Touch attacks are a pretty flawed mechanic so much that even Sean K. Reynolds made a blog arguing against them. So when you tie a broken mechanic to weapon controversial to fantasy genres, you're gonna have a really unpopular result.
Honestly, I don't like firearms because they're broken and unfun. To help balance the broken touch attacks, the game introduces many unfun rules that make gunslingers and firearms annoying to play and utilize. One of my players played a gunslinger for flavor, but had an absolute miserable time. As a result, I created my own firearm house rules that eliminated touch attacks and misfires while still maintaining a niche as a high damage, short ranged weapon.
|
Gunslingers at low levels don't care, at level 5 (iirc) they get another boost to reloading allowing them to reload as a free action. (With rapid shot, musket masters get two for free reload)
There is also a pistol in the special items list that is +5 and magical reloads every time you fire. :p
I'm not sure what other boost you're talking about. Musket Masters get Fast Musket at third. They're kind of screwed until then - Rapid Reload and Alchemical cartridges only get them to a move.
After 3rd it's a free action though. Making Rapid Shot possible.
You could feasibly do it sooner with a Beneficial Bandolier. Definitely a trade off when you're electing to spend 1k on an item you'll replace very shortly with a Belt that increases your DEX though.
Personally, I find the Pistolero to be hilarious. TWF, Rapid Shots, Signature Deed, Up Close and Deadly. Even if you miss, you're still doing half damage from a dozen or so D6.
I love playing Gunslingers a lot, but if a person just doesn't enjoy the idea of gunslingers in their setting, that's fine. I don't mind a subjective difference in taste, and even I can see that the rules are wonky at times.
I just have a laugh with how low your attack rolls can get with the Gunslinger, and yet you still stand a chance to hit. For instance
TWF Dragon Pistols doing scatter shots:
Rapid Shot (-2), TWF (-4/-4), Scatter (-2 to all), Deadly Aim (-1 per 4 BAB) ITWF(-6), GTWF (-10). Bonus points if you're hitting all 7 possible targets, because now you get to roll an attack roll for each target, for each shot you just took. Enjoy rolling a couple dozen attack rolls before the next turn, everyone else can wait.
The saving grace here, is that you can't Up Close and Deadly scatter shots.
Guns are not really a problem unless you are using double barreled guns or TWF'ing with them.
Once you go that route they easily do a lot of damage.
Outside of that the acebolt can rival them with a crossbow, but still is not doing as much average damage as an archer.
Now of course some think archers are also OP, but that is just a matter of taste so you have to talk to your GM if that is that case.
cnetarian, myself and Jodokai have had this conversation already. He has already seen the math, and he does not really have a standard that he calls broken. He just calls things that he does not like broken, which is why he calls archers broken. I do remember his saying something along the line of them(ranged attackers) getting able to get a full attack every round was a problem.
Nothing you can say will convince him otherwise.
Now he will probably say my statement is not fair, but I am not picking on him. When someone says _____ is too much, and they can't say how it is too much, their default position to me seems to be "I don't like it".
Now of course it could be the "full attacks every round" is the reason, but, I don't think that makes something broken.
Let me clarify, it is "full attacking from a good distance away every round", not just full attacking. There is a difference, I must admit, and it is not a small one. However I still don't see how that makes something broken, other than for that specific group or GM, which defaults back to "I don't like it".
Otherwise to declare something is universally broken one must show how it is bad for most gaming groups, not just a few. So far that has not been done with the one gun using gunslinger that is not using double barrels or archers.
Design Manager
|
waaaaaage!!!!!Wut?
Nothing you said makes any sense in context, and it's completely non-sequitor. Are you feeling okay>
I'm sorry that you are apparently unable to see that your blanket statement that "people mistakenly think it's broken because they don't really suss out the math" is insulting to people who can do math and still have issues with the class and/or its supported subsystem.
My response was in direct address to that point.
You said they weren't broken, now you're saying they are. Make up your mind dude.
