Design Manager
|
This is RAW, and allows dual wielding, but is explicitly against RAI specifically for double pistols.
You keep making these broad statements but they aren't really accurate. It's not against RAI, the guy just thought it was cheesy. The reality is that he never thought it all the way through so there is no RAI.
Firearms were a poorly thought out and poorly executed subsystem. Paizo, talented as they are, makes mistakes, and now we're stuck with those mistakes because there's not a lot of ways to fix them without substantial changes to the whole system. Even SRMF, who wrote the rules, has acknowledged that they're a little borked because they were originally written to be supported by an entire system of houserules that weren't ported over with them. They dropped it on a tight deadline, slapped some band-aids on it to mitigate the big issues they saw in playtesting, and then pushed it out the door. Pathfinder isn't built on the premise that full BAB martials can target touch AC without having to deal with SR or saves. It's like back in 3.5 when they introduced the sonic energy type and it threw everything out of whack because they had no spells or defenses anywhere in the game to deal with it. They also tried to "balance" the class with cash, which even their own design team has frequently pointed out is just bad design since it's the single most inconsistent variable in the game.
We know they're not going to change touch AC, because that would require far too much errata and is too deeply ingrained now. Since double-barreled weapons are the source of the largest incongruence, the best fix at this point is to limit them to a Vital Strike type of enhancement. That'll cut out a reasonable chunk of the issue and fit within their standard FAQ and errata guidelines.
If you don't play PFS, it is of course much less of an issue since you can houserule or use one of the excellent 3pp solutions, like the one presented in Thunderscape: The World of Aden.
|
Design Manager
|
And the OP felt that it probably needs errata because working as intended isn't actually working.
There's got to be a place to have conversations like this, right? Unfortunately not everyone has a Venture Captain they can call to Crane Wing their problems. If a rule is borked, like this one is, the Rules forum is an appropriate place to discuss why it's borked and call for errata to address it.
|
Design Manager
|
General Discussion or Advice would be more appropriate I feel, as this is not an issue of how the rules work or are intended to work. You feel that this imbalances the game, which is a valid point, but that isn't a rules question. But I don't make those decisions, but I think I am done with the thread as there isn't anything to address from a rules question standpoint.
You are wrong. This is an issue with the rules and should be discussed in the rules forum, not shunted off to nowheresville. Ragelancepounce, which you yourself pointed out, was perfectly rules legal (and still is in a slightly different incarnation) but the rule was obviously borked, was discussed in the rules forum, and a solution was found.
FAQed. Hopefully someone important will look at this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gonna have to agree with SSalarn here. We only have a FAQ button, not an Errata button. If a rule needs errata how else should we inform the devs other than post in the rules forum?
General Discussion is for friendly discussion of Pathfinder
Advice is to ask players for help with your character/campaign ext
Rules should be the place to discuss rules questions, developer intent, and to report broken rules.
|
Design Manager
|
Gonna have to agree with SSalarn here. We only have a FAQ button, not an Errata button. If a rule needs errata how else should we inform the devs other than post in the rules forum?
General Discussion is for friendly discussion of Pathfinder
Advice is to ask players for help with your character/campaign ext
Rules should be the place to discuss rules questions, developer intent, and to report broken rules.
You know, I was thinking about this, and there's probably another option for balancing that would minimize the amount of change it would require. Make it so that each time you use the double-barrel it inflicts a stacking -4 penalty. So if you tried to double barrel every attack in the sequence, you'd be at like a -28 by the last shot (which sadly still has a reasonable chance of connecting....)
If it bugs you, the cleanest houserule I've seen on the subject is targeting normal AC in addition to the -4 penalty when double-firing. It removes the incentive for double-firing when facing the typical giant monsters gunslingers are so effective against. I'm comfortable playing double-barrels either way, though I lean toward the normal AC version unless the game in question is a very high-powered one.
I have no problem with two-weapon fighting with pistols as a mechanic. The weapon cord debacle was just silly, as there are too many other ways to get around the reloading issue. Just let the 'slinger be good at what they do--it's pretty much all they're good at. Double barrels does get pretty ridiculous, but as I've said before, I don't really care much for balance issues so long as everyone is having fun.
How are you getting quadruple damage?
... The devs haven't actually done anything to prevent TWF with pistols. In fact, they released the Gun Twirling feat in a recent supplement that enables you to do it without any magical gear or extra limb shenanigans, and with the added benefit of letting Rogue's stack up Sneak Attack damage on every shot. Read that post again. He specifically says it's legal, just that he doesn't like it.
Lirianne, Pathfinder Gunslinger
Funny that Paizo's only official Gunslinger miniature is dual weilding pistols. LoL
/twocents
Since we're getting frequent FAQs and Mark said we should raise issues we find important I decided to bump this thread.