Creative Director
|
A scattergun has a capacity of 2, yet the reloading part says "1 move action per shot". Does this mean you have to use a move action between every attack or after all the bullets have been shot? The latter would make more sense.
Thanks.
Reloading a scattergun completely takes 2 move actions. You can do that in a round, or you can just shoot and reload and shoot and reload.
Reloading a scattergun completely takes 2 move actions. You can do that in a round, or you can just shoot and reload and shoot and reload.A scattergun has a capacity of 2, yet the reloading part says "1 move action per shot". Does this mean you have to use a move action between every attack or after all the bullets have been shot? The latter would make more sense.
Thanks.
Since we have got the jump on you in this dark alley, we might as well beat some more information out of you:
What would you say to a feat that lets you reload firearms faster? Or, alternately, let rapid reload work with firearms?
|
I'm reading the firearms once more, and I'm worried...
To me it seems firearms, like crossbows, will lose their potential against ordinary bows and big melee weapons. As they remain to be cool, sassy steampunky weapons, they seem shady in comparison. They cost almost or even more than a +1 composite longbow, and yet they receive no extra bonus from another source, require an exotic weapon proficiency and just ... well, let me elaborate.
The capacity reminds me of a repeating crossbow, a weapon I've never seen in use. The weapon is just useless. The main problem is damage.
A pistol, a revolver .. they both do a meager 1d6 points of damage. 1d6?! Albeit giving a chance to use only one hand to shoot, they don't receive any bonuses from high strength or anything! In fact, just shooting with a SLING will actually be more beneficial than using a pistol! The revolver at least has a capacity of 5, though after it's empty, it takes 5 move actions to get it up running again. 2½ ROUNDS?!
Rifle is a very good weapon range-wise, but not much else. It suffers from the same "crossbow-syndrome". No additional damage modifiers, out of the window.
Of all the weapon presented, Scattergun is the best. One would think 3d6 is a huge lot and it will anything.. well, not quite. Sure, an average damage of 10.5 with a ranged weapon is good, but it alone doesn't make it better than a bow, not even close. A bow never needs time to reload, is able to deliver precision damage, has better range, and can include strength to damage. To be on par with the scattergun, a bow has to have +6 to damage. I admit that's hard to come by, but with the money you get a masterwork scattergun (2500 gp), you get a +1 composite longbow with strength +1.
So, now we're at 3d6 vs. 1d8+2. Minimum damage is the same, and scattergun wins, for now. With some extra money burned to the bow, and enough strength you get the damage to climb. In addition the favored enemy bonus will significantly skyrocket the average damage. Despite that, scattergun wins the bow in average damage.
But all the other firearms fail miserably. I'd urge to crank up the damage on other of those weapons, and give them some ability that'd prove they do penetrate armored things better than others. Like, have them ignore half the DR or so.
Why would Alkenstar produce weapons that are worse than normal hunting weapons?
|
|
At least part of this is addressed with the optional rule for "Exploding Dice" on p.212 of the Campaign Setting. You could easily add another optional rule for ignoring armor or DR or something.
As for why these rules weren't designed into the firearms rules from the beginning, Paizo has said on multiple occasions that firearms are NOT common (even exceptionally rare) in Golarion. The rules are there for those who want firearms in their games, not to make firearms as good as they might be in the real world. Because then you'd have the same thing happening in Golarion that happened in the real world: Guns are better than any other ranged weapon, and before long, everyone's using firearms, and pseudo-medieval-Renaissance Golarion is no longer the world its designers created.
|
|
At least part of this is addressed with the optional rule for "Exploding Dice" on p.212 of the Campaign Setting. You could easily add another optional rule for ignoring armor or DR or something.
As for why these rules weren't designed into the firearms rules from the beginning, Paizo has said on multiple occasions that firearms are NOT common (even exceptionally rare) in Golarion. The rules are there for those who want firearms in their games, not to make firearms as good as they might be in the real world. Because then you'd have the same thing happening in Golarion that happened in the real world: Guns are better than any other ranged weapon, and before long, everyone's using firearms, and pseudo-medieval-Renaissance Golarion is no longer the world its designers created.
Well, almost. I have a nagging feeling bows are just too superior compared to firearms. Really, the expense of a feat (although PFRPG gives more of them), extremely high price and still only Scattergun can rival them on short range. Sure, the exploding dice optional rule gives in to more damage.
My focus here is mixed. I want to use firearms in Pathfinder Society, using 3.5 rules currently... thus the optional rule is not available. I think it needs more than an optional rule to make the firearms better. Ignoring part of the DR would be ideal, making them significantly better against constructs and undead. But that's specific, since that alone won't make the crowds flock to use firearms.
