So since the playtest has been going for awhile and is coming to an end.
I was curious if anyone else had any such issue with this weapon ability?
Or comments on changes that might be made to it?
The two people I talked about above have pretty much 'banned' it from their games as it's "too confusing".
(that's more or less why, the one doesn't want guns in their current game anyways, but still pretty much said they wouldn't use/allowed it in others.)
Also:
Mr Jade wrote:
Another thing my group pondered, sneak attacks with a 30-foot cone?
28 sneak attacks?
Yeah, a Little much there.
BUT, be pretty cool if all the attacks hit. ;)
I still think there should be a 'maximum creatures effected' limit though.
Somewhere around seven to ten would be good.
Another thread I didn't want to make. :P
I understand the ability as written and think it works rather well. Up to a point, but it seems some of the people I game with have issues with it.
Mainly one thinks it's a hassle, and prefers the default cone with either a single attack roll VS every creature in the cone, then a single damage roll, (Which personally would tick me off dealing 1 damage to everyone in a cone with a shotgun. -_-) or a cone effect with a reflex save for half.
For me there's also the issue of DMs using creatures with all the same AC, where I feel this wouldn't work very well either. (I also have issues with anything that has Evasion dodging gunfire if there was a 'reflex save for half' ...also the normally static reflex DC.)
The other person is ...hung up on the language.
Scatter Special Quality:
Scatter Special Quality: A weapon with the scatter special quality can shoot two different types of ammunition. It can fire normal bullets that target one creature, or it can make a scattering shot, attacking all creatures within a cone. When it attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes one attack per creature within in the cone, and each attack takes a –2 penalty. If any of the attacks threaten a critical, confirm the critical for that creature alone. If a scatter weapon explodes on a misfire, it deals triple its damage to all creatures within the misfire radius.
Such as where it says 'When it attacks all creatures within a cone, it makes one attack per creature within in the cone,...' (Both have issue with this, just one more then the other.)
To them it feels like you're shooting more then once at each creature. I feel they're getting stuck on the 'When it attacks' as they stated that as 'making the initial attack roll'.
They both agree the language needs to be cleared up some, as they feel it's ambiguous at best.
I understand it just fine though: You're taking a single (iterative) attack action that triggers a cone effect which causes you to roll 'To Hit' each creature in the cone and deal damage accordingly.
That's awesome. Really, I mean it solves so many issues with the basic 'reflex for half cone attack' that most shotguns are done as.
But. It creates a whole new one, for me anyways.
With the Blunderbuss it actually works out rather well, at Best youre hitting six to seven medium sized creatures. Which is totally believable, even as far as saying the shot went through the first creature and hit the one behind it.
(No comment on if you miss the first creature and still hit the second. ;) Rather funny that, I think. ^-^)
Blunderbuss:
Blunderbuss: This weapon fires pellets or a bullet from its trumpet-shaped barrel, making it an effective fowling weapon or close-fighting personal defense weapon. The blunderbuss fires in a 15-foot cone when firing pellets, and has a 10-foot range increment when firing a bullet.
Where I have an issue is the shotgun.
Shotgun:
Shotgun: This advanced version of the blunderbuss shoots in a 30-foot cone when firing pellets, and has a 20-foot range increment when firing a bullet.
A '30-foot' cone?
That's 26 to 28 medium sized creatures. Granted a shotgun is a powerful Close range weapon, but I think that is pushing believability. Specially when you think about it like, 'you shoot through the first 10 guys in a line, missing them but hit 1 or 2 clear in the back'. What was funny just became rather ...weird, at best. (Yes. That is all dependent on if you ever get that many people in a cone (Unlikely but who knows.) And on how you roll the dice and assign targets. Things like 'first hit is first in line, while misses are in the back' work. I know. I just wanted to point out the potential silliness here.) Also, what if you roll and hit all 28? O_O
So I purpose a fix. Limit the number of creatures able to take damage from the effect to something like 10. (10 is pushing it for me so it seems like a nice maximum number.) Given a 30-foot cone is 6 squares long, it wont clear up some of the silliness like: 'Well the guys in front have high AC, but you did manage to hit the Wizard in the back past all 5 of his buddies.'
but I think it would work for most situations.
