Dirlaise's page

(not to mention pointless at this point)

So guns are supposed to have something special about them. We get resolving attacks against touch AC. That's fixed, printed, done, and beyond the ability of anything save errata to correct - which I'm not optimistic about. Perhaps a variant sidebar (please), but no resolving fix.

We also see (arguably) a lot of concerns with damage output. Make your own decisions about that, I suppose, but this suggestion is assuming low damage output.

So...what if...

Guns were special. Super crazy special. What if they got iterative attacks ever 3 BAB instead of every 6? Insane concept, considering how hard wired the iterative attack progression is, but so was 'hit AC to damage with a ranged weapon', and that was dismissed. Call it a cumulative -2 for iterative attacks, so:

+20/+18/+16/+14/+12/+10/+8/+6/+4/+2 at 20th...

...which is way too much. Even with lightning reloading, that's an absurd number of shots. So scale back the progression for the gunslinger.

+15/+13/+11/+9/+7/+5/+3/+1 at 20th. 8 shots in 6 seconds. If there were a revolver in the game that could chamber 8 shots (or a gunslinger with 2 revolvers) I could see that in terms of firing rate for folks with itchy fingers. Tack on rapid shot and two weapon fighting and it goes to 10 shots - still doable with a few blazing guns, but without that heightened BAB from above. Expensive, considering the per shot cost, but pulls some of the 'flurry of bullets' flavor from forum posts about monk gunners.

Still too much? How about iterative attacks at every +4 BAB? +5?

And my, what powerful pickle shots we get.

Of course, not only gunslingers use guns, and with that +20 for fighters and barbarians - that's a lot of shots. Solution? Make it a gunslinger class feature. Put it high enough in the level progression that you can't just dip in and make your rogue an insane sneak attacker. Or scale it - spread out the bonus attacks over a lot of levels so the other classes can't simply dip deep enough for a single class feature to give them 4 extra attacks.

This is merely for the consideration of the forum. The idea came randomly and with only phantom clarity, so it's pretty raw. With touch AC this would be...much. I offer it as an alternative, not as an addition.

I want to make sure I have this right:

I have a gunslinger, level 11, with Rapid Reload, Quick Drawn, and the lightning reload deed. He has a point of grit, and a massive arsenal of firearms that need loaded. Let's say 1000 of them. He's also holding enough bullets to shoot everyone in the world twice. He's pretty encumbered, so he's dropping each one as he Quick Draws and reloads.

So, as far as I can tell, he loads them all in a single round. What GM would allow this is beyond me, but as far as RAW goes it seems feasible.

Dropping back a little from the exaggerated numbers, and imagine he has 4-7 firearms. This I could imagine, and it still seems like a lot of action for 6 seconds.

What am I missing?

Does anyone else find it odd that there is an item creation feat associated with an otherwise mundane craft item? Sure, it lacks some of the features expected from a magic item feat, but it stands alone as a replacement for the Craft skill mechanic.

I don't expect guns to be easily craftable - use of Craft (gunsmithing) or (engineering) and tough DCs - but a feat? Considering it's a free feat for the Gunslinger, why bother?

I've been reading over the forums, lurking my way through the concerns that people seem to have with this class. I agree with a lot of the problems people have with this class, and figured I'd throw in my two cents.

First, the touch AC issue. It's a problem, albeit one that isn't going to be addressed. Yes, it's odd that a high enough level gunslinger doesn't need the guiding ability score for ranged attackers in order to hit his target. Yes, it's strange that soft lead balls ignore +Epic Armor. And yeah, it's tough to reconcile the idea that a bullet that can pierce armor can fails to break through glass with minimum damage rolled.

Further, I can see no better poison delivery system than a scattergun. Of course, even without Touch AC issues that's true.

Though, and I say this with a sigh, this doesn't look like it will change. It may render a full base attack bonus superfluous, and might be seem unfair to other touch attackers who have to deal with Spell Resistance, but it is what it is. One can always houserule.