Anyways, they still lose the DPR olympics even with maxed out twinkage, double-barreled guns, and perfect encounters basically tailored to their fighting style. If that's broken, EVERYTHING'S broken.
No, actually, my opinion hasn't changed. I'm sorry you can't work through a complex idea like Gunslingers being so much easier to optimize and using such poorly designed mechanics that they can be highly problematic for many people's games and typically require both a very experienced GM and an experienced player to integrate into a game without negatively impacting someone's experience.
For many people's games they are broken, on both ends of the spectrum unfortunately, due to the archetypes not being even remotely balanced to the core class.
They also don't lose the DPR Olympics as definitively as you seem to think; the numbers for a TWF Dwarven Pistolero with double-barreled pistols are amongst the highest possible, comparable only to less than a handful of other options whose balance is also often brought into question.
Like many, I prefer to run/play in specific settings, especially in the Dark Ages or older classical periods, where guns simply don't exist yet, thus including guns in such a setting is anachronistic.
That said, I have some interest in developing an Arcane Old West homebrew setting where firearms would be common with metal cartridge ammo, low cost guns and supplies such that most every class including casters probably carry a pistol sidearm, at least. In such a setting, not having guns is anachronistic itself.
Having played D&D since the late 1970's where firearms were absent from most editions, guns feel out of place in a typical D&D/PF game. It feels odd to include them, when for decades they weren't included in most games. Not that firearms are fully anachronistic in medieval or rennaissance analog settings, until PF or other specific settings in the past, guns weren't part of the fabric of the game. Thus I have a slight prejudice against firearms.
That said, I find the PF gun rules fine mechanically, and the gunslinger a fine class. Since I run one full table, never in the search for more players, my lack of confidence in firearms has little effect with feelings shared by the players, thus there is no detrimental effect to our games without the inclusion of firearms. But the gunslinger class and the firearm mechanics do not seem broken, in my opinion.
My problem is I just dislike the Paizo gunslinger from the ground up and have since the playtest. I actually do like guns in my games and my brother played a gun-toting bard using the 3.5 Pathfinder firearms a long time ago. My problems with modern gunslingers are as follows.
1. The firearm mechanics are stupid.
2. The prices for them exasperate the stupid.
3. A lot of the gunslinger's class features revolve around making this overly expensive piece of **** weapon slightly less ****, rather than doing cool stuff.
4. Touch AC is dumb.
I just wrote a new gunslinger for our group to use. My brother is pushing me to make a 2nd edition.
1. The firearm mechanics are stupid.
Strangely, I have found most previous edition D&D versions of gun rules stupid, and find the Pathfinder firearms rules less stupid. Not great by an means, but less stupid just the same.
2. The prices for them exasperate the stupid.
I am in slight agreement regarding firearm costs, but as stated in my previous post, I generally don't allow firearms in my games, unless built for a specific setting such as for pirates of the Age of Sail, or for an Old West setting. And those settings would have firearms as being fairly common, thus not accrue the expense that earlier periods would have them.
There needs to be some mechanic or explanation why guns are rare in older period settings, and great cost is one way to do it - so its not the most stupid way to handle that. Its almost reasonable.
3. A lot of the gunslinger's class features revolve around making this overly expensive piece of **** weapon slightly less ****, rather than doing cool stuff.
Eh, I've never run a gunslinger, nor played a game where one was included, so I have no real opinion on this. Shooting locks and batting a hat around on the ground doesn't seem especially cool, and those are a gunslingers mid to upper level class features.
4. Touch AC is dumb.
Again, compared to exploding dice rules of 2e for guns, I find Touch AC in the first range increment a fine alternative way to mechanically handle firearms. I'm actually quite fine with a gunslingers touch AC capability. It actually makes more sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. The firearm mechanics are stupid.Strangely, I have found most previous edition D&D versions of gun rules stupid, and find the Pathfinder firearms rules less stupid. Not great by an means, but less stupid just the same.
