b l's page

b l wrote:

How about the sneak attacks from rouges that are flanking are non-lethal, (unless the normal damage is a crit), and sneaking up undetected while they are actually flatfooted is lethal.

That is a cool suggestion.

I'm a little concerned at the pile up of "what about x type of attack?" issues. That may prove to be the true source of complexity for this rule. There will NEVER be an end to such queries, as the game is always coming up with new forms of punishment. We need a "razor" that can really apply to any attack and tell us which it is.

To that end, I'm tempted to return to "Everything is non-lethal except crits and failed saving throws." Even bleed attacks. Simplicity is very valuable.

Of course, the GM still has a lot of leeway making certain damage sources deal lethal if it makes sense. But in general, even a smite/SA/FE ought to deal non-lethal, because if it isn't a crit it represents a nullified attack that taxes the target's defensive resources. It's that much more taxing because it is driven by the wrath of an angry god... but it is still a "miss" unless it's a crit.

We just need to get used to sorting the drama damage from the real "cut you open" stuff. It ain't easy.

Magic attacks don't normally crit but you could say on a 20 their damage is lethal instead of non-lethal. The magic damage wouldn't actually do more damage like a 'real' crit.

Either way I'm going to convince my dm to use one of these versions, and when I dm I'll probably use the slightly more complicated one because of the rule of cool.

Mauril wrote:

Sneak attacks are just as lethally intended as favored enemy damage, smite damage, weapon specialization/weapon training or whatever other damage mechanic you want to use.

Agreed.

You're also right in that this whole concept is really about the healing difficulty of NPC damage vs. PCs. NPCs mostly won't care about the lethal/non-lethal distinction at all.

Still chewing on this one.

I lurk around here every so often and my group has many problems with resting and healing between fights, and this is a godsend. It's too cumbersome and unrealistic. I like this.

How about the sneak attacks from rouges that are flanking are non-lethal, (unless the normal damage is a crit), and sneaking up undetected while they are actually flatfooted is lethal.

Sooo... what youre saying is the gunslinger has guns, but is not a combat focused class, and is more of a socialite. Oh yes I see it now (sarcasm).

The weapons available/applicable make the gunslinger a non-viable character.

So they take a long time to load. If you can swap them out with quick draw and fire a separate pistol for each iterative attack, they become a bit more competitive. Then lower the cost to maybe 75 gold, and the pistol here becomes a decent option as the weakest pistol you can get, Ie the hand crossbow of pistols.

These are clearly not intended as the early medieval ones anyways. I don't see any mention of wicks, and the picture made them look like either flintlocks or percussion cap firearms. The big difference there being if it stops working in the rain, or just if you put it underwater. (And whether its like 1500s or 1600-1700s tech).

I dont mind having renaissance firearms or even post renaissance firearms in my D&D. I don't want revolvers, shotguns, or gatling guns, but if paizo makes them for the more modern campaigns then good for them.

But you can't make a gun character with the guns available be any good.
As many others have said, and as I'm reiterating:
problems with the current guns:

1. They cost way too much.
2. They are crappier than a bow.
3. They take an exotic feat.

So the cost needs to be lower, and either they should be competitive with a bow (and martial), be left as is (and simple), or be better than a bow (and maybe keep the exotic.)

1) Gunslingers get them for free, other characters shouldn't be toting around expensive things if they start from level 1. At level 1 everyone is dirt poor. Later on 1000 gold is nothing. I don't know what to think of the weight part of it though... sounds bad for a dexy class.

2)They should not be a bow though, they should be different. Just because they are omgranged doesn't mean that they should be equal to bows.

3) If you aren't a gunslinger fighter. Why doesn't it upset you that some classes can't even use martial weapons without a feat?

Soto... what youre saying is the gunslinger has guns, but is not a combat focused class, and is more of a socialite. Oh yes I see it now (sarcasm).

I'm very sorry you're upset, I think? I liked the other guy that had points instead of snipes. I guess I should make sure everything I say is annoyingly lawyerized.

