Daisuke1133's page

Body Slot Affinities

Here you go.

As the title states, the only one that it qualifies for currently is the scout, but could you be a ninja with the scout archetype?

prototype00

I'm fairly certain that as long as the Ninja has all of the abilities to be replaced, then it can take any sort of Rogue Archetype. And really, the Ninja itself is a Rogue Archetype that has been given a really thorough write up, and it has been stated that a character can have more than one Class Archetype so long as no two Archetypes replace the same Class Feature.

There are a few small assumptions that you are making:
1. That everyone who plays only look at mechanical effectiveness of the weapons in a vacuum.
2. That no one is going to want to use weapons they think are aesthetically pleasing.

Finally You are overlooking the value of some different class features and magical enhancements, like the Piercing Strike ability of the Duelist class or the keen magical enhancement.

All of these things are reasons why a player would potentially want a particular weapon, even if said weapon is not the most powerful option they could pursue for their character.

What else does the Warmage do besides damage? I thought that was why everyone despised it. Because it didn't get utility spells.

That was fixed in the Player's Handbook II with the Eclectic Learning Alternative Class Feature. It allowed a Warmage to take any Wizard/Sorcerer spell, rather than just Evocation magic, with the same limitations as Advanced Learning and that the spell takes a slot one level higher. To say nothing of the Extra Spell feat.

You know, I'm always left scratching my head whenever someone tries to reduce reliance on magic items by giving mysterious innate bonii and trying to replace said items with other items that just do more. If you want to reduce the "need", either real or perceived, for magic items, why not reduce or eliminate the practical reasons why people feel the need to have them.

For example, there is nothing wrong with only including the types of monsters that can be reliably defeated with just regular old mundane weapons. If anyone feels like they are struggling, masterwork equipment is always an option.

Also, you might consider challenges that only require a skill level that the characters would reasonably have without magical enhancement.

In fact, anything that adds more "game-like" elements to a tabletop roleplaying game tends to get labeled as turning the RPG into a board game or video game. Of course, that's totally untrue. Roleplaying games don't become not-roleplaying-games just because you add more dice, cards, poker chips, the Hasbro game Mouse Trap, or anything else. A roleplaying game is still a roleplaying game as long as it is a game in which one plays a role.

I agree with you on this in theory, but with a small caveat: If the game is written to utilize unique props that cannot be gathered in any way save buying another copy of the game set (like the way Fantasy Flight has done with Warhammer Fantasy Role Play 3rd Edition), then yes the inclusion of more "game-like" elements to a tabletop roleplaying game does qualify as turning the rpg into a board game or video game. At least this is the way I see things, anyway. Your experiences may differ from my own, and probably do since you espouse the opinion that you did.

As to the rest of your post: Could not agree more.

I see what you're getting at now, Napalm. I think the fact of the matter is that we disagree on what we think constitutes "power creep". If it isn't game shattering, I tend not to worry about it. I guess I only consider it power creep when one combatant has a blunt butter-knife and the other has a mini-gun. In other words when one option completely and utterly outstrips the other.

As an aside, I also do not agree with some of your points just based on my own experiences. I suppose I should count myself lucky that I've never played with the kind of people who do the sort of munchkining you are suggesting above. I wouldn't even do that. These days the only time one of my characters would use a katana one handed is if they were riding on horseback or using it in conjunction with a wakizashi.

Also, I didn't intend to come off sounding autocratic. I apologize if I did so.

You're right, edross. I'm going to take that last sentence out, it was written when I was in an irritated mood. But my point wasn't that all these weapons are created equally, it was that there isn't a weapon type that the Samurai can use that the Cavalier cannot, so there was no real power creep besides what he subjectively perceived.

Edit: Okay, I can't edit that part out. Blasted time limits on edits...

Course then you have the balance issue that you seem to want to ignore. If the exotic weapon bastard sword is a balanced feat, then the samurai has a power creep by having a more powerful weapons list then the cavalier with nothing that to detract for that. If by chance the addition of the exotic weapon isn't any better(i mean zip zilch nada)...then there is a SEVERE problem with the feat.

You, sir, are make a mountain out of an ant-hill. A cavalier can use any of the weapons on the Samurai list. The only exotic weapon on that list is the katana (bastard sword) and the cavalier can use that in a two-handed grip as well, all of the others have martial weapon equivalents (Naginata=Glaive, Wakizashi=Short Sword), so a cavalier could also use those. None of these are auto-masterwork, so that is another point against your "power creep" theory.

In short, I see nothing in your post but buzzwords written in the hopes that they will inflame passions without anyone actually analyzing the content of the post itself.

Or you could just take Exotic Weapon Proficiency and use it whichever way you prefer. This method has the advantage of being less feat intensive and accomplishing the same goal.

