ALSO ... it seems to me that the gunslinger as a class imposes on the fighter's "master of all weapons and armor" shtick, just like a pikeman or slinger class would.
It absolutely does. Which to me is another sign that guns aren't the problem. The problem is the implementation (touch attacks, gunslinger as a class, etc.)
Honestly, I'm still waiting for the AP where a very wealthy antagonist commissioned a couple thousand 4,500 gp decanters of endless water, set them on "geyser", and pointed them at an inhabited floodplain.Ok wtf...
How the hell are you guys freaking out about guns and "their effect on the world" but you are perfectly fine with Clerics and druids producing infinite water from nothing, bards/wizards/sorcerers/rogues/anyone with even a TINY inkling of magic beng able to randomly pick things up from 30 ft away or turning things pink, and a multitude of other taskes with magic????
Because for 450,000 gold pieces you could just BUY the floodplain?
ALSO ... it seems to me that the gunslinger as a class imposes on the fighter's "master of all weapons and armor" shtick, just like a pikeman or slinger class would.It absolutely does. Which to me is another sign that guns aren't the problem. The problem is the implementation (touch attacks, gunslinger as a class, etc.)
Or maybe... just maybe the Fighter is the problem. Since he's entirely to generic and not really good at what he's named for. Rogue suffers from the same issues in fairness.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or maybe... just maybe the Fighter is the problem. Since he's entirely to generic and not really good at what he's named for. Rogue suffers from the same issues in fairness.
We're ranging far afield here, but...feats seem to be king (or at least close to it) when it comes to combat effectiveness, so in a sense, fighters are really good at what they are intended to do -- but only because they get so many feats. Full BAB + d10 hit points does not a skilled combatant make -- at least not in Pathfinder. Which is why I think you could give the rogue both of those things just fine. But that's another story.
Then again, the ability to ignore feat pre-reqs (Zen Archer, Ranger, etc.) is pretty darn shiny, too. :)
Guns kill people
|
I don't see how their unique status in the world of Golarion is detrimental to their validity in the setting. I was under the impression that a large part of what makes a setting compelling is how it does things differently from other settings. From the games I've played the the info I've gleaned from the inner Sea World Guide I find that they fit in perfectly well with the setting.Which for me is a lot of the point. Firearms in the game aren't like that. They're not like they were in reality. More importantly, they're not like they are in fantasy literature or any other source material.
I can't think of any sources where guns are treated as expensive, not mass produced, requiring extra training and are still anywhere near as effective as personal combat weapons (quick enough to be fired more than once in a fight, but not used in large scale battles?)The closest would be stories where the gunslinger came from a more technological civilization and is awing the primitives with his boomstick. But PF isn't at all like that either.
Well, it's mostly an answer to the "But there were guns before there was plate" and "Of course fantasy stories have guns" arguments.
It's difficult to simultaneously counter the "You need to have guns because reality/genre material really does" and the "You need to have guns to be different from reality/genre" arguments.
If you want to make the latter case, all I can say is that it doesn't work for me for reasons I've posted elsewhere in the thread.
I wouldn't have setting problems in a world where guns were widespread and cheaper, but then most humanoid types would be using them, not just one specialized class and the world would look very different than the standard PF game.
I think Golarion is a setting where, "We need to have X because we can and people generally think it's pretty rad", is the modus operandi.
Shame we don't see eye to eye on this one. I just don't find guns as immersion-discombobulating as you do. In my eyes, the head aches one endures to use them mechanically with competence justifies their anachronistic disuse.
I think Golarion is a setting where, "We need to have X because we can and people generally think it's pretty rad", is the modus operandi.
It's the system's default setting, which is why it's a kitchen sink. Every race, weapon, monster, deity, every bit of first-party material has to be included in the setting.
I don't have any problem with guns in fantasy, in general, or even in medieval settings... if they're medieval style guns (ie very primitive).
I do dislike the gunslinger, though.
A class based around guns, with Pathfinder mechanics, means guns get to shoot way too often. Primitive guns had horrible reloading times. I don't care about the exact historical times or anything, but guns that shoot this often feel like 19th century guns, not 14th-15th century guns.
The gunslinger just seems like it belongs in a Western/Steampunk fantasy setting. Guns in the medieval/Renaissance period, and even later, were "shoot once and then drop it and use melee weapons", or carry lots of pistols like Blackbeard did (supposedly anyway), etc. So a class that uses guns specifically just seems way out of line with everything else.
(The Alchemist has some of this problem IMO, but it's more fantastic so it's far, far less... and Golarion includes a lot of 'early modern' rather than medieval/Renaissance elements anyway so it's fine for Golarion specifically anyway.)
