Are gunslingers balanced in combat?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've observed that in parties consisting of four gunslingers, the two with the lowest initiative never really get to go, as the encounter usually ends before they can even act.

Two gunslingers can (usually) do what a more traditional party of four can in combat--and in less than half the time. One gunslinger alone can often manage in the same amount of time as a more traditional party can.

What are your own observations on a gunslinger's combat balance? What do you think could/should be done to fix them?

I for one think that they should not be permitted to use the Deadly Aim or Clustered Shots feats.


Gunslingers as a whole are fine, but like anything else if you optimize them to get everything you can get then it might be a problem if the rest of the party is also not optimized, and the NPC's are not designed for them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you are using single creature encounters that will definitely happen, but it also would happen with pouncing barbarians or archers.

These setups might also take out more creatures, but it also depends on terrain and tactics of the NPC's.


Your issue most likely isn't with gunslingers, but guns. The gunslinger class itself is horrible, and should never be taken past level 5 when you get dex to damage, which can be gotten with 3 levels of fighter anyways.

Guns themselves also have some pretty major issues. No bracers of falcon's aim and requiring a +3 equivalent enchant to be functional are pretty major drawbacks.

Like wraithstrike said, I would put gunslingers as no more damaging than any other archer.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No, they are not necessarily more damaging than archers, but as far as ranged tanking and DPR is concerned, archers are kind of borked too.

Also, I find they dominate whether you have a bunch of weaker creatures, or one big one. It really doesn't matter all that much. Everything pretty much just dies. Not even DR can slow them anymore.


But guns can cheap amulets that protect you from them.


I have had no problems with them. They might give certain DM's trouble though.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Gunslingers deal far too much damage when built well, definitely.. But so fighters and rogues and barbarians and rangers and cavaliers and slayers and etc. etc. etc. can all do way too much damage too. So it's generally not a big deal.

The one thing you can say negative about gunslingers is that they're generally better out of the box because gunslinger and firearm design makes it extremely punitive to pick inappropriate options and therefore makes it easier to make a scary gunslinger than some of those other builds

That's not really an argument in favor of nerfing them though.


Personally I've removed touch AC targeting and and misfire chance.


Claxon wrote:
Personally I've removed touch AC targeting and and misfire chance.

So they are just even worse crossbows at that point? Why not just ban them if you are removing their only unique rules elements?

Liberty's Edge

Personally I like targeting flat footed AC with the proviso that gun's are too inaccurate to deal precision damage, such as sneak attack. And then also take away misfire and lower the cost of ammunition. Still a better weapon than a crossbow, but not massively so, and still maintain a niche.

I also like it because armor likely would be the only thing stopping guns because I don't see anyone jumping out of the way of gunfire.


They're better than crossbows, they still get dex to damage as gunslingers.

Aside from Manyshot, you can basically build a gunslinger the same as an archer.

Also I don't mind them being worse and still being present. Why not ban all the weaker options from games and leave only the good options?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calth wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Personally I've removed touch AC targeting and and misfire chance.
So they are just even worse crossbows at that point? Why not just ban them if you are removing their only unique rules elements?

While I don't disagree with your point, those are both very problematic and widely disliked rule elements. Honestly, they'd have to do a complete rewrite of pretty much all the gun rules to get guns to a place where I'd be happy with them.


Claxon wrote:

They're better than crossbows, they still get dex to damage as gunslingers.

Aside from Manyshot, you can basically build a gunslinger the same as an archer.

Also I don't mind them being worse and still being present. Why not ban all the weaker options from games and leave only the good options?

Bolt Ace makes crossbows strictly superior to any gun with your rules. And the point is if you are nerfing something to worthlessness, its better to remove it than leaving it as a trap option if you are houseruling already.

You also seem to be implying that removing bad options is a bad idea. I would definitely all be for a subset of Pathfinder that removes all the junk, it would just be a world of effort to make that subset, and its easier to just tell your fellow players not to take something on a case by case basis.

And Chengar, I don't disagree that firearms rules are junk. But its simply better to remove them than to make them even more of a trap option than they are.


Nothing in combat is balanced, almost any class outstrips HP with their damage and the ones that can take full attacks easier are superior. Guns just land hits easier but have to manage reloading and misfires.

There are universal solutions to this problem: concealment, concealment, concealment. If your encounters are being blown away, make the battlefield dark or foggy or covered in brush. Give plenty of cover (though the cover rules are not very good).

If none of that works for you, then massage the armor as DR variant rule to your liking.


Claxon wrote:
They're better than crossbows, they still get dex to damage as gunslingers.

The Bolt Ace is a thing, you know...

Calth wrote:
And Chengar, I don't disagree that firearms rules are junk. But its simply better to remove them than to make them even more of a trap option than they are.

Agreed. Do it right, or don't do it at all.


I know bolt ace is a thing, but again the only way crossbows are good is if your a gunslinger Bolt Ace. The only way guns are any good is if you're a gunslinger.

For a gunslinger the crossbow (as a bolt ace) or gun are pretty equal unless I'm forgetting something.

I guess I should add that I do make guns and ammunition cost 10% of their normally listed values.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
hiiamtom wrote:

Nothing in combat is balanced, almost any class outstrips HP with their damage and the ones that can take full attacks easier are superior. Guns just land hits easier but have to manage reloading and misfires.

There are universal solutions to this problem: concealment, concealment, concealment. If your encounters are being blown away, make the battlefield dark or foggy or covered in brush. Give plenty of cover (though the cover rules are not very good).

If none of that works for you, then massage the armor as DR variant rule to your liking.