Reloading and misfires are also hot topics. While the new playtest offers a number of feats, class features, and gun enchantments that serve to remedy these problems, I find myself wondering at the contribution that these inclusions make to the game. Reloading has never bothered me the way that it has some people, and guns with multiple shots (or pickled shots) offer what I consider to be the best solution. Misfires, on the other hand, offer little in terms of a pleasurable gaming experience. I can see how, as a machine, if a firearm is broken in some way one will experience misfires. Improper cleaning and maintenance will do that, but for a fully functioning gun to suffer the same causes me some confusion.

These issues, as well as similar issues based around gun rules, make up a hefty number of gunslinger options. What we have as a result is a class whose main contribution is fixes for what feel like unnecessary penalties. The class is taxed with feat choices and grit retention in order to simply make their weapons viable.

It may sound like another 'guns are awful' commentary, but without optimism for guns to be reworked for Ultimate Combat, my point is that 'fixing' guns for the gunslinger is a good - excellent idea. It's just not enough to make the class an exciting option.

Gunslinger damage has been discussed as sub par. Players face a similar concern with unarmed damage. The solution was to allow the monk, a class focused on unarmed strikes, to get a damage boost as they gained class levels. Make it a static +1/2 class level, make it a damage die increase, or even something as unusual as "+1d4 1d6s per 6 levels", but offering the gunslinger something to move towards wouldn't hurt the class.

Deeds should be chosen, not automatic. Paizo's people did a fantastic job with customizable classes in the APG, both in terms of current product and future expansion through upcoming products. Gone were the woes of seeing book after WoTC book that offered a hundred new spells for casters and nothing but feats for the mundane folks. I referenced that kind of brilliant design strategy when prodding my friends to give Pathfinder a try. If the gunslinger deeds were chosen, we'd see that idea persist. It was a good idea, and it should persist.

I'm glad Perception made it onto class skills. There's a part of me that wishes Perform was in there, simply because I was raised to understand that every cowboy sings a sad, sad song. In fact, that sentiment is an integral component to what I know as the meaning of life. I will, however, persevere.

Finally, the "Firearms in Your Campaign" sidebar. It's clear what the intention was, and I understand that until players and GMs stop looking towards developers to answer their questions and guide their hands these things are necessary. I don't, however, think this was beneficial to the playtest. There are arguments going on that reduce concerns to 'that's only for that era of play'. The rules have changes, and the baseline is unclear, and so for thematic design interests we don't have everyone on the same page. That's no more beneficial to the playtest than saying 'if you don't like it, don't use guns'.

It also seems like a cop-out - with all due respect. I enjoy my GM discretion as much as anyone, and probably more than most, but I still appreciate a solid ruling. Variants are all well and good, and an appreciated addition to the GM toolbox, but with the source document providing such a vague "we set it up for this type of game, but whatever", my confidence level wanes. I yearn for the clarity of knowing that 'this is how it is' and it will always be my decision whether I should accept that.

Long posts are cathartic.

In the spirit of again demonstrating the silliness of providing bullets the opportunity to ignore armor, I'd like to point out that by the rules, a bullet fired from a gun cannot even sunder the armor that it pierces. Steel, with 10 hardness, could take a pistol shot without denting. Harder substances, such as mithral and adamantine, would need massive bonus damage assigned to the gun before they even realized they were being shot.

The real kicker is that a pistol or musket, doing minimum damage, wouldn't even damage glass. A glass window has a 1 in 6 chance of surviving a shot from a pistol. Yet that same bullet punches through adamantine full plate to get that 1 point of damage on the armor's wearer.

Previously in the game I'm running I introduced a character who used firearms, but was using the crossbowman archetype from the APG, but replacing all instances of 'crossbow' with 'firearm'.

I'm curious as to what people think of potential comparisons between this class vs. the simple alteration of the archetype. For example, the crossbowman gets to add half his Dex mod to damage when he readies an attack with any crossbow at 3rd level. The gunslinger gets his full Dex bonus with a specific firearm at 5th level, without the need to ready the attack. Crossbowmen get their full Dex bonus to damage at 11th level. Gunslingers get to attack against a touch AC. Crossbowmen, when readying, can deny their opponent their Dex bonus to AC at 7th level. At 13th level crossbowmen no longer provoke an AOO when using a crossbow. Gunslingers spend grit to accomplish the same, provided they've taken the feat.