ALSO ... it seems to me that the gunslinger as a class imposes on the fighter's "master of all weapons and armor" shtick, just like a pikeman or slinger class would.
considering the power and potency of magic, there would be a demand for scientists to open up specific magical feats to the common man for military use, because not everybody can trust a man with infinite cosmic power without all sorts of contracts and debts attached, and it's not like they are everywhere
so the nations that have fewer wizards, or a harder time trusting their wizards, would research alchemy, and would at least have a higher tech level than their real world counterparts because of the need to even the odds when the wizard combats them.
if wizards can literally change the scope of warfare, then it would make sense, that the drive to open up wizardly military game changers to less magically endowed males, would be a must.
so yes, people would not only produce 6 shooters and pepperbox rifles that don't jam or explode in your face, but they would do it as cheaply as possible to counteract the fact that it is difficult for an army to keep a wizard employed for long.
hell, modern firearms would likely exist too, and maybe a few futuristic ones. the fact wizards corner the market on power, due to magic being better than technology, would encourage the need for technology to play a little catch up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To start with, talk to the people of Constantinople about honor and chivalry. So much for the concept of honor ever really applying in real combat.
Anyway, I consider the honor argument against guns to basically be because guns go against the highly reactionary nature of fantasy and fantasy gaming. It's in the same category as the arguments that "There were no people of color or active women in European history! Therefore I don't want them in my fantasy!"
As demonstrated earlier, the whole "honor" thing in gaming boils down to a fantasy where the elite are inherently better than the commoners, and can crush any uppity peasant Weapons like bows, crossbows and guns in this view threaten the fantasy of being part of a domineering elite and taking vicarious revenge against the "peasants" in one's life.
Personally, as an old time gamer I think guns fit into D&D better than honor does. The original essence of D&D had NOTHING to do with medieval notions of honor: it was a bunch of desperate folks going into dungeons to gain wealth using small unit tactics. Anyone insisting on "Honorable combat" in an original D&D game would be left stripped of gear and tied up for the wandering gelatinous cube, because they would be a threat to the rest of the party getting away with the loot. Guns on the the other hand, are just another weapon, and won't keep the characters from acting intelligently.
In short, I'd like to hear why folks feel guns, specifically, are out of place in fantasy.
It's all down to the campaign setting.
Some settings don't have guns.
Some settings don't have elves.
Some settings don't have orcs.
Some settings don't have humans.
Some settings don't have magic.
If someone wants a setting where one or more things present in the rulebook just don't exist, it isn't an issue at all.
I'll admit, not everything they did I liked; I'd prefer if they didn't punch through +5 fullplate like tissue paper, but overall, I think the rules presented represent the type of guns I'd expect in a high fantasy setting, if they exist there. And not every setting needs to have access to guns; many wouldn't, and that's fine. But it's good to have the options be there, rather than have to homebrew the rules for it, if the setting calls for them.
I dont like the ranged touch mechanic either, nor many other of the gun's mechanics. I knew about them before the gunslinger came out.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
For me, it isn't flavor but the mechanics for firearms. I didn't like them during the play test, I don't like them now.
However, there isn't ever going to be a perfect system for firearms. Reload times vary widely between the different eras, types, and models. Even modern firearms have a huge variety in their abilities, ease of use, and speed. There is no way, in the Pathfinder rules, you are going to be able to show the difference in the reload times between a wheel lock and a flint lock, and don't even try to do firing delay times. Pathfinder simply can't handle all the variety of firearms. Essentially we are going to be stuck with muzzle loading or cartridge meaning the same things to the countless variations. Certainly the matchlock and the flintlock were vastly different, but try to show those differences in the rules in a way that is accurate. You can't do it.
Neither is there a way for Pathfinder to satisfy all the intricate varieties of swords. Long sword, broadsword, two-handed sword, great sword... Those terms could apply to hundreds of varieties each, and each of those varieties had different advantages and drawbacks. They also were the best swords for their time and place because of what armor they were used against. You do not see a roman gladus used against a fully armored crusade knight because that weapon was not designed to be used against that armor. However, there is no way for the rules to show these types of relationships between weapons and armor. Not accurately at least.
And for that I am grateful. If we had such a system it would take us forever to use it. Did you use the right weapon? Yes, now let's figure out if you hit the right part of the armor. Did you damage it correctly? Was that enough to disable the enemy or compromise his armor? It would be a nightmare to run such a system. I also like the idea of being able to attack whoever I want with whatever weapon I want without having to worry about what armor they are wearing.
Do I think firearms could be done better in Pathfinder? Eh... Maybe. If we wanted to find a balance between simulating reality and balancing combat to move smoothly and quickly I think we could do it with a few changes. The rules as is though are fast and easy to use, which means anything else might slow down a game or throw off some form of balance. One thing I would certainly do is change the critical from x4 to 19-20/x3 or 18-20.