2. The prices for them exasperate the stupid.I am in slight agreement regarding firearm costs, but as stated in my previous post, I generally don't allow firearms in my games, unless built for a specific setting such as for pirates of the Age of Sail, or for an Old West setting. And those settings would have firearms as being fairly common, thus not accrue the expense that earlier periods would have them.
There needs to be some mechanic or explanation why guns are rare in older period settings, and great cost is one way to do it - so its not the most stupid way to handle that. Its almost reasonable.
3. A lot of the gunslinger's class features revolve around making this overly expensive piece of **** weapon slightly less ****, rather than doing cool stuff.Eh, I've never run a gunslinger, nor played a game where one was included, so I have no real opinion on this. Shooting locks and batting a hat around on the ground doesn't seem especially cool, and those are a gunslingers mid to upper level class features.
4. Touch AC is dumb.Again, compared to exploding dice rules of 2e for guns, I find Touch AC in the first range increment a fine alternative way to mechanically handle firearms. I'm actually quite fine with a gunslingers touch AC capability. It actually makes more sense to me.
On the subject of touch AC, plate mail actually was tested against firearms regularly upon creation because plate mail and firearms existed at the same time. It was bullet proof.
The expense of firearms combos with the horrendous nature of them. Paizo gave me rules for guns that will never be suitable for any campaign I could conceive of running. If I wanted to have a campaign that didn't actively exist to punish characters for using firearms (and shatter verisimilitude to do so) I would need to use some other system.
I cannot reasonably use the firearm rules with any non-gunslinger character period. If you use a gun, you are a gun slinger. Needing an archetype (that changes lots of crap) to allow another character to use a gun? No. Just no. The costs of them are so prohibitively expensive that I can't do anything cool like make a game with pirates dashing around with cutlasses in one hand and pistols in the other. Even if it didn't make treasure values walk the plank, I'd have to ask myself: "Why the hell would these guys use these instead of slings?"
Because slings aren't great, but for all but gunslingers they're a superior investment. They cost nothing, deal comparable damage (especially if you've got a good Strength bonus like the sword & firearm sorts would), and they don't randomly explode in your face.
The Paizo gunslinger rules fail at virtually every level to me. Which is why I don't use them. It has nothing to do with my thinking the class itself is broken, and it has nothing to do with my dislike of guns in fantasy. It has everything to do with the clunky and horrible system in which the gunslinger is anchored to that has no business even being in the same room with any campaign I will ever run. :P
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main issue with guns for me at least is that they target Touch Ac. While other missile weapons remain unchanged. I remember a image in a book. Where a knight leg is pinned go a horse. Wearing I think some plate armor. The arrow had gone through one side of the through and into the horse. Crossbow have penetrating power. Why don't they use different rules. It also impossible for a well designed gunslinger to miss. I would not recommend a DM allow one for the upcoming Giants AP.
On the subject of touch AC, plate mail actually was tested against firearms regularly upon creation because plate mail and firearms existed at the same time. It was bullet proof.
I'd consider houseruling full plate (not plate mail) as potentially falling into the 2nd range increment, thereby exempting full plate from a firearm touch AC advantage. Now if the gunslinger had a feat or ability to do touch AC in the next range, this rule change would not apply. I'm fairly certain that the historical phrase "bullet proof" applied to full plate armor and not plate-mail. Full plate is 15th century armor, when firearms were well established in existing armies. The proofing was to help sell armor to officers in the last real gasp of armored warriors before the prevalence of firearms in more modern war.
The expense of firearms combos with the horrendous nature of them. Paizo gave me rules for guns that will never be suitable for any campaign I could conceive of running. If I wanted...
Again, guns aren't used in standard PF games I play. When I do allow guns, the setting is using the advanced/modernesque rules where firearms aren't nearly so expensive, and are common to the setting.
Well, guns seem to be a more prominent part of the game than in previous editions, so it's not surprising that any flaws stand out more.
I don't think I even noticed firearms rules in previous editions. Something about a Boot Hill conversion in AD&D comes to mind, but that obviously wasn't something intended to be part of a standard game.