(I also feel the damage should be increased. I mean. 1d8? Really? and only a x2 critical multiplier? But. That's not the purpose of this thread so I wont get into that. Or talk about "Shotguns shouldn't be cones." (I disagree. They should be. :P))
Well I dislike quoting myself, but the Gunslinger topics seem to be pretty ...random.
As I've said before, the reason I'm more focused on guns then the class is:
Firewrath wrote:
...basing a class on (what I consider) sub-par weapons and asking us to playtest it, Really skews the playtest in general. The class comes off as 'weak' and not very effective. So if they then 'fix' the gunslinger to be an acceptable class with these weapons, later on when they introduce other firearms that are either more powerful or hold more then one shot, the class will then come off as over powered.
Now as for your Questions. Well #4&5 I can't answer, but I'd have to say the answer to #1&2 are "Yes."
Guns Should be usable&useful for ALL classes and they should be the main weapon of the 'Gunslinger'.
(If only by name alone, if they named changed then maybe not, But when people see a class called 'Gunslinger' they expect a focus on, well, guns. :P)
And as for #3. It seems like by 'arch-types' you mean feat chains or making a 'Gunslinger' in concept but without using the class. It's Probably possible but again I think it would come down to the firearms needing to be upgraded to be done effectively.
Off Topic Comment ('Gunslinger' arch-types):
As for 'Gunslinger' arch-types in General, I have this to say:
Firewrath wrote:
I say this because things like 'Sub-class' archetypes Might get a little confusing to people and seems like rule stacking that we don't need.
IE: You have a Fighter class that's not a Fighter and can't use Fighter arch-types but has it's own 'Fighter' arch-types that the Fighter cant use. O_o;
It might not be that confusing to most of us that have played longer or have a good understanding of the rules, but to some one Just getting into Pathfinder (Specially someone going "Oh cool! A Gunslinger! I want to play that!") or the more casual player, it would seem to lead to a bit of confusion and unnecessary extra work to figure out what the class can and can't use or what it does and does Not qualify for.
To me As Is, the 'Gunslinger' doesn't live up to its name, as written and based on its seemingly preferred firearm type by what we've been given. I'd change the name of the class to something like 'Frontiersman' or even 'Musketeer' as the class seems to fit more with those types of people more then it does a western gunslinger. (Which is what I think of when hearing/reading the name.)
And on that note. I think the class Should have some mechanic like separate Grit/Deed chains to change the class into different roles depending on choice.
I talk about that a little in the above thread and its OT here so I'll leave it at that.
Ranged Weapon Damage: Objects take half damage from ranged weapons (unless the weapon is a siege engine or something similar). Divide the damage dealt by 2 before applying the object's hardness.
I want to make a quick reply here to say this.
I agree, Partly.
To me a 'Gunslinger' is an 'old west' gunfighter or hired gun, and I Do consider that a Fighter type class. Traveling from town to town offering up their skills with guns to whoever was willing to pay the most, or in order to right some wrong they came across (depending on their alignment of course).
There were also 'scout' or Ranger types of the same. While I don't know the correct term for such a person ('Indian Scout'? 'Cowboy'?) I feel they would suit the more Ranger based class. I can totally see things like Favored Enemy and Favored Terrain fitting with this concept while not fitting with the first.
So I feel they could probably split the class between those two types with different/Separate Grit and Deed paths. (Personally this would be my direction for the class.) In which case I think it would almost call for its own base class by then. Not that I'm against the 'sub-classes' but with such a rebuild based around two classes it would seem more fitting. Not to mention the possibility of then extending the class even more with arch-types of it's own or even different Grit/Deed options. I say this because things like 'Sub-class' archetypes Might get a little confusing to people and seems like rule stacking that we don't need.