The gunslinger, on the other hand, is just not allowed in my home games. After playing in a group with one I found that I did not like how they seemed to be this jack of all trades with explosive damage potential. I also personally dislike point dependent classes like the monk and magus. That mechanic never felt right to me, and I would much rather have something like barbarian powers or rogue talents. I also question giving the gunslinger the ability to load a fire arm fast enough to get in a full attack as well as the dead shot ability. It should be either or. Either they can get a full attack through reloading or through a single bullet punching through one target. I see no point in both. There are other issues but I think you get the gist of my dislike.
So yeah. Limitations of the system do not allow for accurate representation of a complex device, the rules to use them have many small problems that add up, and the class that specializes in them is just a mess.
Side note:
Historically, by the way, the English longbows were far superiour to both crossbows and firearms. Accurate volley firing of up to 200 yards, armor piercing arrows, and the ability to fire just about every other second made it the top method of combat. Armored knights were powerless against it, pikemen formations too tight and slow to combat them, and calvery could even be stopped with it if there was good field positioning. The problem was it took ten years to train one longbowman and the bows were not cheap (rare wood, specialized design, not just any bowyer could make one.) Crossbows made it possible for the common man to fire a decent projectile weapon, and once gun technology reached a certain point firearms did the same but neither one could match and beat the bow. Firearms certainly didn't until more modern times. Firearms replaced them with the simple fact that training and production was far cheaper. Additionally, it wasn't really the power of guns that removed the need for plate armor so much as the fact that the armor was expensive to make and the focus of war shifted from armored knights charging on horseback to rows and rows of common men lined up with firearms. In fact, longbows pretty much had ended the era of the full plated knight long before firearms became a common weapon. The breastplate was still an effective piece of body armor, but also still expensive to produce for the massive armies of firearm carrying infantry that became popular in warfare. The fact that early firearms could kill through armor is documented, but the kill was also dependent on distance, angle of shot, and if the firearm was even working at full power. The idea that body armor was completely useless against firearms certainly has always been false, but armor was still expensive, and troops had nearly nothing to protect themselves with, until WWI when helmets and armor once again started to be brought back in because of cheaper methods of producing it through industrialized methods.
In short, it wasn't the power or effectiveness of firearms, but the costs involved. If a nation had the choice between small units of foreign pikemen mercenaries or large armies of firearm infantry, they went with the later.
If firearms, or at least early firearms, were on a more even mechanical footing with other weapons then whether to allow firearms in a campaign would be simply a matter of taste. Some GMs would continue to feel that anything which wasn't front and center in Tolkien has no place in their games, and some players would continue to think that GMs who won't allow machine guns, tanks, laser pistols, or maybe vampires as PCs are boring sticks in the mud.
If a GM bans Monks for being "too Asian" most though certainaly not all players would say that's shortsighted. If a GM bans a player "re-skinning" his repeating heavy crossbow as a Winchester rifle and saying that his Inquisitor is a time traveler from the Old West or Pancho Villa's Mexico some people will feel that's "crushing the player's creativity", but I'd expect a lot of others might support the GM's decision for various reasons such as accusations of silliness, opposition to re-skinning, and thematic concerns to name a few. However, I doubt anybody including the GM would object on a basis like, "That's too powerful and makes the other PCs feel useless" or "I think a PC with a heavy repeating crossbow would completely break the game!"
Paizo has made some attempts to attack the mechanical advantages of firearms by limiting the rate of fire of early firearms. Their first effort with a FAQ restricting free actions was violently rejected by the community at least party due to concerns about potential "unintended consequences" affecting stuff like bows. Their second effort of nerfing weapon cords helped a bit, but even early firearms are still a powerful option, and I'm sure clever players might find a way around the weapon cord nerf anyhow. Attacking the problem at its touch attack based root might be more effective. If changing touch attacks in general seems too disruptive the change could be limited solely to firearms. They're already different from all other touch attacks I can think of in that they can benefit from Deadly Aim. They already have a special misfire mechanic and some other special rules surrounding them. Adding something basic like "your gun can only ignore armor and natural armor bonuses up to its maximum base damage" or "up to 10" doesn't seem all that complicated to me, and I think it would be fun if PCs hunting a dragon or fighting a guy in +5 full plate might say, "We're going to need a bigger gun!"
Meanwhile, guns would retain their current advantages against most foes until the higher levels where foes with high enough armor and natural armor bonuses to count against guns become as common as the Gunslinger's options for overcoming the many low level disadvantages of using firearms. I'm sure there must be 50 other ways to "fix" firearms. Maybe 40 of them are better than this, but I think that putting firearms closer to on par with other ranged weapons could only help the game though. Then threads like this could be more like threads about GMs who don't allow Monks because they don't like kung-fu movies or Paladin players who think that wizardly bakers who enchant their pastries to make customers eat more are committing an evil act.