Etc., etc. Thoughts? If you don't have access to the APG, the pertinent information is here.

Does anyone else have a problem with the idea that the Gunslinger has to burn feats on his own class features? Seems akin to wizards needing to drop a feat to gain a new spell level.

I just downloaded this PDF and was simultaneously thrilled and terrified by the inclusion of the Gunslinger. I've always tip-toes around increased technology in my games, and either had to house rule a class or come up with strange builds in order to accomplish this type of character. I was happy to see that the developers are brave enough to make legitimate rules, but it's always easy for something this unique to fail to live up to its intent.

To be perfectly honest, I'm fairly disappointed.

Some of my issues come from strictly things that I would have done differently. I would've left out Knowledge (local) from class skills - as my understanding is that there is one place in the world of Golarion where firearms are at all common, and that doesn't lead me to believe that your average gunslinger is going to be up on the local rumors and traditions due to the suggested isolation. Of course, my gunslinger need not put ranks in it, so I need not concern myself. Second is the proficiency with martial weapons - seems that a fellow who spends more of his time with a gun wouldn't bother learning swords and axes. It also seems that a gunner would develop a natural disinclination towards bows.

I'm also sketchy about granting a gunslinger a free gun at 1st level. No other class (save perhaps a wizard's spellbook) gets free items - they have to pay for them with their starting gold. Not only does the gunslinger get his for free, but it's a weapon of exceptional value? My suspension of disbelief is tested concerning the random manifestation of a firearm for those who pursue this class - particularly in cases of multiclassing.

Unfortunately, my biggest issue with the class is the ruling mechanic - grit. First and foremost, there is exactly one reason for a gunslinger to have a high Wis score. Perception, arguably the most common use for a high wisdom, isn't even a class skill for this guy. The Wisdom based skills he does have are of fairly limited utility - Heal (from my experience) going out the window with the introduction of the stabilize spell, and Profession being a skill that I have never actually seen a PC take.

Second, there are three ways to regain grit. One is via a 1 in 20 chance (or 1 in 10) - urging the gunslinger to take certain feats to capitalize on critical hit chance. Then there is the misleading 'killing blow'. It's worth mentioning that reducing a creature to 0 hit points or less doesn't actually kill it unless it's negative hit point total is equal to its Con score - otherwise Diehard would be a wasted feat for villains. Finally, a vague, GM discretion 'heroic act'. While the dashing gunslinger who leaps from train car to train car at the risk of his life is cinematic and appealing, it puts more emphasis on the character's role of 'impressing the GM'. While this may appeal to the diva style players, those who wish to play the stoic gunslinger are out of luck. It should also be noted that the Hero Points system from the Advanced Players Guide also awards Hero Points for 'heroic acts', thus allowing the gunslinger to double dip - at which point it's up to the GM to either disallow him to receive one of each, give both, as he's fulfilled the requirements, choose one or the other, or allow the character to choose. Regardless of the solution, it's going to slow the game, which would be a big letdown after some fancy heroics.

And when the gunslinger has the grit he needs he can accomplish a few pretty cool things - and a few that seem like deeds he should be able to accomplish without spending finite 'points'. Targeting, for one, was a mechanic that I got a little glow at the idea of. I was disappointed to see that shooting someone in the arm doesn't deal damage and amounts to a ranged disarm. So much emphasis was placed on the CMB/CMD rules as a reparation of poorly constructed 3.5 mechanics that allowing a character to disarm with an attack seems very much like a step back. I have similar concerns with what is effectively a glorified ranged trip, but at least that one lets the bullet deal damage.

I am similarly uncertain about the 'blast lock' deed. It begs the question - why does this take grit? It's a lock, and the character has a gun. Hitting a lock with a battleaxe doesn't take any kind of points - why is a gun different? I can't for the life of me make sense out of extra effort being applied towards shooting an inanimate object at point blank range.

