the3rdgray's page

Show me the Gunslinger that starts with 20 Wis on a 15 or 20 point buy and I'll show you a Gunslinger that sucks at everything except Stunning Shot. You'll only have Stunning Shot for like the last 2-3 levels of any AP.

Seriously, a more accurate Gunslinger has maybe 18-20 Wis at level 15. The DC is not going to be that good.

Respectfully, sir, we cannot limit this playtest to 15 or 20 point buy, we are not going to see the whole picture. Not all campaigns use 20 points. A lot use 25. And in every game I've ever played whose GM has allowed rolled stats (4d6 dropping the highest), at least one character has ended up with 2 18s at first level. Call it good luck, but it does happen, and therefore, is completely viable in this discussion.

Except I believe +6 is max enhancement from a single source.

I've never read anything to suggest that.

The items listed in the core rulebook only go up to +6, but never suggest that they cannot be created to have higher bonuses. Also, on the magic item creation table at the end of Ch. 15, it lists the equation for creating items with ability bonuses (bonus squared X 2), but does not list a maximum. Because the maximum value a magic item can have is 200,000gp, a +14 headband of inspired wisdom (196,000gp value) appears complete rules legal.

I did exactly as you said, I checked it, I looked it up, and low and behold, steel was listed. I proved you wrong on that point. Therefore, steel guns do exist in pathfinder.

And as to your whole "Do some research into Renaissance and Sailing-Era guns and cannons." If you research into history or mythology, you will find very little of what pathfinder provides is accurate, so why should guns?.

This is a classic straw-man falacy.

As to the accuracy, I don't think there's any arguing the effects of manipulating the arcane, seeing as no such thing exists in the real world. Guns, however do exist, and ought to be handled believably.

See page 175, Table7-13. It lists iron and steel as the same.

This does nothing except to strengthen my point.

Also, what is the purpose of a class feature/mechanic that only works if you have gear made of a specific material?

Gentlemen, let's look at this from another angle.

Here's the situation: a 20th level gunslinger (and his 18th level rogue cohort) versus a great wyrm gold dragon.

First, when stunning shot gets its save added, it's reasonable to assume that, like all other such class abilities, the formula will look something like this: 10+1/2class level+Wis modifier. Assume also that it will be a Fort save to resist.

Now, this 20th level Gunslinger could reasonably be specced specifically for this sort of encounter, having a Wis of 39 (20 at first level, plus 5 for ability increases, plus 14 with a maxed out headband of inspired wisdom). This would set the save DC for his stunning shot at 34. The gold dragon in question has a Fort save of +26, meaning that in order to save, he must roll an 8 or above.

The Gunslinger is allowed 5 shots to attempt to stun the dragon, all of which are almost guaranteed to hit. Almost as certain is that the gold dragon, out of five rolls, will inevitably roll less than 8, thus being stunned.

Then, as noted before, the 18th level rogue merely has to close the distance, and finish the deed, making this a one-PC dragon slaying machine.

I had an idea for allowing Gunslinger to do some tinkering on their guns for customization in my Proposed Changes thread. Larger powder charges, larger bores, etc would all be great ideas.

Alright, larger powder charges. Are you going to increase the weight of metal to allow you to fire these larger chargers? Remember, that once the gun forges could turn out reliable iron guns, the only alternate was steel guns, which does not exist in Pathfinder. Check it. Look up the Sunder chart, no steel, only iron. So you would have to dramatically increase the weight of iron to allow it to withstand greater bore pressures, we're talking tripling or greater the weight to just allow a doubling of powder.

A greater bore. What does this do? Increase the caliber of shot, and the required powder. See what I said above.

Do some research into Renaissance and Sailing-Era guns and cannons.

SCIENCE!

Has anyone thought of coming up with a larger powder charge to get more damage per bullet?

The idea is that if you want more range or damage you would up the amount of powder, thus increasing cost but a damage boost.