At least in my world, a nerf to firearms would actually be an effective boost since then more GMs I know would actually allow them. I know 2 of the 3 I'm currently playing with won't, and I'm not sure about the other. I'm kind of on the fence myself since I allow firearms but not the Gunslinger class and rule that getting two shots out of a double-barreled pistol at the same time requires a standard action.
For what's it's worth I solved the gun touch attack issue by changing defenses. I use armor as DR rules and class defense bonus rules together.
Basically you having a rising defense bonus that scales with level. Armor grants DR instead of AC when you wear armor subtract ACP from class def bonus.
They're already different from all other touch attacks I can think of in that they can benefit from Deadly Aim. They already have a special misfire mechanic and some other special rules surrounding them. Adding something basic like "your gun can only ignore armor and natural armor bonuses up to its maximum base damage" or "up to 10" doesn't seem all that complicated to me, and I think it would be fun if PCs hunting a dragon or fighting a guy in +5 full plate might say, "We're going to need a bigger gun!"
Meanwhile, guns would retain their current advantages against most foes until the higher levels where foes with high enough armor and natural armor bonuses to count against guns become as common as the Gunslinger's options for overcoming the many low level disadvantages of using firearms. I'm sure there must be 50 other ways to "fix" firearms. Maybe 40 of them are better than this, but I think that putting firearms closer to on par with other ranged weapons could only help the game though
If you meant by "fix", making weaker than bows like other ranged weapons that seems bad.
But you idea of "your gun can only ignore armor, shield, and natural armor bonuses up to its maximum base damage" has value. Although it makes it complicated (the DM has to count how much your max base is) and remember if you are within first range (40 ft if musket, 50 for hackbut, but otherwise 30 ft).Bringing back 3.5 Far shot would help gun users (doubled 1st range increment in 3.5).
In your system (sucks for small shooters):
a pistol, Blunderbuss ignores up to 8.
Rifle ignores only 10
Musket ignores 12
Hackbut ignores 24.
Although, Vital Strike becomes stronger as it adds base damage dice.
But all this puts grief on the gun user, do you provide any boon with this con? Do they get cheaper guns or ammo? Compromise something if they do.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
If firearms, or at least early firearms, were on a more even mechanical footing with other weapons then whether to allow firearms in a campaign would be simply a matter of taste. Some GMs would continue to feel that anything which wasn't front and center in Tolkien has no place in their games, and some players would continue to think that GMs who won't allow machine guns, tanks, laser pistols, or maybe vampires as PCs are boring sticks in the mud.Nothing says epic like a bolo with paladin levels.
Do you mean bolas?
I mean, you could also mean a bomber plane, but I highly doubt it.
Or maybe the bolo knife?
If firearms, or at least early firearms, were on a more even mechanical footing with other weapons then whether to allow firearms in a campaign would be simply a matter of taste. Some GMs would continue to feel that anything which wasn't front and center in Tolkien has no place in their games, and some players would continue to think that GMs who won't allow machine guns, tanks, laser pistols, or maybe vampires as PCs are boring sticks in the mud.Nothing says epic like a bolo with paladin levels.Do you mean bolas?
I mean, you could also mean a bomber plane, but I highly doubt it.
Or maybe the bolo knife?
Or maybe to Be On Look Out for someone with paladin levels?
I have no problem with fire and forget style pistols (if it's early firearms) or the like. I do have a problem with fire and forget pistols being reloaded and fired again 6 times in a round (4 from BAB, one from Rapid Shot, 1 from Haste).
I already thought Gunslingers were bad enough, and then, recently, I was informed of double-barreled pistols firing two shots with every attack. With this, you are, instead, getting 12 shots from just 1 pistol. If someone wanted to cheese it even more, they would TWF with 2 double-barreled pistols, then drop the other pistol to reload the first one. This nets 14 shots instead of 12.
With each attack targeting touch AC, most enemies in the game get slaughtered by the Gunslinger class. This allows Gunslingers to do phenomenal amounts of damage in a round. It basically means anyone not using Fickle Winds (or staying out of sight of the Gunslinger) is going to die in a single round.
Melee Martials and Archers can do large amounts of damage as well, but they don't hit as often as the Gunslinger does. If they have 6 attacks, they expect 2 or 3 of them to hit. If a Gunslinger has 6 attacks, it's pretty much expected for all 6 attacks to hit.
I would not be opposed to a single pistol dealing something like 5d6 points of damage, but takes 1d4+2 rounds to reload. Or a musket dealing 5d8 and taking 2d6+1 rounds to reload. A Gunslinger class that could reduce the reload time by a number of rounds would be interesting, as you might see, instead, musket style snipers. Perhaps he has a bandolier of pistols, and then switches to his musket after he unloads the pistols.
