging your gun around while all this is happening? Hey, how are you moving that thing through the city? Hey, how do you load something from the back when the barrel is 20 feet that way? Where do you keep your ammunition?"

There's also, as a last resort: "Uh oh, all the goblins are more interested in finding out how your cannon works than in fighting you guys! They're trying to take it apart!"

That may be so, but that does not adress the core of the problem, the rules.

You would have a very dificult time arguing against large or even huge guns, as long as some sort of clarification is not in place. Sure, you can arbitrarily start banning game elements, you find unreasonable but going against the rules will eventually foster resentment against your GMing and the campaign, and we don't want either of those.


I go with the idea that Core RULES trump and smash supplements. But that's me, and I don't game in organized play, so it's a moot perspective.

I will say that it's things like what the OP has pointed out, that I think d20 has become a bent system that needs some major overhauls to stop things like "12th level Gunslinger dealing 272 points of damage in a single hit" thinking. Just my own POV. Not intended to highjack the thread. Someone stated it above, get designers to FAQ it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber

As an aside, where's the table on scaling weapon damage up that high based on alternate size?

The Equipment chapter in the Core Rulebook just scaled Medium-sized equipment to Small and Large sizes, which tells me that the musket's 1d12 Medium damage is 3d6 Large damage, where's the Colossal damage?

I do know that the Universal Monster Rules has a table for natural attacks by size, but nothing there scales as high as this would go, so I can't use it as a comparison.


Well, at least this isn't the "Lone Gunslinger vs 4 Gold Wyrms" that showed up during the playtests. I guess that's something.

Shadow Lodge

What I'm surprised that no one has pointed out, is the fact that firearms are not categorized by light/one-handed/two-handed. So the core rules about them increasing/decreasing past those ranges is moot. The firearms resizing rules presented in UC were put there because they aren't melee weapons that have those sizes.

Heck, by the core rules, you could wield a gargantuan longbow with only a -6 to attack, since ranged weapons aren't light/1h/2h either.

I wouldn't allow it in any of my games, but RAW, I'm siding with the op. The text was obviously taken from the CRB for inapp sized weapons and copied into the UC, to me the change in text seems purposeful.


The Grandfather wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:
I don't see why this discussion continues. Anyone with reasonable reading comprehension skills can see that the two rules don't contradict each other, and the rule from ultimate combat simply creates an additional restriction for firearms, and does not take away the weapon category restrictions for inappropriately sized weapons. Please let this die, the developers are not going to faq this, because there is nothing too clarify.

Sadly, by your definition I am both illiterate and somewhat stupid. Disregarding your poorly veiled insults, I don't think it is your call to shut down this discussion.

While I understand your reading of the rules, I do not agree that they are as plain as you state, or that we can even take for granted what the design team intended when they wrote that bit of text into the UC.

I am neither saying you are stupid nor illiterate, as you have earlier in the thread shown that you have comprehended the rules. But you are trying to force upon the developers an interpretation that a rule is poorly written, which they obviously disagree with since they have moved the thread from "Rules Questions" to "General Discussion". Since your stated intention is to have the wording of one or both of the rules changed to better reflect RAI in your opinion, I think you need to face the fact that you are not going to achieve that in this forum.

Andoran

You assume that because Ultimate Combat says it doesn't take any additional hands to shoot the fire arm it doesn't take any additional hands to load the fire arm. That is not a good assumption to make and is not RAW.

1 to 50 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / 12th level gunslinger will take out a CR 17 red dragon each round with no effort All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.