The problem with your argument is that wielding the bastard sword/katana/what-have-you two-handed doesn't mean that a character is proficient, they just aren't penalized for being non-proficient. I admit it might be a weird way of interpreting the rule, but that is the reasoning that makes the most sense to me. Which brings me back to my original point, which is that proficient means proficient. Not some strange pseudo-proficiency. If a character is proficient with a weapon, it means they can use it any which way that the rules allow.

No, they are not. They are one-handed weapons that can be used two-handed with a generic weapon proficiency. Giving full proficiency to a class that is stated to have proficiency with a weapon is just common sense.

Unless noted otherwise, I'd assume it's martial proficiency - like how a fighter can use a Bastard Sword with two hands as a martial proficiency without spending a feat, but must spend an exotic weapon feat to use it one-handed. I'd say that with the katana listed as a weapon for both means that they can use it two-handed, and would have to spent an exotic weapon feat for one-handed use.

That is just silly. Proficiency with a stated weapon means full proficiency. Rogues don't need to wield a rapier in two hands to use it proficiently (and yes I'm aware of how inanely comical that would look, and how awkward that would be to actually do), I see no reason why it should be different in this case.

having a balanced-and-available solution seems like a prudent idea.

I'm not disputing this. But in a game where guns are ubiquitous, it basically becomes mandatory for armour to even be a worthwhile investment. But I do concede that different people will consider different abilities to be more important than others.

it suggests to me that you're one of those who feels "guns (can) use Touch AC" is out-of-whack with the real-world effects of firearms

Saying this is untrue would be a lie, I admit. However, I'm also against introducing rules that would at least seem unnecessary (at least to me, anyway), instead of just sticking with rules that work fine already. I like keeping things simple. For example, guns doing more dice of damage than other weapons is a tried-and-true method that has always worked just fine for me.

Paizo has decided to balance them based on "guns hit touch AC". I believe strongly they have the talent and skill required to balance guns around this point.

On this point, I must respectfully disagree. I think that such an idea is inherently unbalanced and cannot be made balanced, but such is only my own opinion on the matter. Make of it what you will. I've already stated my piece on this subject many times already, and will say no more here.

Note - I do realize that "bulletproof" armor will be immensely desirable in one game, and virtually useless in another, but in that sense, it's about the same as "Bane Vs. Undead" weapons, or blindly picking a Ranger's favored enemy. If the BBEG of your campaign is a Gunfighter,...

I agree with you there, but I just think that applying a *Bulletproof* enhancement is just rather expensive for what it does. Again, just my opinion. But aside from guns being used by enemies, there is also the matter of friendly fire to consider. Some folks would rather get the reload time down before considering ways of keeping from hitting their allies.

I think it's a bad idea for there to be a magical enhancement specifically for an armour to resist bullet impacts, as such an enhancement would be essentially mandatory in a campaign with guns. No enhancement, other than the generic ac enhancement bonus, should ever be something that a character has to put on their magical equipment.

Personally I think that if guns have been around long enough and/or guns are common enough, that GM's should just rule that armour technology has 'caught up', so to speak, to guns and can resist gunshots.

why do you think monk plays into Vash, i don't see the connection, I'm not saying it doesn't i just don't see it

Because it's the only way a character can actually dodge bullets being fired at close range.

To say nothing of the fact that touch attacks ignore damage reduction outright, no matter what kind a creature has. I can guarantee you that adamantine will cause a tiny lead ball to pancake, and in some cases not do a darn thing to whatever was made of that adamantine or who was wearing it.

@Relmwalker: Not once has overdark said that Gunslingers will overpower all other characters. The entire point of his tirades is that in terms of weapons, the gun is supreme. I think better examples of why guns are, in his and my own mind, overpowered is by comparing a gun using Fighter with a bow using one.

ciretose, the developers have been pretty adamant that the gun rules aren't changing. Even if you gave unassailable proof that they're more useful than casting Time Stop, Meteor Swarm, and then Gate to bring in some massively high HD demon, I'm betting at this point they still wouldn't include any errata to address the issue.*

Now for some less passionate comments that I hope are not offensive to anyone and are at least somewhat on-topic.

In overdark's example, nobody said these NPC's owned their equipment. I think a reasonable assumption is that they are soldiers in an army & their sponsors and commanders have done the sensible thing and given them the (relatively) best equipment & training available that they could use in the situation. (considering it's a relatively large group of NPC's, I don't think this explanation is too "out there". Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Now, yes he's expecting folks to read between the lines too much and to think like he does regarding the situation. I agree that he would benefit greatly from posting the minutia of the scenario, but I don't think it's right to simply disregard the point he is trying to make just because a part of the community doesn't agree with said point.

*Yes, I know this is a complete and utter overstatement. I felt a certain level of facetiousness was necessary to get this point across.