I recall that many of the early firearms that could function reliably, had to be hand crafted by watch maker, because only they had the delicate hand and precision to ensure they didn't blow up in a persons face. The mass produced ones would misfire all the time, and had issues with exploding.
If the early guns didn't so completely trash my immersion (rapid fire matchlocks) then I wouldn't really have a problem with them. Non-gunslingers see guns as nearly worthless as they just don't deal enough damage, while the actual Gunslinger class turns guns into an overpowered combat style.
If there were a happy medium between them, I'd include them at my table. As it is, there isn't, so I don't include them.
I will, however, include cannons. If a player asks why there aren't guns, I'll simply tell them there are guns, but they are beyond difficult to find, and even harder to find someone who can work and maintain them. I've basically limited guns to only one place in Golarion (the Mana Wastes). Largely because magic in the Wastes is so unpredictable, they had to find something else to counter act it. With most of our games taking place in Avistan (Varisia, River Kingdoms etc.) chances of the players getting guns from the Wastes are very, very, small.
I'm going to say that there is an issue with firearms, which is as follows.
There is not enough of a disclaimer for GM's to adapt their settings for firearm usage, and people intentionally misinterpreted the rules of them as they are very powerful weapons.
In reality A gunslinger at high levels will function somewhat like a sorcerer, but a sorcerer with no adaptability and only ranged touch spells.
It's a somewhat poor approximation but honestly it's true.
At 20th level a sorc cans summon multiple creatures in a round and choose amongst a plethora of actions... a gunslinger can take a few shots and pray that his opponent has no concealment or dexterity score
Guns can be very powerful though, and when multiclasses can even be downright good enough to kill something beyond what you could comprehend as possible..
but early game is as poorly balanced as late game. Midgame is where you see the best approximate balance
I have no problem with fire and forget style pistols (if it's early firearms) or the like. I do have a problem with fire and forget pistols being reloaded and fired again 6 times in a round (4 from BAB, one from Rapid Shot, 1 from Haste).
I already thought Gunslingers were bad enough, and then, recently, I was informed of double-barreled pistols firing two shots with every attack. With this, you are, instead, getting 12 shots from just 1 pistol. If someone wanted to cheese it even more, they would TWF with 2 double-barreled pistols, then drop the other pistol to reload the first one. This nets 14 shots instead of 12.
Please clarify how a single double pistol does this, I'm fairly certain that there is blatant rules disregard ...
Do remember the GM discretion rule (Free actions per round)
|
|
I will, however, include cannons. If a player asks why there aren't guns, I'll simply tell them there are guns, but they are beyond difficult to find, and even harder to find someone who can work and maintain them. I've basically limited guns to only one place in Golarion (the Mana Wastes). Largely because magic in the Wastes is so unpredictable, they had to find something else to counter act it. With most of our games taking place in Avistan (Varisia, River Kingdoms etc.) chances of the players getting guns from the Wastes are very, very, small.
I think this is exactly how guns are supposed to work with the Golarion setting (the default for Pathfinder). They put a region in the game where guns exist because magic doesn't work. It is generally assumed that they aren't around much if at all in other areas. PC gunslingers are the exception, but as GM you are justified in saying "Gunslingers don't make it out to Varisia; it's just too far from the materials they need to make and maintain guns and ammunition."
I pretty much agree with Tels. There's no thematic problem with guns, but the mechanics are trash.
Crossbows have the same problems, except there's no crossbow-slinger to make them not suck. The solution is the same: get rid of the rapid fire paradigm and make them actually hit like something driven by eighteen seconds of stored musclepower or a confined explosion.
you mean a vital strike Double crossbow build? That's a thing.... People also put conductive on it
GMs simply don't prepare for what the gunslingers bring to the table... Which is effectively the ability to shut down the big guys.
Gunslingers are actually significantly less effective at taking down smaller creatures.
Wait a fully feated composite longbow deals more damage than a double crossbow without crossbow mastery, weapon focus, or any of the other crossbow or vital strike feats? WHOAH MIND BLOWN!"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm against making reloading times longer. It's needless verisimilitude that adds little in the way of fun to the game and neuters a class. I've played in a game where the reload time was six rounds and my gunslinger never felt more useless after missing one mook. No thank you.
If we can ignore the Square-Cube Law to let dragons exist, and abstract most of sword fighting combat, then I think we can let abhorrent reload times pass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problem with fire and forget style pistols (if it's early firearms) or the like. I do have a problem with fire and forget pistols being reloaded and fired again 6 times in a round (4 from BAB, one from Rapid Shot, 1 from Haste).
I already thought Gunslingers were bad enough, and then, recently, I was informed of double-barreled pistols firing two shots with every attack. With this, you are, instead, getting 12 shots from just 1 pistol. If someone wanted to cheese it even more, they would TWF with 2 double-barreled pistols, then drop the other pistol to reload the first one. This nets 14 shots instead of 12.