What you suggest sir, is turning your already questionably stable piece of experimental explosive equipment into what could reasonably be described as a long, metallic, hand grenade. . . And then setting it off in your hands.

Note that early firearms (cannons), were tested by "double shotting" (doubling the shot and powder), then firing them to see if they didn't explode. A cannon capable of doing so was deemed good, and never double shot again. During this process it was reasonable to expect a catastrophic explosion.

Note also that the gunslinger's starting firearm is considered broken and bedraggled by any other measure.

You, respectable sir, have a death wish. Enjoy your daring acts.

Just curious about a change from round 1 to round 2: originally, the firearm class feature mentioned that the gunslinger starts with a firearm of his choice, and 50 doses of black powder and 50 bullets. In round 2, the gunsmith class feature notes the possession and quality of a firearm, but says nothing about black powder nor shots. In fact, nowhere in the document is a starting amount of ammo noted. This would pose no problem, except that no starting gold amount is given. In round 1, this was also not a problem since the gunslinger was a fighter sub-class, and could use that amount.

I'm just looking for clarification here. Does he start with ammo, or must he purchase it, and if so, how much money does he have?

My question is: Why do firearms have to be outrageously expensive to keep them somewhat rare?

Like Ashiel pointed out, double-bladed swords aren't particularly common, despite being mechanically superior to longsword-shortsword combinations. The difference between that and a firearm should be negligible. Both are exotic weapons which require a single feat to use proficiently. Instead, where the two-bladed sword is only 100gp, and mechanically superior to other blade combos, the musket is 1500gp and mechanically inferior to the bow.

As the guns are now, there is no reason for the gunslinger to exist, which is why I think any fix for the 'slinger must mostly be about their guns.

This sums up my entire point. If they are changed to be economically and mechanically viable, I'm all for them. It'd be up to the GM who wants to use them to explain how they came about (and given the tendencies of gnomes, I'm pretty willing to believe almost anything). All I'm saying is, as it is, any GM who tries to explain the development of these terrible firearms as viable weapons in a world with wizards who can fling fireballs with a motion, clerics who can smite the unholy, and archers who can empty a quiver in a matter of seconds will have completely destroyed any ability I had to suspend my disbelief.

I think it's clear that the gun and especially the ammo and powder are very, very, very over priced.

Consider this: In non-society play, if the party is gaining XP at the fast rate, they should also be gaining gold at a rate of 400gp per encounter (at first level). That means that each party member gains 100gp per encounter. One shot from the gunslinger's gun costs 11gp. Therefore, even on the progression that yields the most gold per encounter, if the gunslinger fires five shots, he's expending over half his income up front. How broken is that? And when you consider that there's a chance his weapon might explode in his face, dealing damage to him and maybe his party members? Then he has to drop 1500gp he doesn't have because he's been loosing money each encounter? It's silly. It doesn't make sense. Awful. Truly awful.

Dealing with an alternate world, why assume tech advances work on the same timescale as ours. If Sam Colt was born a few centuries earlier, maybe we would've gone directly from matchlocks to revolvers.

If Sam Colt had been born a few centuries earlier, there's a good chance he would have been a farmer who never went farther than ten miles from his home village. Inventors build on the technologies the precede them. Denied the hundreds of years of development available by the 19th century, Colt would have had nothing to work with. Just sayin'.

And even in a setting with dead magic zones, the gunslinger is still much much worse than an archer of equivalent level. So, why on earth would he even exist?

All I'm saying is that there's a pretty compelling argument against the gunslinger as they have him here.

Now does it need work? Oh yes.

I agree entirely with you there. If he wasn't so much worse than what's already out there, I'd be okay with the idea. The only other problem is justifying him in a more traditional setting.