Someplace in 2e, I can't name the source, had firearms rules where if you rolled a 20 to hit, you could roll it again as "exploding damage" and add 2 sets of damage dice, if you rolled another 20 (you stop rolling extra dice when natural 20's stop), you could do it again. Potentially huge amounts of damage for the impossibility of multiple natural 20 rolls on added to hit dice. I thought this mechanic was kind of dumb, and not the way I'd do it, though am unsure how I'd do it.
I think that's the point. It's not that they have cool features they can't use, but that they don't get cool features because they're so focused on overcoming inherent limitations.
Or maybe because there was so much concern over guns being overpowered they couldn't be given anything better.
I've homebrewed a gunslinging magus archetype (with Cheapy's help) designed specifically for a potential Old West setting PF home game called the Shootist, (which might be publishable as archetypes, setting and module) which I think has very cool features, of course unlike a gunslinger, as a caster has some arcane benefits - like 11th level Swerve Bullet ability that works like Deflect Arrow using magic instead of your hand. Unlike Myrmidarch, the Shootist only has Ranged Spellstrike, as he'd never enter melee combat, so overall a better ranged magus than exists in the game, IMO.
So I agree a gunslinger could have been designed better and cooler.
It was the "A Mighty Fortress" setting guide hand book (one of those green 2e handbooks) where the exloding dice gun rules existed - the Age of the War of Religion (Catholic-Protestant Wars of the 16th century).
|
|
Gamer-printer: I've seen the arquebus in the Second Edition D&D PHB, which did 1d12 damage, and if you rolled a 12 on the damage, you got to reroll until you didn't get a 12.
Then again, my only complaints about guns are that they're way too expensive, nobody on God's green earth likes misfire rules, my group won't ever let any of my characters have a blunderbuss ever since The Incident, and the part of our group's world I run in has Warring States-era Japan, so some of my NPCs strongly object to dishonorable gaijin firearms. (And yes, I know, actual Warring States samurai had really crappy arquebuses.)
Gamer-printer: I've seen the arquebus in the Second Edition D&D PHB, which did 1d12 damage, and if you rolled a 12 on the damage, you got to reroll until you didn't get a 12.
Yeah, that sounds right. It was rolling max damage not a critical hit as exploding dice - misremembered, its been a while since 2e.
Then again, my only complaints about guns are that they're way too expensive, nobody on God's green earth likes misfire rules, my group won't ever let any of my characters have a blunderbuss ever since The Incident, and the part of our group's world I run in has Warring States-era Japan, so some of my NPCs strongly object to dishonorable gaijin firearms. (And yes, I know, actual Warring States samurai had really crappy arquebuses.)
I've got a gunslinger archetype called the Teppou Bushi who is a samurai caste member that does take an honor hit for his weapon choice.
Have you checked out any of the modules and supplements for the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG) published as an imprint under Rite Publishing - its my published homebrew setting. Way of the Samurai (PFRPG) and #30 Haunts for Kaidan are 2 more Kaidan supplements worth checking out that are not in the Kaidan product category, for some reason. Read the reviews, I really tried to create an authentic feudal Japanese setting for Pathfinder - its my heritage.
I thought occurs when I see the gun realism argument;
I imagine a magic gun would be allowed to bend the rules of realism; cause you know...Magic. We let it slide for finger wagging and blowing someone up.
What if firearms had a special rule that states they cannot be fired more then once per round, or else it's automatic misfire, but when they become magical, the magic enhancement eliminates the weakness?
That way, the only gunslingers in the world who are bending the laws of physics are those you sought out people who do that for a living.
On the subject of touch AC, plate mail actually was tested against firearms regularly upon creation because plate mail and firearms existed at the same time. It was bullet proof.I am getting a little tired about the misunderstanding of this. Back in the 16th century armor makers used to test (prove) their plate armor by firing a pistol into the strongest part of the armor from a distance. If the bullet penetrated then the armorer would patch the hole and sell it as normal armor, if the bullet didn't penetrate then the armorer would burnish the dent and sell it for twice the price as 'bullet proven' armor. Of course if someone shot this bullet proof armor somewhere other than it's strongest point, or from closer than where it was tested, or with a musket - well the armor wasn't tested to see if would stop those types of bullets. About 25 years ago a German (Austrian?) museum with too many early firearms and too many suits of armor did testing on actual plate armor using actual early firearms and that testing made pretty clear that within 10m (30 feet) the firearms would reliably penetrate the armor.