Please clarify how a single double pistol does this, I'm fairly certain that there is blatant rules disregard ...
Do remember the GM discretion rule (Free actions per round)
This pistol has two parallel barrels; each barrel can be fired independently as a separate action, or both can be shot at once with the same action.
If both barrels are shot at once, they must both target the same creature or object, and the pistol becomes wildly inaccurate, imparting a –4 penalty on each shot.
Lets say you have 2 attacks at +6/+1 you could fire one barrel at +6, and the other barrel at +1, sounds reasonable. Or you can fire both barrels at +2, reload (rapid reload, alchemical cartridge) and then fire both barrels at -3.
Now, that's just BAB, so we toss on stat mods, enhancement, maybe even weapon focus, spell effects etc. and you're sitting on an attack bonus of +10/+5 vs a touch AC of ~12. This means you're very likely to hit with both attacks (and each attack is two shots) so you hit with 4 bullets.
Now, lets say we get to 12th level. We've got a BAB of 12/7/2 with Rapid shot and Haste and TWF so our base attack is going to be 10//10/10/10/5/0 before any other modifiers. Touch AC doesn't vary that much through out the game, usually doesn't get much higher than 15 or there about. By the time you start adding in Dex, Deadly Aim, spells, feats, enhancement, etc, you're going to be sitting on something like +17/+17/+17/+17/+12/+7 for an attack roll.
So what you do is, fire both barrels on both double-barreled pistols (+17/+17) then as a free action you drop one pistol (attach to a weapon cord) and then reload the other pistol and proceed with the other attacks (+17/+17/+12/+7) in sequence. With you reloading as a free action, each attack roll is two shots, so you're actually putting 12 attacks down range, instead of just 6.
Pre-weapon cord nerf, you could go full on TWF and Rapid Shot + Haste + Full BAB for 9 total attacks and each attack roll represented 2 attacks for 18 shots a round. With a damage bonus in the 30 range, easily, you're looking at a DPR of over ~700, more than enough to kill anything in a single round.
By the way, the above, mostly, just numbers being thrown out there, some of them are reasonably close to reality. If you optimized for DPR, the Gunslinger is a true beast against most enemies (especially the high CR enemies, some of whom have a touch AC of 0).
I live in Alaska, large animals are something I am concerned about (though not by much). When we go camping, we know we have to carry some real firepower, just on the off chance a grizzly bear becomes a threat. Why? Because hand guns like a .45 are not going to cut it (anyone who tells you differently doesn't know what they're talking about). You could shoot a bear in the heart, and it will kill it, but not before it kills you. You have to hit the bear in the brain, and a .45 will just bounce off the skull without a precision shot, like through the eye, through the ear, or you stuff your barrel in it's mouth (this has actually happened, but it was a .22 rifle).
When I look at guns and see matchlock pistols killing rhinos, or elephants (because they ignore natural armor) I think, "B&!@~$&*!" as I know that isn't real. The concept of the 'elephant gun' existed for a reason.
I mean, what's the touch AC of a tank? Because Gunslingers killing dragons with matchlocks is the equivalent of a trooper with an m-16 shooting at and killing a tank.
[Edit] I should add, I don't mind the thought of a gunslinger killing an elephant with a matchlock, if it takes a great many shots. That should take time. However, them dealing enough damage with their pistols in 6 seconds is another thing entirely.
When I look at guns and see matchlock pistols killing rhinos, or elephants (because they ignore natural armor) I think, "B*@*&$!#!" as I know that isn't real. The concept of the 'elephant gun' existed for a reason.OTOH, ignoring natural armor or not, it's pretty trivial for a mid level character to kill a rhino or an elephant with his bare hands or a dagger.
We're not in realism land here.
Jeff has a pretty good point here.
I wasn’t really trying to address any general “realism” problem of armor and natural armor making you harder to hit instead of harder to hurt. In fact, the values I suggested are designed around the idea of allowing guns to ignore pretty much any antique armor from the real world. For instance, with my proposal even a pistol could completely ignore the rhino’s natural armor of +7. If we wanted to focus on the game’s lack of realism I think it would be just as easy to propose that since dragons can fly and halfling Monks can punch elephants to death guns shouldn’t be able to ignore armor or natural armor at all. That ability is a big part of what makes them special from a game mechanics aspect though, and it fits into the common narrative that the rise of guns helped precipitate the fall of armor.