D&D . . . isn't hardcoded as medieval by default

Sorry, bro, but D&D is hardcore medieval by default. The original game came out of medieval wargaming in the form of chainmail. Wikipedia it. The original boxed set of D&D was the direct result of the fantasy variant rules for that game. What a couple of recent settings have done doesn't change the heart and soul of the game, and personally don't think that guns have a place in high fantasy (at least not as they are presented in Ultimate Combat, which is to say weak and expensive).

First point dealt with the claim that gunslingers had no place in the world of Pathfinder. This was demonstrably false. Also, if your campaign setting lacks an Alkenstar or any other place friendly to the Gunslinger class, the Gunslinger class is not geared towards your world. Move on and let those who are interested and who do have room for it have the class.

Allow me to clarify my meaning for "the world of Pathfinder." Pathfinder is a game which is understood to take place in a world of Medieval high-fantasy. That's what I meant by that. Medieval high-fantasy. Not post-renaissance high-fantasy.

The point of the matter is that the gunslinger, aside from having no logical place in the world of Pathfinder, is ridiculously under-powered, and why anyone would willingly agree to play one is beyond my comprehension.

you're expected return on a single encounter is only 100gp per person

That's at 1st level, sorry.

Wizards run out of battery all the time, how many spells you get a day? how many calls do I want to make? (hint: more then you've got spells)

I ask you, how many bullets do you have? Even on the fast xp track (which nets you the most gold per encounter), your expected return on a single encounter is only 100gp per person (assuming a 4 man party). That means you really, can't even afford to expend 2 shots per encounter. That's totally un-economical, bro. No one would buy that.

if people can be coaxed into buying something it will be improved

The thing is, I can't see ANYONE buying guns as they're presented here. They're bad. They offer no improvement over what's already there. There's no reason why anyone would ever bother buying them. They're expensive, they take a long time to work, they do less damage per time-interval, and there's a chance that they'll just blow up in your face. If I were an adventurer in a Pathfinder campaign, and I saw some bro roll up with a musket, I'd laugh my ass off, call him a fool, and kill him with my bow/sword/fireball/bare hands before he ever got the damn thing loaded.

When you try to marry D&D with history, you start getting weird problems, so it's best just to ignore the whole historical angle and try not to over-think some of the more wonky areas.

Oh no, sir. There is only so far one can suspend his disbelief, and it's important that all elements of a roleplaying game make consistent sense. Magic is believable because, like physics in the real world, it's a natural phenomenon. Guns do not make sense because they have no reason to exist. Again, the idea isn't to put Pathfinder in a historical context, but to make the elements present in Pathfinder make sense in the setting's own history, and the development of a magic-alternative in a setting with high fantasy wizards that hurl fireballs at each other out of nothing is utterly nonsensical.

Those that fail, seek out alternatives.

I point you toward the longbow. As it is currently, the longbow is a far better bet than the musket as far as alternate forms of damage-dealing power. The good part is, even a stupid person can use it. And if you really want to go for the flashy magic stuff, a flask of alchemist's fire is only 20gp as opposed to the 51gp required to purchase a single shot from a musket.

Also, talking about historic realism in a game of wizards & demons is kind of funny.

It's less to do with historical realism and more to do with a logical progression of technology. As Mr Jade said, it doesn't fit any niche. There's no reason for anyone to fund its development. Anyone wealthy enough to afford a gunsmith could afford ten times the alchemists, wizards, clerics, or any other of the multitude of spellcasters.

Hear!

Indeed, both mechanically and lore-wise, the gunslinger has no place. The development of guns in a world where high fantasy is the rule is utterly nonsensical.

As it is, a Fighter with a longbow could decimate a gunslinger with ease, even though the gunslinger is currently far superior to any real-world user of a gunpowder weapon of comparable era. (And so it should be, if we assume that Pathfinder's tech level is similar to that of the 14th century. However, the introduction of a gunslinger class promotes the notion that Pathfinder's world is several centuries beyond that, which begs the question, "Why are there still knights riding around in full plate?")

All in all, it's an interesting idea that one realizes is rather silly upon further consideration.