I usually don't post but today I was irked by how angry people were. I wasn't per se against making it easier for gunslingers to make more attacks. I'm against the extreme outrage that people are feeling. It's a playtest for a game, not a government meeting to talk about health care. It just really sounds like everyone plays omgcombat and nothing else, like my one friend expected it to be when he played with my group. He expected to be able to solve everything the dm threw at us by hitting it repeatedly with a sword, and got enraged/frustrated when he couldn't kill things for 5 seconds. And, battles aren't always straightforward either. The 'weak' monk can turn the tide of a battle sometimes.
When you say the 'ha ha he thinks the gunslinger is a socialite' it implies that if a class is not omgcombat it is omgsocial. I'm pretty sure that there are a bunch of classes that do things besides combat and talking. I think endurance in body and willpower, but also quick reflexes are a staple of the gunslinger archetype, which is represented. I think that utility, right the f now snap powers (grit), fit well with the theme, and that if you are playing like how most of my group plays, which is balls to the wall, you will gain back grit more often than people think. Wizards flying around above the battle or fighters full attacking every turn is a girly way to play, and I like that this class is rewarded for doing things outside the box.

tl;dr, I think they made a good base for the class, they just need to tweak things, people are way more angry than they should be, and people seem lame when they talk about 'damage potential'.

b l wrote:

It really doesn't matter how hax a classes combat is, but how you play. I've played good combat classes and bad combat classes and both can still fight well enough. One of my favorite classes to play was when I got bad rolls for a sorcerer, and the people I was playing with where to afraid to fight anything. So I melee'd monsters with no AC or HP. It worked out surprisingly well with an occasional spell.

Personally I think the gunslinger class is fine. If they are are early gunpowder weapons, they should NOT be better than a bow. Especially because It looks like a fun class to play, not a munchkined class, I'm all for it. Every game I do stuff that has less than 50% chance of working and is dangerous. I don't see what you guys are whining about really.

The problem is that unless a full BAB class is functionally equivalent to another full BAB class (I'm not touching the martial/caster debate here) you have a situation where one class is obsolete in comparison to another.

3.x had this in spades with completely worthless classes like CW Samurai stinking up the joint.

Unless the Gunslinger is functionally equivalent in terms of his/her niche with the archer fighter then it's absolutely a waste of space. It becomes a newbie trap where something looks cool but simply does not measure up to any sort of objective standard.

Yes you can stick to a stormwind fallacy in order to suggest that classes aren't meant to be balanced and "sometimes it's rewarding to play something subpar" but a) that's lazy designing and b) something most game players and buyers don't tolerate.

Paizo has made great strides in limiting any sort of power creep in their optional products (some APG feats being a noticeable exception. I don't want them to start generating vastly underpowered optional classes either.

Thus far the Playtests have been good at highlighting the problems with relative power level. Summoner in it's original incarnation was too potent, Magus was too weak, later versions...

I think Summoner is still silly right now, to be quite honest, but that's a whole nother story. I can now see there are some good points that you have in favor of changing gunslinger, but I think if you are taking guns from the period when gunpowder was still emerging, they weren't as good as a bow. That's just how it was. What would defeat the purpose of a gunslinger is having it be the same as bowman. And besides, damage isn't the only factor that determines a battle's outcome, and battles are not the only part of dnd. That's what video games are for.

Baww I am sad I can't munchkin x class

It really doesn't matter how hax a classes combat is, but how you play. I've played good combat classes and bad combat classes and both can still fight well enough. One of my favorite classes to play was when I got bad rolls for a sorcerer, and the people I was playing with where to afraid to fight anything. So I melee'd monsters with no AC or HP. It worked out surprisingly well with an occasional spell.

Personally I think the gunslinger class is fine. If they are are early gunpowder weapons, they should NOT be better than a bow. Especially because It looks like a fun class to play, not a munchkined class, I'm all for it. Every game I do stuff that has less than 50% chance of working and is dangerous. I don't see what you guys are whining about really.