I’m trying to think more about the game balance aspect of guns while still keeping their thematic aspect in mind. It probably isn’t “realistic” for anybody to run up and punch something the size of a Huge dragon hard enough to stun it for a round, but I think we’re dealing with the “idea” of martial arts and the “idea” of guns here rather than their reality. Maybe realistically guns should be more or less powerful, but for the good of the game they should probably be at least roughly balanced with other options. I think the mechanical problems with firearms seem to come from a combination of touch attacks which bypass SR with multiple attacks per round which allow you to multiply buffs and bonuses. It reminds me a lot of Weird Words, which has its own very long thread. The damage total can get astronomically high, and defending against it is not only difficult but potentially annoying (lots of fog, mirror images, concealment, etc)
@Starbuck II - Concerns that some might find basing the armor piercing abilities of firearms on base damage too complicated are why I’d also consider the idea of using a flat value like 10 or 8 for all firearms. I rather like the idea that bigger guns can ignore more armor though. I also kind of like your idea of allowing the often maligned Vital Strike to count for piercing armor since it would fit nicely with the iconic idea of carefully lining up your shot and - BLAM!
@Tels and Atarlost - A “fire and forget” gun/crossbow which inflicts “Big Damage(™)” might have been one way for the system to go, and honestly I think it might have been kind of fun, at least until people started carrying around stacks of loaded weapons to use with Quick Draw. Unfortunately, as per Odruade’s post, folks might find it pretty boring to use a weapon which can only be fired once every 3-6 rounds. It would certainly be tough to base a class around such an ability. Anyhow, the decision on crossbows having reload times which seem unrealistically short to many people was made long ago before Pathfinder was even an idea. I don’t think it is unusual that guns followed suit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's wrong with cars, exactly?
Or the telegraph?
Or steam engines?
Or locomotives?
Or airplanes?
Or tanks?
Or electric lights?
Or internal combustion?
Or the internet?
Or laser guns?
Or satellites?
Or nuclear weapons?
The answer is nothing, obviously - it just doesn't fit my personal view of heroic fantasy. There's plenty of games that do all that stuff and do it better. If that's what I wanted, those are the games I would play.
Our goal tends to fall somewhere between Tolkien and Game of Thrones. I find the more tech (and in truth the more magical gear) you throw into a campaign the more it becomes about what you can buy rather than what you can do, and the more it becomes about mechanics than it does about role play.
That's my experience, but to each his own.
I would like to point out a few things...
1) For those trying to argue realism and such: you are some how ok with wizards telling the laws of energy conservation and mass conservation to go screw itself from level one and dragons and trolls and dimensional monstrosities from outside reality, but a tube with explosives is to much? Really? Additionally I would like to point out that materials Adamantine and Mithril do exist in the game which have NO real life equivalents.
2) Touch Attack mechanics: I have one word for you... Alchemist. A bomb focused alchemist can do more damage, can lay a wall of debuffs in one round, and can do it for free. Oh and the difference between full BAB and 3/4 BAB against touch AC is negligible... Oh and getting a rediculous wall of attacks is much less cheesy than the Gunslinger abusing free-action stuff.
@Tels and Atarlost - A “fire and forget” gun/crossbow which inflicts “Big Damage(™)” might have been one way for the system to go, and honestly I think it might have been kind of fun, at least until people started carrying around stacks of loaded weapons to use with Quick Draw. Unfortunately, as per Odruade’s post, folks might find it pretty boring to use a weapon which can only be fired once every 3-6 rounds. It would certainly be tough to base a class around such an ability. Anyhow, the decision on crossbows having reload times which seem unrealistically short to many people was made long ago before Pathfinder was even an idea. I don’t think it is unusual that guns followed suit.
I actually kind of mentioned this at one point. A thought that popped in my head was that pistols take 1d4+2 rounds to reload, while rifles and such would take 2d6+1 rounds to reload. Damage wise, the pistol would start at 5d6 points of damage and the rifle/musket (whatever names works for you) would deal 5d8. A Gunslinger Class would be able to reload faster by reducing the number of rounds it takes to reload as he levels. Further advancement in technology could also reduce the reload time, with magazine fed weapons functioning much like repeating crossbows, but with larger clips. Combine it with the Vital Strike feat chain and you've got the makings of an extremely deadly single shot/reload weapon going on.
Alternatively, he could use multiple weapons, but if he doesn't kill everything by the time he's done, then he has to resort to a backup, or start reloading. Rapid Reload could reduce the length of time spent reloading by a round, so non-Gunslingers can still make use of them, especially if they have followers that reload guns for you.
I could see a Gunslinger, or other class, that full attacks with multiple pistols on the first round, then switches to his musket for Vital Strike shots on following rounds. Vital Strike would increase the damage to 10d6/8, Improved Vita Strike increases it to 15d6/8 and Greater Vital Strike increases it to 20d6/8. Granted, it's not the 600 DPR Gunslingers can reach now, but it kind of reminds me more of The Patriot with Mel Gibson.