Yes and now make the armor out of mithral.
Mithril's only about 50% better, so you'd be looking at penetration at 5 to 6m instead.
Pathfinder Firearms are goofy because early firearms are awful unless you have class abilities to negate the problems. (For example, in my current mythic RotW game, I've got a Black Powder Inquisition Inquisitor with the Preacher archetype who (until he recently got WWI fire arms) regularly used his Preacher ability to reroll misfires - or if he got a misfire, burn mythic power for an Amazing Initiative action to Quickclear it.)
Advanced firearms are a whole 'nother beast - even if you get a misfire, you can just keep firing because you don't have to worry about the gun exploding.
A houserule I'm debating for my next game is along the lines of "you have to beat the DR of the target in order to target touch AC."
Which would suddenly make adamantine armor actually worth a damn.
I'm actually fine with firearms targeting touch AC, but Paizo should've baked an easier countermeasure to firearms into the system.
And I remember the gun Gamer-Printer is talking about - IIRC, the mechanic was that whenever you rolled max on the damage die, you, rolled again - and if you got another max roll you kept going. You didn't have to crit to start that up, you just had to hit.
Oh, cover bonus is handy at low levels, but there's a point where cover bonus in of itself stops mattering because the gunner is accurate enough (also, there's a feat that negates it =P)
Total cover is a weirder beast, and also doesn't really work as a tactic for many, many enemies (who often aren't any good at ranged combat). I suppose that's where the tower shields come in, as you mentioned.
Huh, I guess IG WOULD have fights where everyone's got a riot shield and a pistol...
(One note for RoW - the book 4 dragonkin were actually pretty vexing to my gunner inquisitor - those buggers move FAST combined with reach & Combat Reflexes. They had no trouble at all just closing distance, getting on top of an annoying ranged character, and shutting that person down.)
|
Design Manager
|
Oh, cover bonus is handy at low levels, but there's a point where cover bonus in of itself stops mattering
Truth. Partial cover bothers firearm users less than anyone else, and total cover tends to be a double-edged sword.
(One note for RoW - the book 4 dragonkin were actually pretty vexing to my gunner inquisitor - those buggers move FAST combined with reach & Combat Reflexes. They had no trouble at all just closing distance, getting on top of an annoying ranged character, and shutting that person down.)
I've never seen melee enemies as being all that problematic. Unless they have natural reach, it's as easy to turn the 5 foot step to your advantage as they turn it to theirs, and the Gunslinger has great AC. You can stack up Nimble, a buckler, and some light armor with your huge DEX and always have some of the best AC in the group. As a general rule of thumb, archers seem to suffer much more than firearm wielders, particularly the GS.
|
Design Manager
|
The two AoOs (one for reloading, one for attacking) for each dragonkin made at full BAB for each attack made by the gunslinger would tend to present a problem no matter the AC of the gunslinger. Never played RoW but reach & combat reflexes is combo I've seen/used which gives gunslingers problems. Dedicated archers in my experience had less of a problem with the combo as they were taking fewer AoOs but it's been a while since I've played with a dedicated ranged combatant, and I don't remember why they took fewer AoOs.
My experience may be a little stilted since I tend to go for Deft Shootist as quickly as possible. Dodge and Mobility tend to be reasonable taxes since they also help deal with the dynamics of being a ranged character with a relatively short range.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So, I see the gunslinger being banned left and right from games,.. Why? I don't get it.
