PrismaticPandaBear's page

Post

Post

I appreciate both of your historical commentaries, but this isn't very helpful for my purposes. I said verisimilitude, and not realism, for a reason. I don't expect, or even want, to simulate modern firearms. This isn't a history thread.

However, I would be interested in your feedback as to whether or not these changes would be too imbalanced, (granting that I already know they're literally/technically overpowered). This is especially given your post suggests you didn't review my document as the weapons I'm proposing are not flintlock weapons with automatic or semiautomatic rates of fire.

I would also welcome feedback on elegant/simple ways to deal with weapons that have an automatic rate of fire - If so I'd suggest reviewing the d20 modern and Starfinder links before proposing any new mechanics that have not been tried elsewhere.

And to clarify, you wouldn't give it the repeating trait if you decided to use the musket's stats. I think it might make sense to justify the 1 action "reload" as just pulling the bolt handle, but you would keep it as an action to preserve the balance of the weapon compared to things like bows/crossbows.

Ya that's a stretch for me. If pulling the slide bolt on a long arm requires an action, then drawing an arrow from a quiver would require an action. I'm interested in balance, but I'm also interested in verisimilitude. I accept that in a steampunk world that is roughly analogous in terms of physics that guns actually WILL be slightly imbalanced over bows. The issue is whether or not that imbalance is onerous.

So if you wanted say a Mosin-Nagant style rifle, you could use the stats of a musket for it, or a revolver could use the stats of a pepperbox.

I see, I wasn't sure but I understand now. Just applying the repeating trait to existing weapons.

The other half of using that idea, is that all firearms currently printed would be made worse to show that these are the latest and greatest. So an actual musket would take 3+ actions to reload vs the 1 action more modern rifle.

Ah, I don't think "old" firearms will even be available or tremendously relevant. The fact that a weapon can reliable "repeat" is what would demonstrate that it's superior to a musket, not necessarily it's stopping power.

I don't think that there really is any TTRPG where I'd recommend running it straight from the page with no deviation. That's sort of rule zero in every game. That said, for new GMs, the Beginner Box and the Trouble in Otari module are fantastic introductions to GMing as well as being very hand-holding for learners.

I'm gunna have to disagree here. Paizo chooses to produce their APs in such a way that makes play testing them difficult at best. But that is not the only way that it's done.

My personal expectation, that I have brought from playing almost 2 decades of 3.5, is that official modules ought to be playable right out of the box. I think it's reasonable for DMs to familiarize themselves with the module, but I don't think it's reasonable for them to figure out if it's balanced or will play well.

That section described how it might be best to stat them up regardless of mechanical balance with other weapons. Suggestions include:
- Cartridge-fed rifle: something like a non-magical rowan rifle with the repeating trait
- Revolver: something like a dueling pistol with the repeating trait

Whenever I homebrew, which is very rare, my rule of thumb is always to cleave as much as possible to existing design principles/mechanics so that is validaating.

There's also a few less game-changing alternatives, including making the guns currently written up take a more realistic amount of time to reload and instead using their current stats for more advanced weapons. So a revolver would have the stats of a pepperbox, but classical pepperboxes would take a while longer to reload. This approach is probably the most balanced and easiest if you'd rather not create your own system for modern firearms.

Not sure I understand what you mean, can you give me an example?

Finally, it suggests maybe just giving specific magic weapon variants that can't be used outside of those versions. Probably wouldn't help much for your case.

Enhancements are easily re-flavored into the service of technology so that's a live option.

I enjoy more of a 50/50 split

Unfortunately, I think your stance is more popular than mine :c

PrismaticPandaBear wrote:

Aaron Shanks wrote:

So, you are all saying there is demand for more Pathfinder? ;)

Yes :'3 but hopefully with basically no lore and just rules/mechanics/options.

Blech. You get 80/20 lore/rules or 20/80. We gotta add some spices!

I mean I'll take 20/80 lore/rules.

So, you are all saying there is demand for more Pathfinder? ;)

Yes :'3 but hopefully with basically no lore and just rules/mechanics/options.

Since Dex to damage is not only a rogue thing, but a specific kind of rogue thing, that seems fairly unlikely. I'm pretty sure there won't be any kind of big changes to classes.

I bet Paizo devs are as firm on this as they are about caster DCs.

This idea would require some DM buy in and the free archetype variant, but I don't think it's too much to ask :3

How about an inventor that uses a pair (x2) of gauntlets and takes Dual-Weapon Warrior Dedication.

Initial: Complex Simplicity
Breakthrough: Manifold Alloy or Aerodynamic Construction
Revolutionary: Impossible Alloy or Momentum Retainer

Offensive Boost: Fire or Electricity

(I just watched the first three episodes of Arcane last night >_>)