IE: You have a Fighter class that's not a Fighter and can't use Fighter arch-types but has it's own 'Fighter' arch-types that the Fighter cant use. O_o;
It might not be that confusing to most of us that have played longer or have a good understanding of the rules, but to some one Just getting into Pathfinder (Specially someone going "Oh cool! A Gunslinger! I want to play that!") or the more casual player, it would seem to lead to a bit of confusion and unnecessary extra work to figure out what the class can and can't use or what it does and does Not qualify for. And if the done as a base class, it's easier to say 'This class qualifies for Fighter feats as if it were a Fighter of the same level.' instead of 'This class is a Fighter that's not really a Fighter but has access to the Fighter feats.' (I know that not exactly what it says but I don't have the PDF with me right now. :P)
(I will note however that I totally disagree with using the Alchemist class as a base for the 'Gunslinger'. Specially where I Think someone said to treat guns as 'bombs' or in the same vein as such. I can't imagine trying to logically explain how one classes firearm does 5d6 damage while the parties fighter is only dealing 1d8, and the 'magical Alchemist aura' explanation does Not fit what I feel the class is aiming to be (which is a firearms based attacker with utility. Maybe if they want to do like a 'Gun-Mage' then that's fine and even seems fitting, but not as a general gun-fighter.)
To me As Is, the 'Gunslinger' doesn't live up to its name, as written and based on its seemingly preferred firearm type by what we've been given. I'd change the name of the class to something like 'Frontiersman' or even 'Musketeer' as the class seems to fit more with those types of people more then it does a western gunslinger. (Which is what I think of when hearing/reading the name.) Though a 'Frontiersman' would be more of a Ranger sub-class and a 'Musketeer' would be more of a Fighter sub-class, So I'm afraid that doesn't help in that respect. I also have issues with the class itself, but Ashiel did a nice writeup about most of it's issues, so I see no need to go into that.
(*Sigh* 'quick reply', I should have known better then to say that. (There were no replies to this thread when I started typing this post.) Leaving it there for the irony. :P)
Well, I'm not going to reply to a few post in this thread because I don't see the point of arguing of things that don't really matter as far as the purpose of my post.
Which was mainly this:
To me it seems too many people think the Only guns that should be available are the muzzle loading pistol and rifle. While from what I have read and seen there were actually a lot more choices at the time. Now I'm not a historical expert or even that much of a gun buff to know what was available Exactly when&where, but I don't think it matters.
To me the playtest firearms don't deal enough damage and have a slow reload for the System. Granted I personally feel their reload is too fast for the gun Types, (heck, I'd have it a full round action to reload 'old west' revolvers and repeating rifles.) but comparing their damage and reload time to the rest of the Pathfinder weapons, they don't have much of an appeal. Then basing a class on (what I consider) sub-par weapons and asking us to playtest it, Really skews the playtest in general. The class comes off as 'weak' and not very effective. So if they then 'fix' the gunslinger to be an acceptable class with these weapons, later on when they introduce other firearms that are either more powerful or hold more then one shot, the class will then come off as over powered. Hence my reason for mentioning the documentary to show the variety of firearms available and introducing other firearm sources.
Sidenote:
Yes. I know the Devs have said there will be more guns and I can't wait to see such information revealed. Personally I hope they decide to do so as a continuation of the playtest, but I'll be happy with seeing how they work them into the system in general.
(First, I lost my first version of this post due to my own stupidity while digging up a link I forgot, Though I partly blame Firefox for throwing a dropdown menu that I didnt want in my way. -_- So forgive me if this seems short as I was on a time limit when I started about 15 minutes ago. Please also forgive my spelling for much the same reason.)
So I seriously, extremely, Really, did not want to make this thread. Mostly because of how such ...discussions go, and I might not be able to reliably reply in any sort of timely fashion.
So first off, the 'Interesting Historical Facts':
An interesting find I made while doing research for my own firearm system, is that there were revolvers and breach-loaders back in the 1400-1500s. During the time that flintlocks were used. (Seriously, pretty much bolt-action flint locks. Huh. The things you learn.)
I have never seen such info on Wikipedia, at least when I looked into such things. But I was in Walmarts and found a documentary series called 'Amazing War Machines'. It has two episodes that I was interested in. Early firearms and handguns ('Flint and Steel) and rifles ('Rifles and machineguns').
http://www.walmart.com/ip/13917837
I was also surprised at the lack of firearms in the playtest of a class that is built around using them. (imo; Thats like saying 'Playtest a Wizard, but you can only use spells up to second level.')
So on that note, here are some links from around the net that offer firearms (all open and legal for posting):
Iron Kingdoms:
http://www.whitedragon.dk/Download/Iron_Kingdoms/privateer_firearms.pdf
(It seems the original link from the Privateers Press site is gone. So I found the pdf hosted elsewhere instead.)