Cranking up the damage by A LOT it would make them appealing, but not instant favorites. Still with the reloading times and high prices make them slow and targets for nasty sundering. What I'd suggest...
Blunderbuss - since it's a useless weapon in the whole section, absolutely dreadful in fact, I'd make this just even deadlier than a scattergun. Damage 3d10 (16.5), no other changes. With the chance of shooting only once every other round, I think that's alright, since the damage per round (DPR, a lovely term) is around 8.25. On par with a bow, but the fire rate will eventually degenerate it into nothingness.
Musket - same as above, will see very little use. 3d6 (10.5) damage, good for killing small critters far away. Reloading takes a lot off from this weapon. In fact, it's a one-shot. Then you drop it as a free action.
Pistol - or as I like to think of it - an overpriced hand crossbow. 2d6 (7) would actually be quite alright with this, as it would be rather close to a light crossbow in that matter. Slightly shorter range, requires a move action to load, bigger punch, smaller threat range.
Revolver - Now this has some real potential. I'd wish to make it same as pistol, 2d6, but... I really don't want it to be the same, yet I feel the need to make the average more stable. Alas, I result in 2d6 (7). The additional 5% misfire chance makes a certain balance here.
Rifle - it has a ridiculous range, a good threat range compared to critical modifier. It still needs to back a punch to deal with the other firearms. 2d6 (7), because cranking it up further would make it too good to a pistol and crossbows. Though I can't evade that issue; in it's current form it is still better than a crossbow, but worse than a bow.
Scattergun - my favorite. There's not much to do, it is a solid weapon in my mind. I'm not sure if it even needs the additional damage, since it's able to shoot twice a round (rapid shot). It's a bit less than a blunderbuss, but requires less rounds to load, and with this additional die it has a better range. As if that mattered.
I admit that early on the damage amount with scattergun (both original and my suggested revision) is a lot more than on early levels. As the levels stack up, bow will go by, leaving the scattergun with its 4d6+nothing, while the bow enjoys a nice bonus from multiple attacks, rapid shot, special material arrows, and range.
I'd say that the firearms as we find them in the Campaign Setting are rather primitive ones - not very reliable, not very convenient, not very accurate, etc. - and thus are quite weak.
The reason for that, and I don't deny that it's metagame, is that they shouldn't be a match for the weapons that are supposed to be the status quo (i.e. bows and the like).
I think that if you want to get more use out of them, you need to advance them. Give them a couple of centuries of enlightened progress.
That will result in more reliable firearms, firearms with clips (or at least reloading helps in the case of the revolver), and a lot more firepower, which will manifest in better/more damage dice, or even a flat bonus (which would simulate the strength score behind the improved gun, ammo, gunpowder, and so on.)
You could go the final fantasy tactics way and enchant your guns like you would your bow. Maybe let them have the quick loading thing out of MiC. Maybe a special form of vicious (even though it's ranged, the firearm 'spits' flame back at you) or the various element/alignment enhancements.
Pathfinder has firearms? I didn't know that.
What book are they in?
|
|
Otherwise nice, but you can't justify crappyness just with fluff. Game mechanics should balance the issue first. Fluff is just the frosting.
I'm speaking about the feel. If you are worse with a firearm than a bow, it will definitely make you feel stupid. A feat for a crossbow with a make-over... And the certain instability with the weapons is already there; i.e. revolvers misfire 10% of the time.
|
|
Otherwise nice, but you can't justify crappyness just with fluff. Game mechanics should balance the issue first. Fluff is just the frosting.
I'm speaking about the feel. If you are worse with a firearm than a bow, it will definitely make you feel stupid. A feat for a crossbow with a make-over... And the certain instability with the weapons is already there; i.e. revolvers misfire 10% of the time.
I'm sorry what were you referencing when you wrote the above?
The PF setting guide, or???
Uh, yeah, Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting, page 208 + some. That's where the firearms are, at least to my knowledge.
I think the other posters alredy mentioned it enough, Deussu: There are supposed to be weaker, mainly because of metagame. If they are to be equal or better than the common fantasy-medieval weapons, then the medieval-fantasy weapons wouldn't be used.
Now, you could just make anything you want on your games, but it's simple: No matter how much you want, I doubt they will make firearms better, even equal, to other weapons, if they don't want to advance some centuries on the timeline. If they do, it will be a hard time explaining why people still use bows, and why people still use plate mail and all.
So, use whatever you want. They won't power up firearms too much, if they ever do.
Simple.
|
|
I think the other posters alredy mentioned it enough, Deussu: There are supposed to be weaker, mainly because of metagame. If they are to be equal or better than the common fantasy-medieval weapons, then the medieval-fantasy weapons wouldn't be used.
Now, you could just make anything you want on your games, but it's simple: No matter how much you want, I doubt they will make firearms better, even equal, to other weapons, if they don't want to advance some centuries on the timeline. If they do, it will be a hard time explaining why people still use bows, and why people still use plate mail and all.
So, use whatever you want. They won't power up firearms too much, if they ever do.
Simple.
And why would they use firearms or build them in the first place if bows were better? And even with a damage crank-up they - wouldn't - be - all - that - better. Bows have their advantage:
a) free reloading time vs. move actions or even full-round actions
b) no additional misfire chance
c) relatively cheap (100gp vs. 1200 gp)
d) add strength to damage
e) better criticals (x3 vs. x2, Rifle being an exception with 19-20/x3)
f) martial weapons
g) greater range (again, rifle being the exception)
As much as I hate to use the word "verisimilitude", this is one of them. Ask yourselves, why would anyone in Golarion build a complicated weapon if it were worse than ordinary bows? Crossbows are worse than bows too, but they can be used by the common folk better than bows, and that's the point!
Think of it; have you EVER seen anyone use a repeating crossbow?
I've had a character that used a repeating crossbow: Human Scout/swashblucker, ended up a piraty themed build. Was very effective too.
Crossbows are easier than a bow is to use: Point, shoot, crank to reload, they also have greater penetrating power with a lower pull strength (from the loader's point of view) than a bow. Yes they are slower and mechanically more complicated but ease of use explains alot.
Early firearms weren't much better than an arrow pushed by a gunpowder charge. They were not accurate, they were very dangerous for the user, if the powder got wet it was ruined, it was hard to determine how much powder to use, and they didn't do as much damage as a crossbow when they did hit. So why did people keep developing them? Ease of use, intimidation factor...
and the old goblin reason: IT GOES BOOM!
Also several of the exotic weapons are worthwhile:
Spiked chain comes screaming to mind, but the two bladed sword and double ended axe do too.
Two long swords (or battle axes) that fight as a one-handed and a light? Great!
|
|
Abraham mentioned an intimidation factor with firearms. I'm not finding one in their descriptions, could you please specify where it can be found in the rules?
I'm guessing it's the fluff-side of it. Using a firearm is indeed cool and awesome and makes you a badass, all until you get to roll damage and fail miserably.
My personal opinion is that they just included the firearms to be an option for those who really ant it and that really want to look cool. I don't really think they were meant to be widely used one way or another. They ARE worse after all, that's why they did not take the world.
|
I believe the main reason that firearms aren't going to overtake bows and crossbows should have more to do with their cost to make and use than with how effective they are. Even in our own history guns overtook many older weapons but not very quickly. Plate eventually disappeared because of the penetration factor but then again heavy crossbows were pretty effective for that too. One advantage of a pistol that comes to mind is the ability to conceal something that small and be packing the punch of a heavy crossbow. Also it's pretty easy to teach someone how to use both guns and crossbows where training someone with a longbow takes much longer and is harder to attain a necesary skill level.
The point is that the mechanic for making sure guns don't over run all the older weapons is in effect going to be the cost involved. Most rulers aren't going to be willing to or won't be able to afford to outfit their guards and soldiers with expensive guns and blackpowder. As long as you keep the cost up it will still be a rare sight to see someone take guns as their chosen weapon.
I do believe they should have some advantage though in game mechanics other than the fluff of looking cool and the boom factor for a goblin.
|
Creative Director
|
This thread is a prefect example why I was never a big fan of including firearms in Golarion. Guns are cool in D&D style games; but the campaign setting has to be one that's built from the ground up to include them. We wanted Golarion to feel more like classic D&D, Robert E Howard stories, ancient Rome, and basically a world that WASN'T big on firearms. But at the same point we wanted to include elements that would allow for anyone to play their favored form of the game. So we put firearms in.
Of course... this is a case where a little bit of something annoys those who don't like it, while a little bit of something is nowhere near enough to satisfy those who DO like it. I'm not completely happy with the way firearms have been handled in Golarion so far, since they do little more than taunt and tease. Were I doing this all over again, I'd probably cut them out of the campaign entirely, to be honest.
In any event, firearms will, I suspect, be downplayed in future products. If folk REALLY want them to play a bigger part, we'll be listening, but I suspect that the best solution is to let them lie fallow and let GMs who want to enhance the presence of firearms in their own games do so as they will.
|
|
In any event, firearms will, I suspect, be downplayed in future products. If folk REALLY want them to play a bigger part, we'll be listening, but I suspect that the best solution is to let them lie fallow and let GMs who want to enhance the presence of firearms in their own games do so as they will.
I'm one of those that likes the ideas of firearms (and even how they are incorporated in Golarion) BUT none of my players like them and we never use them.
This is one of those components that can be easily added by the DM if needed. I'm cool with you just dropping them.
|
|
I personally like them being in the game world, the DM can decide how prominent they are.
there are those who like classical western games, and those who like anime inspired fantasy (im a fan of both about equally) guns go well with anime fantasy (think Final Fantasy) but can spoil western fantasy. I say work on it and make it a healthy option, but put a caution warning on it.
|
|
Mixing realism and D&D is always a treacherous path. Firearms were bad in the beginning, yes, but they had their advantages in size and ease of use.
And I understand that including firearms in a D&D setting is a risky business; make them too good, and the place is filled with 'em. Make them bad, and you barely notice.
Personally I adore Alkenstar and the entry in the campaign setting. Maybe I'm just a sucker for Steampunk-y things. Besides being technologically enhanced in a D&D game has its own excitement.
|
I'm not as concerned with Firearms themselves as personal weapons as I am cannons. I love the Shackles and stuff, but D&D sailing stuff that's accurate to the era doesn't make for as fun a game as something more influenced by Pirates of the Caribbean.
In other words, I want cannons, sloops, man'o'wars, etc. I don't want to have to row my galleon into battle.
I'd like to see the firearms in Golarion achieve something resembling parity with bows. As it stands right now, there really doesn't seem like much of a point to use them. You get fewer attacks per round, the powder and ammunition is expensive, and you can't use them in the rain. Granted, Alkenstar's military power is probably derived from their artillery (as opposed to personal firearms), but it seems that most people would just pack a bow and take a pass on purchasing a financially expensive, feat-sapping ranged weapon.
That being said, neither bows nor rifles can withstand the might of the kind of tech you can probably salvage from Numeria.
|
I am working on my new campaign world (to be precise, a new continent in the old world) - and I will include guns, but with some provisions. Only humans will be able to use firearms without severe chance of mishap. That way I can make humans more interesting (my gamers never play humans), and I can create a place for firearms in my campaign which makes some sense. Back on topic: Firearms should ignore nonmagical armor. That would be historical reason why the soldiers stopped wearing armor.
|
|
Well, almost. I have a nagging feeling bows are just too superior compared to firearms.
Well, when firearms were first developed, longbows WERE superior. The reason the musket eventually took over wasn't its inherent superiority as a weapon, it was because, after the manufacturing process was refined a bit, it became cheaper to make than a longbow, and it took less time to train someone to use.
Allowing rapid reload to work with firearms would go a long way to making them balanced, at least compared to crossbows. Bows would still be superior.
Also, trained soldier = level 1-3 warrior.
I have played around with firearms in a few games. I typically give them long reload times with increased damage.
For example, a cavalry pistol (flintlock) has an accurate range increment of 35 feet, does 2d6 damage (20/x2 critical), takes two full-round actions to reload, and cost 175 gold. I also treat them as martial weapons.
Now, a flintlock musket does 2d8 damage (20/x2 crticial), has an accurate range increment of 60 feet, takes three full-round actions to reload, and cost 300 gold.
While the bow is a better weapon, I have had a few characters use pistols to open combat before closing to melee. This is especially true with a pitol/hand axe combination weapon.
I've played in the IK and I have to say, in that setting, I enjoyed the guns. Though with the right feats and such, a gun specialist can be absolutely devastating.
I'm not sure I care for guns being introduced into this setting.
|
|
In most fantasy settings firearms are almost an afterthought. I have a good reason to include them in my campaign. I have a good explanation why are they so expensive, etc. I think that Golarion is a world like FR - and we know that nobody liked firearms in FR. In my campaign, most humans live in a society dominated by the mages, who control all aspects of life - including technology. That is the reason why the firearms cost so much.
|
|
A Wand of Magic missile can't miss, does enough damage to kill first level warriors/commoners and gets 50 shots.
It's cheaper than a gun, and takes just as much time to craft.
I like guns in my game as long as they're exotic, but I don't want them to be exotic because they aren't worthwhile. Which Pathfinder's guns are.
Well, when firearms were first developed, longbows WERE superior. The reason the musket eventually took over wasn't its inherent superiority as a weapon, it was because, after the manufacturing process was refined a bit, it became cheaper to make than a longbow, and it took less time to train someone to use.
And yet it's a requires an Exotic weapon proficiency, whereas longbows are covered under the martial weapons umbrella -- I'd maybe swap that (leave short bows as martial, but at least make composite longbows exotic).
Also, in my howebrew campaign I've given firearms a 19-20/x3 critical.
