Related to the whole firearms and party balance issue, what happens if you're running a 'guns everywhere' or 'technology is readily available' setting?
In the first range increment guns target touch and most technological weapons target touch. Do all martials become dex based all the time now? How do you keep the melee options relevant or prevent the game from becoming 'go dex or go home'
What happens to casters? I know casters are generally more powerful than martials but when they are wielding a bunch of weapons that target touch AC won't they just kill everything unless the game literally becomes rocket launcher tag?
I'm planning a retrofuturistic campaign and so far it looks like the game is going to eventually turn into an all dex all the time game with casters dying fast unless they're smart enough survive to third level spells given the options available. Now granted a lot of the classes are stuck in medieval stasis and if you have a bunch of laser pistols lying around nobody is going to get into a sword fight unless they have some midichlorions in their bloodstream. It just makes sense that high technology makes a lot of things obsolete but I've been unsure as to whether I should just let it happen or try to put some things in to make str-based combat viable.
I'm planning a retrofuturistic campaign and so far it looks like the game is going to eventually turn into an all dex all the time game with casters dying fast unless they're smart enough survive to third level spells given the options available.
There are a lot of higher technology games out there, and yes, they have a tendency to become "go Dexterity or go home." If your character concept is "the best swordsman in the division," he'd (realistically) be about as effective as the best swordsman in Patton's Second Armored racing across Normandy.
That said, a key thing to remember is that tactics change when you have guns everywhere, and the people who survive are the ones who use 20th century tactics instead of 10th century. Hide behind a large rock, hold your action until someone does something stupid, and then put a bullet in the fool's head.
D&D/Pathfinder are a little better that most other games because guns don't do that much damage. A revolver does 1-8 points of damage (and doesn't get stat bonuses to damage), which is not on average to kill even a first-level wizard with a single hit. A rifle only does a d10 and still has a better than 50/50 chance of leaving the wizard standing. It's therefore possible, even likely, for the charging barbarian with the greataxe to kill his opponent before the bad guy gets enough shots off.
I've been unsure as to whether I should just let it happen or try to put some things in to make str-based combat viable.
My question becomes : why do you want to make str-based combat viable? The desire itself seems to me to suggest you don't want to run a high-tech game.
I mostly just feel bad about leaving an ability score obsolete or no other reason but that it exists.
Yeah, I agree with Orfamay Quest. Do tell your players in advance you're going to be playing a high technology game. But your observation is correct. High technology means a lot of dex based characters. It's part of why armies don't really fight with knights in armor and swords anymore. We have guns, and technology. And they made the old stuff obsolete.
Strength still isn't a dump stat because you need to carry stuff. But, don't expect people to raise it much above 10 either.
|
As for "strength doesn't matter": I would institute a composite-bow-like strength requirement to guns, except that they still deal full damage if you're missing the strength. That way you can't have 5 strength and wield an M249 in full auto mode. Presumably full-auto mode would increase this strength requirement over single-shot.
As for survivability of casters: One option is to introduce a 1st-level concentration-duration spell that blocks incoming bullets or grants DR 10/- against bullets and describe that as the common way to approach gunmen. It's risky to shoot back, but it at least gives a survival mechanism, if nothing else than to find some real cover.
Pathfinder already heavily favors dexterity over strength as far as physical stats go.I disagree with this statement.
Me too.
That said technology definitely favors not getting shot over being strong.
As for survivability of casters: One option is to introduce a 1st-level concentration-duration spell that blocks incoming bullets or grants DR 10/- against bullets and describe that as the common way to approach gunmen. It's risky to shoot back, but it at least gives a survival mechanism, if nothing else than to find some real cover.
I don't think "survivability of casters" is an issue if the baddies' tactics are correct (and if they're not, the baddies will suffer for it). Who's more dangerous, the fighter with a rifle doing 1-10 points of damage out to 80 feet away for as many times as he can afford the ammunition, or the sorcerer doing 2-5 points up to 25 feet away? Any bad guy team who decide to focus-fire on the casters will probably regret that decision in a round or two.
What it does mean is that a lot of the low-level short-range spells are less useful. Color spray is a lot less useful, but obscuring mist is a must-have. Silent image is a lot better than sleep, and so forth. Grease is still great, but mage armor less so.
Remember, protective gear and magic is going to change with the times as well.
Goodbye Full Plate, hello heavy Kevlar. Bracers of Armor? I believe you mean a personal forcefield (they add to touch AC too, see. Or take away a gun's ability to target such).
You get the idea. I wouldn't be surprised if a better version of Protection From Arrows was on every Wizard's to-do list once these things became more prominent.
|
I'm not sure its going to be as bad as you think it is. For example, even with guns everywhere the players aren't going to be getting a modern firearm until 2nd level most likely. As far as technological items go, you don't need to worry about those coming into play for many level plus there are armors that actually protects against the weapons baked into the system. I honestly don't think you're really going to see strength builds go away, it's just too easy to get big numbers with strength builds even with technology.
Why not play the game Commando style?
Strength builds work on stealth missions and in close quarter's combat. Sure, everyone could be a Gunslinger but then you might be surprised when a Barbarian guts you with a Greatsword or when the Barbarian is stealthier than the Gunslinger who can't fight without breaking their cover in a very loud and noisy manner.
To this day, soldiers and other armed forces are trained with Knives and hand to hand combat because sometimes guns are not appropriate for use.
Especially since Guns are no where nearly lethal enough in Pathfinder. I could run a Barbarian in a Modern Technology game and you might mistake him for Wolverine from X-men in the manner in which he gets crap done.
As for "strength doesn't matter": I would institute a composite-bow-like strength requirement to guns, except that they still deal full damage if you're missing the strength. That way you can't have 5 strength and wield an M249 in full auto mode. Presumably full-auto mode would increase this strength requirement over single-shot.
As for survivability of casters: One option is to introduce a 1st-level concentration-duration spell that blocks incoming bullets or grants DR 10/- against bullets and describe that as the common way to approach gunmen. It's risky to shoot back, but it at least gives a survival mechanism, if nothing else than to find some real cover.
EN Publishing Santiago Players Guide has an energy bow that does piercing and force damage. Plus they have a composite rifle bow available that would use Str Bonus.
Can't you just use wind wall? No bullets can get threw. Run up beat them with a hammer?