My problem with guns, in large part, primarily revolves around the fire rate of early fire arms (the touch AC is a problem too, but less of a problem than the fire rate). I really don't have a problem with the fire rate of things like revolvers, or Winchester rifles, but those aren't the firearms that are typically involved in Pathfinder. I mean, there are numerous videos of speed shooters out there who can fire something like 9 shots (from specially made revolvers), reload, and then fire 9 more shots in the span of 6 seconds. There are no such accounts of a guy firing and reloading a flintlock pistol 6 times in 6 seconds.
2) Touch Attack mechanics: I have one word for you... Alchemist. A bomb focused alchemist can do more damage, can lay a wall of debuffs in one round, and can do it for free. Oh and the difference between full BAB and 3/4 BAB against touch AC is negligible... Oh and getting a rediculous wall of attacks is much less cheesy than the Gunslinger abusing free-action stuff.
An Alchemist has a limited number of bombs per day, which he will quickly use up if he cluster bombs an area. A Gunslinger has no such restriction, an a Wand of Abundant Ammunition solves his ammo problem.
2) Touch Attack mechanics: I have one word for you... Alchemist. A bomb focused alchemist can do more damage, can lay a wall of debuffs in one round, and can do it for free. Oh and the difference between full BAB and 3/4 BAB against touch AC is negligible... Oh and getting a rediculous wall of attacks is much less cheesy than the Gunslinger abusing free-action stuff.An Alchemist has a limited number of bombs per day, which he will quickly use up if he cluster bombs an area. A Gunslinger has no such restriction, an a Wand of Abundant Ammunition solves his ammo problem.
Except also that the Alchemist DOES NOT NEED TO NOVA. With just a few bombs he can do more to influence a combat that any Gunslinger. Add in to that, the alchemist also gets Infusions (who doesn't get this discovery?) and gets his Cognatogen or the mutegen for more hilarity...
So, the Alchemist can do just as much damage, except that actually he can't and maybe he shouldn't. Anyhow, I think the Alchemist can be problematic too. Once again it is the combination of many attacks on touch AC which aren't subject to SR or in some cases energy resistance which I feel can cause a problem though the daily limit at least might encourage the Alchemist to limit his output or give the GM a chance to overwhelm him with numerous enemies.
Of course you can create situations where the Gunslinger can't buy ammo and doesn't have time to make it, but you can also prevent casters from resting to regain spells or just make them go adventure in a big anti-magic field. Anyhow, I don't see any reason why the Gunslinger has to be "just as good" as the Alchemist, which might itself be a little overpowered anyhow.
The Gunslinger also has some other neat tricks besides gigantic DPR. In fact, trimming the DPR might help them get used more often. Dazing an opponent or knocking him prone might not seem quite so interesting when you can just blow him away with megadamage without any real resource management concerns.
Except also that the Alchemist DOES NOT NEED TO NOVA. With just a few bombs he can do more to influence a combat that any Gunslinger. Add in to that, the alchemist also gets Infusions (who doesn't get this discovery?) and gets his Cognatogen or the mutegen for more hilarity...2) Touch Attack mechanics: I have one word for you... Alchemist. A bomb focused alchemist can do more damage, can lay a wall of debuffs in one round, and can do it for free. Oh and the difference between full BAB and 3/4 BAB against touch AC is negligible... Oh and getting a rediculous wall of attacks is much less cheesy than the Gunslinger abusing free-action stuff.An Alchemist has a limited number of bombs per day, which he will quickly use up if he cluster bombs an area. A Gunslinger has no such restriction, an a Wand of Abundant Ammunition solves his ammo problem.
Yes, all those additional bomb effects (Force, Frost, Sting etc) also come with saves, many of which are Fortitude saves.
There is no save on damage, and since the attacks are against touch AC, they are going to hit as often as the Alchemist. Sure, the Alchemist could Stagger, Nauseate and knock prone enemies with his bombs (and more) but the enemy is still alive after 3 bombs and he is now down 3 bombs. The Gunslinger, however, can just open fire and kill whatever is in his way in that first round.
I'm not saying Alchemists aren't powerful, they really are (stupidly so in some ways). Both classes are touch AC specialists and they both do stupid amounts of damage.
I would wager, however, that if one were to compare all the Gunslinger vs Alchemist builds out there, the Gunslinger is going to be, on average, more deadly than the Alchemist's bombs, and that is in large part because there are multiple ways to build an Alchemist (support, infusions, mad bomber, Dr. Jekyl etc) while the Gunslinger builds are, basically, all going to be the same.
Alchemists are like Druids, you build them one way or the other. With Druids you either build to be a caster, or build to be a wildshaper. With Alchemists you build to be a bomber, or you build to be Dr. Jekyl; people who try both have interesting characters, but they also tend to only moderately successful in either area. That's not to say it can't be done, but I tend to try and look at the average, rather than what is technically possible.