(1)The firearms rules are really and needlessly bad. Touch attacks to hit because reasons, even though a storm giant wielding a mace twice as big as its target character still needs to hit the full AC. Common misfires even though swords do not bend and bowstrings do not snap in PF ever, for all practical intents. Obscene costs. Basic damage far too low. Reload rules that make them near-useless to most people. I imagine some people do not want to deal with this mess (as about myself, I have removed misfires and touch attacks, and doubled damage and RI for nearly all firearms).
(2)Some people just don't like firearms in their fantasy.
(3)Some people feel bad when a non-caster class actually gets something suspicioulsy resembling actual abilities. In gunslinger's case, attacking touch AC. Never mind that a gunslinger needs to make a conscious effort just to match damage output of Scorching Ray.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Firearms have a bunch of mechanical hurdles to jump. If you get over those the DM and or other players might decide you're terribly overpowered while you feel like you've "earned it" since you had to take some special feats, buy a bunch of special equipment, and possibly suffer with the weapon equivalent of a joke cigar for several levels. The stage is set for message boards complaints on both sides.
I'd stop short of terms like "consensus", but I think there's some fairly widespread concern over guns targeting touch AC, and I think many or perhaps even most folks who take a hard look at the current firearm rules can agree that being able to double your number of attacks per round for a -4 penalty to hit is unbalanced. The double shot issue seems like it would be easy to fix with a ruling that firing both barrels of a double barreled gun requires a standard action. The touch attack issue extends beyond firearms and also tends to dredge up debates about the historical interaction between guns and armor.
Those who feel guns should easily bypass armor via touch attacks might do well to consider that the reload rate on early, muzzle loading firearms has been greatly increased to make the weapons playable in the game. It seems a little unfair to me to cling to history (or some version of history) when it comes to the penetrating power of guns but ignore history when it comes to reload rates. I'd rather see a compromise on both aspects to make early firearms both fit their theme and be reasonably effective. I think that getting rid of super fast reload rates but giving Gunslingers a free and improved version of the Dead Shot deed might help a lot. Based on the retracted free action FAQ it seemed like Paizo wanted to limit firearm reloads pretty severely and prevent Gunslingers from finding ways to sneak in more attacks than their BAB would otherwise allow. Switching the fastest reload with Alchemical Cartidges from a free action to a swift action would probably cover a lot of ground.
How to fix the touch AC issue itself, if you even agree it exists, seems like a more complicated question. While the simplest method would be limiting the amount of armor and natural armor a gun can bypass I could imagine other methods like having different types of "touch" attacks which can or can't bypass specific types of defense bonus. The game already has something kind of like this with incorporeal touch.
A zen archer gets to make 7 attacks at level 16 instead of the 5 a gunslinger does,
Right except a Zen Archer is only going to hit 3 times and a gunslinger is going to hit 5 times. Take a look at the CR 17 monsters that a Level 16 party will face:
Name, AC/Touch AC
Azata, Brijidine - 32/19
Bandersnatch - 33/13
Daemon, Phasmadaemon - 32/17
Demon, Marilith - 32/17
Giant, Rune - 30/6
Keketar - 32/14
Linnorm, Ice - 32/8
Lusca - 32/6
Shinigami- 31/15
Thrasfyr - 32/9
Wendigo - 32/18
Winterwight 32/16
Someone tried to say it was +10 but that's obviously not true, at CR 17 the minimum is + 13 and the average it +18.67. Now granted I didn't include the CR 17 Dragons in this, but I'd be more than happy to go back and check if you think it'll help your case... I just did a quick look AC of the dragons is around 35-40 and touch ac is around 4-8, that's gonna hurt your case quite a bit.
gets the fighter only +2 damage from weapon specialization AND at level 17 can use the base damage for unarmed strikes - 2d10 usually.
Not usually, sometimes. You have a tendency to do that. You take something that a character can do once a day as proof they are more powerful than the gunslinger. Stop. It makes me think you don't know what the word consistent means. If you wanted to play this game, I could talk about how the Pistoleer can add 3d6 to every shot he fires... Usually, and always after level 11.