Ptolus:
http://www.ptolus.com/images/Technology.pdf
And lastly firearms from Pathfinder:
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/gearWeapons.htm
(You have to scroll down a little for that one.)
And now, my time is up by 20 minutes so I must go. I hope the information here is useful to some people in the playtest and that the Devs might consider the new (to me anyways) information on flintlocks in the documentary for their firearm weapons.
i was Really hoping there was going to be, but seeing as they just released the Ultimate Combat playtest, im starting to have my doubts there will be, (though, they also haven't closed the UM playtest, so who knows,)
i was Really looking forward to some new Word Effects for WoP rather then straight up damage. Yeah, i know thats what they wanted to nail down but to me it all seems good (besides stacking 3 or more damage words into a spell, there should be a limit to 1 or 2 damaging effects per spell).
It could be equated to a Sorcerer choosing Continual Flame and gain fireball, flaming sphere, improved fireball, and meteor swarm for free as he levels up.
I can see your point,
Just seems like extra words, like how many different ways do you need to say 'fire'?
...yes, i can see that each word makes the fire more powerful. Really though, id like to be able to take something like the bouncing effect from Ball Lightening and apply it to ANY electric word used.
Anyways:
We had another game, mostly combat.
My character boarded an airship smuggling dangerous mutant creatures into a city ...with only a cat for backup.
And the rest of the group, but they were stuck on land for a couple rounds,
...till the cat crashed the airship. (And everyone thought i was crazy for attacking an airship with a cat. Ha! :P)
Not much to report though, i got off about two castings of 'Mass Frost Fingers' and did a Lot of teleporting around with a custom first level spell that the DM let me take for safety reasons. (Seems some in the group dont trust the play-test character. Huh. *shrugs* Must be the eye-patch. :P)
The Frost Fingers did come in handy for delaying a Rust Monster long enough for it to be killed from a distance before it reached our fulled plated Knight. So he appreciated that. :P
with reading over that spell, i guess you could call it that,
Honestly, i tend to avoid the D&D/PF magic system, i ...dont care a great deal for it, which is why im rather excited about Paizo making their own system, though i was a little disappointed casters like the Wizard still basically work the same, the changes to how Sorcerers can create Word spells on the fly makes me want to Actually play one,
Ive only played one wizard before this, up to around 5th lvl i think, and it was using an alternative casting system from WoW d20.
(i did play a Runethane from Arcana Evolved, but that game only lasted 3 sessions, the setup for the class looked nice though, ...which applies below,)
The idea for my Effect basically came from the fact i like the idea of rune based casting, Jason saying 'Guards and Wards' made me think of Runes which made me think of the closest D&D/PF spells, the Symbol spells,
so rune triggered spell effects = idea for Effect word, ^-^
YuenglingDragon wrote:
What's the value of changing the duration to instantaneous? Is that supposed to be permanent?
Yup, as far as the Trigger effect is concerned,
You cast the spell with the Single Target, Boosted Trigger effect and lets say off the top of my head, Frost Fingers. You place the Spell on a door, pick the trigger to be Sight, and now there is a large permanent rune on the door,
When someone looks at the door/rune, Frost Fingers is triggered, targeting whoever looked, and the Rune goes away as the whole spell/effect is finished.
Well, i dont like bumping my own threads, -_-
but now that everyone has had some time to read over the WoP system pretty thoroughly and play with it, either in spell construction or in game,
im curious if anyone else had any ideas for Effects words, or a comment on mine above,
Misc. Info:
Well I finally got to try Word of Power Saturday night, I made a new soon-to-be-NPC / PC for the game, he started as a 4th lvl Sorcerer.