This is good, except for darkvision and improved precise shot. And if you have to build every combat a particular way because of one character, it's a bit of a problem.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deighton Thrane wrote:
Personally I like targeting flat footed AC with the proviso that gun's are too inaccurate to deal precision damage, such as sneak attack.

I don't much like this fix because rogues are realistically the only class in the game besides the gunslinger that can get mileage out of the weapon in the first place.

It also doesn't really do anything to effect gunslingers themselves except require another houserule to fix up close and deadly.

Fundamentally I think that's the biggest issue with firearms and firearm rules. It's a weapon designed from the ground up for one specific class and it requires an incredible amount of effort to get any mileage out of them with anything else.

Deighton Thrane wrote:
This is good, except for darkvision and improved precise shot. And if you have to build every combat a particular way because of one character, it's a bit of a problem.

It can be, but that's more a general pathfinder problem rather than a gunslinger problem. An optimized anything needs to have encounters built to play against it (cover vs archers and gunslingers, terrain issues against pummeling charge and beast totem and mounted chargers, distance against full attackers, dispelling or anti-magic against buffers or debuffers) or those encounters are going to be trivialized.

Preview Cancel Submit Post


Deighton Thrane wrote:
hiiamtom wrote:

Nothing in combat is balanced, almost any class outstrips HP with their damage and the ones that can take full attacks easier are superior. Guns just land hits easier but have to manage reloading and misfires.

There are universal solutions to this problem: concealment, concealment, concealment. If your encounters are being blown away, make the battlefield dark or foggy or covered in brush. Give plenty of cover (though the cover rules are not very good).

If none of that works for you, then massage the armor as DR variant rule to your liking.

This is good, except for darkvision and improved precise shot. And if you have to build every combat a particular way because of one character, it's a bit of a problem.

On the other hand, I don't think it's should come across as a surprise that ranged attackers are going to be very strong if every combat encounter happens on a flat, open, featureless plane in the middle of a bright sunny day with no wind.

That said, I'll agree with all the previous statements that ranged attackers aren't any worse than melee martials with pounce or other options to do high damage to an opponent that's more than five feet away from them at the start of their turn. An optimized martial will kill most foes with a single full attack; the thing that makes ranged characters stand out is that they get more full attacks.


Well... Unless you're a Gunslinger or Treant Fighter, firearms are the absolute worst weapons in the game... And even then they are still pretty bad becaus those classes are pretty crappy beyond 5th level.

So yeah... I'd say Gunslinger and firearma are balanced in combat.


If you don't know how to deal with them, like any other class, they can completely ruin encounters. I for one haven't had any problems with an class except for perhaps the synthisist summoner, and even that wasn't that bad after the 4th or 5th session. It really helps that I remember everything my players do or take over our sessions without having to ask. YMMV though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
No, they are not necessarily more damaging than archers, but as far as ranged tanking and DPR is concerned, archers are kind of borked too.

Doesn't this admission make your original post somewhat disingenuous? It seems to me like you could replace 'gunslinger' with 'archer ranger', 'archer fighter', 'archer slayer', 'eldritch archer', 'archer inquisitor' etc and still have exactly the same post. Why single out the gunslinger? Shouldn't the thread be called 'Are ranged PCs balanced in combat?'

Liberty's Edge

Squiggit wrote:

I don't much like this fix because rogues are realistically the only class in the game besides the gunslinger that can get mileage out of the weapon in the first place.

It also doesn't really do anything to effect gunslingers themselves except require another houserule to fix up close and deadly.

It's mostly meant to fix the problem with the firearms rules and the way AC scales for monsters. Because touch AC doesn't really increase, and monsters usually receive a natural armor bonus to make up the majority of their AC. Changing it to flat footed means that firearms have a distinct advantage over regular archers while still allowing for monsters AC to remain relevant.

As for the pistolero or rogues using firearms, I'm pretty meh about the whole thing. Just change up close and deadly to not be precision damage, and as for rogues, sniping is already pretty awful, I don't see how not being able to use firearms to do so is going to be a big deal. If the rogue really wants to have touch attack sneak attack it can use the minor or major magic talents, or take eldritch scoundrel, or UMD a wand.


My houserules if I decide not to do touch AC:
Guns: Penetration
Replace misfire and Touch AC mechanic;
Penetration bypasses the combination of armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 2nd increment (however, keep reading). One-handed firearms have a PR of 3 and two handed firearms have a PR of 6, but this is ½ outside of 1st increment. Also PR automatically increases based on enhancementx2, so a character with a +5 musket bypasses 16 points of AC from armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 1st increment, but only 8 in 2nd increment.
Broken Condition: Penetration lowered by 4 (minimum 0).
Gunslinger:
Deadeye Deed: Same method but extends penetration range
Quick Clear: If Firearm gains broken condition, can ignore for 1 minute.
Gun Training: Raises Penetration by 1 every 5 levels.


At upper levels you have to counter improved precise shot with total concealment and blindsense, and the idea isn't to specifically target a player - it's to shake up the rocket tag routine. If I wanted a player dead it could be done in an instant, I just want to throw a few curve balls to shake up the normal tactics a party falls into.

----

What if guns targeted saves? Real life guns had the advantage of the missile moving much, much faster than a bolt or arrow so why not have them be a line effect that hits a single target? Make a reflex save DC 10+DEX+1/2 BAB of the attacker if you can see and hear them to predict the trajectory of shot.

If you still want misfires the misfire can happen on a save of a natural 20 (or lower depending on weapon), if you want some added danger the line effect continues on a miss and the next creature after the target must make the save with a +4 for each missed target before they roll the save. Maybe even creatures in front of the target need to make the save though that is probably too much.

It would be a much different approach than simply targeting a low number with full BAB.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Are gunslingers balanced in combat? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion