Ok, so on the one hand, I was pleased to see the advanced guns and the option to make them cost a tenth of their listed price. I understand why guns should be rare in a normal campaign, but if you ask me, a primitive gun for the kind of money you're normally expected to pay is a terrible weapon. I'd much rather see rarity encouraged by something other than bad value, so I'd probably want to use that option even in a campaign with very few guns.
However, I don't see how the gunslinger can be balanced across the whole spectrum of cost and availability. Guns are what he does, exclusively, and now you're telling me that the slow reloads, misfires and high price of owning and loading a gun are all optional?
Comparing the two most extreme versions of the firearms rules which allow gunslingers, the differences are dramatic:
The 1st level "emerging guns" gunslinger gets a free gun which he can fire every other round (slightly less if he misfires) at a cost of 11gp, or, if he uses cartridges, he can shoot a pistol 9 rounds in every 10 at the cost of an extra gold piece per shot. If he spends a feat, he gets to shoot every round without paying the extra gp.
Meanwhile, in a parallel world with guns everywhere, the same gunslinger's bearded evil duplicate pays 75gp for a revolver and fires it every round for 1.2gp. That initial expenditure is pretty big for a 1st level character, but not having to pay so much for ammunition will make up for that within 36 seconds of combat. On top of the better gun and cheap ammo, this goatee wearing villain gets to add his dexterity modifier to damage every time he hits. He's not just better, he's wildly better.
Once the gunslingers reach 5th level, things even out a little, because both of them have gun training, but there's still a big difference there and at 6th, the gap widens again with the arrival of the first iterative attack.
Can both gunslingers be balanced? Well, they certainly don't seem balanced against each other, so its hard to see can both be balanced against longbow users.
Obviously, the other classes can also benefit from guns being affordable and usable without a feat, but really, that just means guns become a good option for them, comparable in power to other weapons they already have. The 'slinger uses guns whatever kind of campaign he's in, so his options barely change at all. Instead, it's his power that changes. He can't help but gain much more than the others if his weapons are improved.
Another factor affecting gunslinger balance is the Daring Act optional rule. Clearly the class is strictly better when it's allowed, but better by how much? I'd say it depends on the GM. It could easily come up only four times in a whole campaign, or as many times in every session. Should that much of a class's effectiveness really be left to GM whim and interpretation?
In campaigns in which both options are combined, we have a faster, richer, grittier, more reliable and more damaging gunslinger who can find new equipment much more easily and who ignores the downsides of a whole category of special gear which enhances his attacks. Something's not right there.
Please understand that I'm not arguing for the removal of the guns everywhere option. I actually think it looks really good. In fact, I'd call it the solution to most of the stuff people still don't like about the class.
I'm also not saying that the standard gunslinger is too weak or the more powerful gunslinger is too strong, just that I don't understand how both can be right at once.
the gunslinger is the same, no matter what era, the gun isnt.
You take the revolver, Ill take a machine gun, how are you going to balance that? It's just better.