I randomly picked the Elemental (Fire) bloodline for him, I dont see it coming up ingame though, for one, im purposely ignoring the bonus spells in favor of the WoP system,
Which unfortunately on that front, I dont have much to report,
I got to cast two spells the whole bit of combat we did,
The words the character has access to are:
Level 1 Words:
Simple Order (Command)
Force Shield (Armor)
Wrack (Pain)
Level 2 words:
Frost Fingers (Cold)
(No, I didnt have time to pick lvl 0 words,)
The only important stat here is his Cha 19,
(started at 16, +2 from being Human and +1 from 4th lvl)
Combat:
We fought three Gray Oozes, which being immune to fire/cold ruled out all of my damage,
I got off Force Shield on my first turn, then a Mass Wrack on my second,
It seems odd to give Oozes the 'Sickened' condition, but I dont see anything preventing that, it helped abit too, the -2 to attacks had them missing our mostly caster party, (a bard, a witch, me (sorc), and a 4th player who just made a new char, so I dont know his class yet,)
Assessment:
So from premaking quick spells before the game, and spending a week reading over the Word of Power system, I have a few opinions on it,
For one, I dont see much of a reason to take Anything other then the Mass target word when im allowed,
its cheaper and over all more effective then the burst/cone/line words,
a scaling point cost for Mass might help with this,
say its point cost is equal to the spell level its being applied to,
(2 points for a 2nd lvl spell, 4 points for a 4th lvl spell, 7 points for a 7th lvl spell)
that Might help,
you might also Max the number of targets at 10,
OR max it at 1/2 caster level then add a Boost to max the number of targets at equal to caster level.
And while I Really like the system, I think a few tweaks might be helpful,
for instance, all the elemental words seem unnecessary, and while I like the secondary effects, those could probably be moved into a single 'Fire' - 'Cold' /etc section with a Boost cost to pick which one you want to apply,
Speaking of Boost,
I see no reason why a Word cant or shouldnt have multiple Boost effects,
it just seems like its unnecessary limiting the system by Not doing so,
I'm not saying ALL words should have Boost or more then one Boost effect, but surely there are a few that would benefit from it,
I also feel word/spell construction should go more like this:
Target Word
Effect word (works as normal unless it does damage)
IF it does damage, pick the elemental type,
then pick how much damage it does:
max 5d4, 5d6, 10d6, 20d6, each with their own point cost,
then add other effects after this, like the Boost for conditions after the damage,
but otherwise spell construction should work normally.
You also Might want to consider doubling the points per spell level And the point cost of the effect words,
imo, this would make balancing easier,
as it is, +/- 1 point in cost for a 1st level spell is alot because the maximum number of points is 5, but if it was upped to say 10, then a +/-1 point change isnt that harsh while still being effective as a balancing tool,
...just wanted to throw that out there, :P
(And yes, I know how increased cost and minor tweaking would be a pain, I think its mostly my semi-programmer side talking, :P)
*Sigh*
and here I was trying to make this short, -_-
Well, I hope it was helpful at least.
This might be a little too soon to be tossing out ideas for such things, but something Jason said gave me an idea, so i thought id throw it up, then i thought it would probably make a better thread on its own,
...and since i cant play test Word of Power till Saturday at best, depending on my groups weekend plans, i have nothing better to do, :P
Anyways,
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
And it should be noted that the bizarre stuff is hard to fit into a system like this. Making effects like Guards and Wards is basically impossible without just importing the effect pretty much as written, which kinda defeats the purpose of this system.
You gain flexibility in how the effects manifest, but lose that fine specificity that only a specific spell can offer. Its part of the tradeoff.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Basically the name 'Guards and Wards' got me thinking along the lines of the 'Symbol' spells, ...dont judge my logic jumps, :P
So here goes:
(Effect) Triggered:
Level: all 1; Cost 2;
Duration: 1 round/level
Target Restrictions: Single
Upon casting this spell, pick an action or event from the list, when that event occurs any other attached Effects trigger.
If the target of this spell is an object, this effect places a large rune that is visible from 60' away.
Event List:
Someone looks at the target.
Someone touches the target.
Someone says a specific command phrase.
Once the event is triggered, the 'Triggered' effect ends but all other Effect Words function normally.
Boost 1: By increasing the level of this word to 2 and the cost to 5, this spells duration changes to 1 minute/level.
Boost 2: By increasing the level of this word to 3 and the cost to 7, this spell can use the mass target word.
Boost 3: By increasing the level of this word to 6 and the cost to 14, this spells duration changes to 10 minute/level.
Boost 4: By increasing the level of this word to 7 and the cost to 16, this spells duration changes to Instantaneous.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, that should be about right, the Boosted effects seem balanced from the PDF to be about right for what i want, technically speaking i dont see why you cant pick more then one 'Boost' effect, and i know the 'Effect List' is little limited, but it seems to cover all the basics,