Mind you, a lot of the rest of them I like. I am just left scratching my head over a number of the rules tied to the class.

The last time I built a gunner for my Pathfinder campaign, I just used the crossbowman archetype from the APG and replaced all instances of 'crossbow' with 'firearm'. It works surprisingly well. Most of all, it's simple and believable - something I can't say I got from this class.

I sincerely hope for the best. I enjoy anything the provides new options for the game that I love so dearly - but I hope that this particular addition, with all its potential, goes through some very extensive revision through the playtest.

I have a player in my game who wants her character to dabble in poisons. She's asking me lots of questions concerning how she would go about making poisons for use. I gave her the simple answer, pointing to the table in the Core Rulebook.

But what about naturally occurring poisons? If her party kills a Medium Spider, can the poison sacs be harvested for Medium Spider Poison? What about striped toadstools? Can they be found in the wild, and if she can she harvest them and avoid the cost? What if she wants to actually adventure with the goal of gathering ingredients for some of the nastier poisons?

Aside from the fact that gathering ingredients from the wild makes more sense to me than magically transforming gold into poison with a craft check, and the fact that it offers interesting adventure ideas, I'm wondering if there are rules published that might assist in allowing her to play the DIY poisoner.

Intuitively, I feel as though a Knowledge (nature) to identify ingredients, as well as to identify growing areas is appropriate. A Survival check to harvest makes sense, too. Any ideas if the developers have tackled this?

One of my players wants to create a Drow Oracle for an upcoming game, and I had some questions about how some of the racial features and the Oracle features interact.

First, the issue of light blindness. Before she even decided she wanted to play a drow she was considering the Clouded Vision curse. As such, the question occurs as to whether light blindness is a sight based drawback, and whether Clouded Vision would serve to contradict that drawback. This is a matter that seems, from what I can gather, to be unexplored and as such would have to follow regular rules without letting flavor get into the mechanics. An extension of this question is whether blindness negates this drawback (and light sensitivity as well).

Seeing me scratching my head over that one, she graciously decided to change her curse to avoid rules complications or GM headache. She decided on tongues, and promptly asked whether Drow Sign Language was affected by her inability to understand or speak languages while in combat. Basically, she's asking whether wiggling your fingers around is 'speaking'. I scratched my head some more.

My current ruling is that drawbacks are drawbacks, and that her character will have to suffer these drawbacks without circumvention. She has no problem with that ruling - but I do. I like my reasons - game balance and whatnot - but I still find myself scratching my head.

So, any insight on how these rules interact?

I have a Witch character in the campaign that I'm running who seems quite tickled by the idea of making her foes eat rotten food. Her plan is to spoil some consumable with putrefy food & drink and then offer the rotten mess with a beguiling gift. Intuitively, that's not going to be good for the creature.

However, I'm having some difficulty finding exactly how this would affect the subject of the gift. I don't see any diseases that are ingested, and there doesn't appear to be an appropriate poison. Sickened condition makes sense, but I'm not finding a reference in print. Is there something I'm missing or is this strictly houserule territory?

In the APG there are a number of feats that bear remarkable similarities to the Critical Feats in the CRB. Specifically, Bull Rush Strike, Disarming Strike, Repositioning Strike, Sundering Strike, and Tripping Strike.

Now, in the CRB the feats that allow a critical to initiate an extra effect are specifically labeled "Critical" feats. The APG feats mentioned differ from the CRB's feats in that they allow you to apply a combat maneuver to a critical rather than a condition, but they are similar enough to raise a few questions in my mind.

First, despite not being labeled as such, should these feats be considered appropriate to meet the prerequisites for the Critical Mastery feat? If so, would a fighter be able to use Critical Mastery to perform a Disarming Bull Rush Strike?

Second, if these feats are not Critical Feats, does that mean that during any given critical a fighter could apply one of these feats? For example, could a fighter with Critical Mastery and the appropriate feat selection perform a Sickening, Deafening Sundering Strike?