A fighter gets weapon training and fighter class restricted feats of weapon specialization & greater weapon specialization feats (with enough more feats to take them) and access to gloves of dueling for a total of +10 to damage on top of STR at level 17 (+9 level 13, +7 level 12) versus the the gunslinger's DEX to damage with maybe up to +3 from an archetype.
And again, you're ignoring the fact that a fighter won't hit as often, and will do consistently less damage, because a miss = zero damage.
Look at that list again. If we don't figure anything except his base attack bonus. If he has a 10 DEX and a standard gun, no magic at all, he hits that entire list 95% of the time with his first shot. His second shot hits 5 out of 12 of them and ALL the dragons 95% of the time. His 3rd shot, hits two of the list and all but 4 of the dragons with his 3rd shot. Do that math with the fighter. 10 DEX and no magic how many will he hit, and how many times? Well +3 from weapon training gives him a whopping +19 to hit. How many monsters on that list have an AC of 19 or lower? Well that'd be zero Bob.
the times when a ranger is unable to cast instant enemy or gravity bow or some other spell to increase damage are so few that a ranger consistently has some damage bonus or the other. the archadin is situational I'll grant you, but the point of this paragraph is to address the issue of DEX to damage being a big deal, it isn't because other classes get damage bonuses which are in line or even more powerful than DEX to damage.
A 16th level ranger can cast 2 third level spells per day. That's a whopping 2 Instant Enemy spells against a whopping 2 monsters. Gravity Bow does nothing with his to hit chance, and Pistoleers get to add 3d6 to everything else than can already do, which that alone is better than gravity bow.
But I do agree, DEX to damage is brutal, but not overly so. Combined with being able to use touch attacks, means gunslingers will do more consistent damage than any other class.
If your challenge was anything like what would happen in a real game, I'd consider it worthy. It's not. You see if the gunslinger can't hit it, neither can any of the melee characters in the party. That means the only one attacking is the archer. What GM is going to consistently create scenarios where only one play can attack? It doesn't happen.
Outside of that the acebolt can rival them with a crossbow, but still is not doing as much average damage as an archer.
This statement alone, does more to discredit you than anything I could possible say in response.
Based on the retracted free action FAQ it seemed like Paizo wanted to limit firearm reloads pretty severely and prevent Gunslingers from finding ways to sneak in more attacks than their BAB would otherwise allow.Nah, it was a blatant attack on everything not-bow judging from the exact method of backpedalling that was applied when that debacle happened.
Somebody noticed that not-double-double-ancient builds could in some cases reach half, sometimes even three quarters of "so you picked up a composite bow, rapid, manyshot and dead-aim", outputs despite 'only' requiring specific classes, class abilities and several more feats dedicated to it due to not-a-bow. They went ballistic and the unacceptable sudden imbalance and backed it by a game designer - well known for having 20+ superhuman agility/grace/reflexes* - getting tangled up with some string bits like a cat. Not anyone's finest moment there.
*I'm certainly in no way saying anyone else here may be that dextrous. But those gunslinger characters ARE. We're not.
Yeah, once the Dev's panic-scrambled to reassure everyone that drawing ammunition for a longbow reloading wasn't really a free action, but drawing weapon for any other ranged weapon was a free action (with reloading being a second free action) and the free action limit ought to be enforced, it was pretty clear what their agenda was.
1. AGAIN While there is merit in comparing hit chances if you wish to talk about damage done when comparing the damage bonuses each class has available to them from their class, then not being able to hit the broad side of a barn is irrelevant. Saying gloves of dueling shouldn't be included in the bonus damage for the fighter because they come from an item instead of a class feature is valid, saying the fighter is going to hit less often means nothing because hit chance has nothing to do with what a classes damage bonus is.
Seriously? Who give a s*** if a fighter can do 6 billion points of damage if he never hits? Talk about completely irrelevant. Heck I'd house rule that. Anyone can have +6 billion to damage as long as they take -50 on their to hit chance.