2. Deadly Aim, unless they changed something, doesn't work on Touch Attacks.

They did. The attack is resolved against Touch AC, but is otherwise counted as a regular weapon attack. So Deadly Aim does work with firearms, even in the Touch Attack range increments.

How does the misfire rule for these guns actually work?

The short answer is that it doesn't. Don't accomplish what it's supposed to do, anyway. (Balance the Touch AC mechanic)

The longer answer (the one you're interested in) is as follows:

On a natural 1, or 2 in some cases, the gun misses and gains the "Broken" condition. When this happens the gun still functions as normal, but the misfire value becomes 4 points higher. If the gun misfires again, it explodes and deals the damage it would have dealt on the attack to the user, and a DC 12 Reflex save halves this damage.

Daisuke1133 wrote:

Swivl wrote:

that dragon with a poor touch AC has load of natural attacks

While this is true, I can't think of any reason why said gunslinger won't have a Far-Reaching Sight by this point in the adventure. Not unless the GM is a total jerk about making the party encounter things they would never be equipped or able to defeat.

Also, when was the last time the adversaries in a game engaged your character outside of any ranged weapon's first range increment? Because I can tell you right now I've never been in such a situation.

you only get a single shot with the Far-Reaching Sight

I realize this. My point is that it causes an attack from any range to hit Touch AC. While this may not be as problematic with early firearms as it is with the advanced ones, with advanced firearms the target may not even be able to see where the gun using character is.

that dragon with a poor touch AC has load of natural attacks

While this is true, I can't think of any reason why said gunslinger won't have a Far-Reaching Sight by this point in the adventure. Not unless the GM is a total jerk about making the party encounter things they would never be equipped or able to defeat.

Also, when was the last time the adversaries in a game engaged your character outside of any ranged weapon's first range increment? Because I can tell you right now I've never been in such a situation.

Have you ever seen a shotgun being fired? They don't work that way!

There's not a single aspect of these guns that is realistic (save, perhaps, the crit multiplier and range), from the damage to the fact that they ignore armour that was designed to counter gunshots in the first place. But, for what it's worth, that is just my opinion.

Fortunately Paizo has no ability to dictate what house rules you use at your table, so you can come up with whatever rules you think suit shotguns better.

Reckless wrote:

erik542 wrote:

Freesword wrote:

The touch attacks are a compromise attempt to model armor penetration in a rules set where armor is binary. By binary I mean it either applies or it does not. I'd prefer it to go away myself, but I don't see that happening. This is primarily because it seems to be part of the firearms rules set in stone by a book already on it's way back from the printers when this playtest started.

I don't remember the announcement saying that Ultimate Combat was on its way to the printers. I know Ultimate Magic was sent to print.

The firearms rules are in the Inner Sea World Guide, which is shipping to subscribers this week.

Well there's the all powerful tool called errata still. But I do stand corrected.

You're assuming there's going to be errata on the issue. Given how adamant they've been about the gun rules not changing, I'm betting on such an errata never coming.

I'd like to think that I've been fairly open-minded about all this guns in fantasy stuff. However, I cannot get behind the idea of a setting in which the presence of any of these guns is going to render all other weapons and characters that use them ineffectual. This is not conducive to the fun of people who are more interested in playing more traditional characters in a fantasy setting.

Now from what I've read the touch ac thing was to balance out the longer reload times, yes? But that is no longer necessary with all of the different ways to bring the reload time down in the current playtest version. And before anyone starts up with the guns penetrate armor stuff, let me remind you that there was already a mechanic for that, a X3 crit multiplier. That is what was being represented by the fact that bows and crossbows having a X3 multiplier and not the more stock standard X2 multiplier. There was never a need to invent a new mechanic to represent armor penetration when one already existed.

And before anyone accuses me of just being a whiny jerk who thinks guns should just go away from Pathfinder, let me divest you of that foolish and false notion right now. I have no problem with guns in fantasy, heck I play the Warcraft d20 rpg as well as Warhammer Fantasy Role Play second edition and all of the Warhammer 40,000 rpgs, and that last one has more guns than you could ever want. Now lets focus on that first one for a bit. It has no special rules pertaining to guns other than magical enhancements making malfunctions more frequent and enhanced gunpowders that can give minor enhancement bonuses to the attack (or damage, I'll have to go and check on that so don't quote me on it) and in one case make it so the gun can still fire even if the powder gets wet. Sword & Sorcery Studios felt no need to give Azeroth's guns the ability to ignore manufactured armor, which is a silly thing considering plate mail was created to provide plenty adequate protection against a gunshot.

Ephrain: Wooden stock. No contact with the metal. And that spell doesn't damage the metal itself in any way, so the gun isn't ruined.

Even so, the trigger, trigger guard, and barrel are made of metal so regardless a druid casting heat metal on a gun will cause the character holding the gun to drop it pretty quickly, from shock because of the sudden temperature change in the metal if nothing else.