2. comparing zen archers as a class to gunslingers as a class is tough, they are both ranged but they are different in how they function. You asked what zen archers get in the way of bonuses to damage - they get more attacks, the ability to do their unarmed damage (which at level 17, as mentioned, is usually 2d10 because usually a level 17 zen arched is wearing a monk's robe - level 17 was used because at that point the gunslinger's class based bonus to damage has matured) and a boatload of feats including weapon specialization. Is the whole zen archer package as good as the whole gunslinger package? Sometimes it is better and sometimes it is worse, because they are so different in how they function, but a zen archer certainly has "bonus to damage at least comparable to that of the gunslinger", and that that comparison is that the zen archer has a bigger damage bonus. Whether or not this will result in more damage done in various scenarios is a different issue, and if you want to get into a side-to-side comparison of zen archers and gunslingers in different cases then we should compare whole builds instead of class features.
It's not "usually" because it takes resources to be able to do that, hence it is not consistent. Those resources will run out quickly if you use them for every attack.
You also seem to think I give a flying hang about the Zen Archer I don't, it was an example that I've only brought up once.
3. I have no idea what you mean by "consistent". I take it to mean in this context, the amount of damage which a level 11-20 character can be expected to put out in combat encounters which are CR appropriate, which occur with the frequency which adventurers usually handle combat...
If you can't do it every round of every combat, it won't be consistent. A ranger's favored enemy bonus isn't consistent damage. A Paladin's smite evil, isn't consistent damage, and a Zen Archer raising his arrows to 2d10 takes ki points, and isn't consistent damage. A gunslinger's DEX to damage IS consistent, every round no grit, no extra resources that will run out.
And to clear something else up, a paper alchemical cartridge is 12gp full price not 40gp and 6gp to make it yourself.
You're also completely missing my point and seem to want to argue quite vigorously about crap I couldn't care less about, so let me clarify:
I don't care solely about bonuses to damage, they are completely irrelevant on their own.
A Gunfighter is a very powerful class level 5-10 and will completely dominate the game levels 11-20.
Those are my points, and I will go on to say that the reason they dominate is a combination of DEX to damage and using touch attacks.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying "Guns are bad, archery is clearly better." I prefer archery, but I acknowledge that guns are a very powerful weapon in the right hands. However, you are wrong to say that a Gunslinger can do ANYTHING an Archer can do better, and that is the point on which our arguments have turned. You can consider it unimportant if you like, but a gunman will never be able to beat an archer in a contest of range, and you are kidding yourself if you think the GM who makes use of that information has not yet rolled the dice.
You see the problem with using range is that it leaves out everyone except the archer. How long do you think you're going to have players if only one of them can ever attack? That's why if it happens at all, it will be extremely rare. The ONLY thing an archer can do that a Gunslinger can't is fire at ranges that I've never see in my 30+ years of gaming. Ya got me on that one.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying "Guns are bad, archery is clearly better." I prefer archery, but I acknowledge that guns are a very powerful weapon in the right hands. However, you are wrong to say that a Gunslinger can do ANYTHING an Archer can do better, and that is the point on which our arguments have turned. You can consider it unimportant if you like, but a gunman will never be able to beat an archer in a contest of range, and you are kidding yourself if you think the GM who makes use of that information has not yet rolled the dice.You see the problem with using range is that it leaves out everyone except the archer. How long do you think you're going to have players if only one of them can ever attack? That's why if it happens at all, it will be extremely rare. The ONLY thing an archer can do that a Gunslinger can't is fire at ranges that I've never see in my 30+ years of gaming. Ya got me on that one.
Personally, I've rarely seen a character who didn't have some long range options, even if it's just as a backup weapon.
@Jamie Charlan - The double shot as a standard action would never become worthless. It would offer a nice option for when you’re limited to a standard action (like most PCs in surprise rounds) and would allow characters who don’t specialize in fast reloads to get in an extra shot without a reload during full attack situations. I don't think your proposed solution is bad enough to drop an F-Bomb over, but I also don't think the double barreled guns really need that extra help to remain an interesting instead of must have option.
Vital Strike has its own problems.