Please forgive my vagueness. I dont have my books with me.
In the world book, they mention a specialized ranger that uses firearms but give no details. The core rule book, IIRC, doesnt give any info on firearms (I know that IS in the world book. Has this been developed somewhere in another book? If not, does anyone no if plans are in the works for this? Thanks for any info you can give me.
Please forgive my vagueness. I dont have my books with me.
In the world book, they mention a specialized ranger that uses firearms but give no details. The core rule book, IIRC, doesnt give any info on firearms (I know that IS in the world book. Has this been developed somewhere in another book? If not, does anyone no if plans are in the works for this? Thanks for any info you can give me.
If you are strictly speaking in terms of paizo products the only place you will find rule for firearms is in the Campaign setting, there are none in pathfinder RPG books and will not likely have them for a long time (I believe it was stated that they arent likely going to be in the APG so you are looking at next year before its even possible).
If you are including 3rd party publishers there are several locations for black powder weapons (muskets pistols etc). If you want more modern weapons then you will likely need to wait for what supergenious will apparently be working on as a patronage project (a pathfinder modern).
I knew that info was there. I was more looking for info on the ranger class they refered to in the campaign setting book. My reference to the lack of info in the core rules was more statem,ent adding to a question about weather this was evidence they just abandoned the idea of the class. Since that class grew in a region with no magic, I was interested in how that would change the base ranger class.
|
You might also look at Privateer Press's Iron Kingdoms line. They have rules for firearms of different types, but they are done in such a way as to not be overpowerful nor very easy to obtain. Magical creations from the ground up, including the *blasting powders* used in the cartridges. As I commented in another thread, I will probably be kitbashing Iron Kingdoms into Pathfinder in the near future since it doesn't look like it will be making the cut for 4e.
Spes Magna Games has a twice-monthly newsletter. Subscribers get two free products, Rewarding Roleplaying and Fencing & Firearms. The latter includes matchlocks, flintlocks, and gunpower-based grenades.
OMG I LOL'ed!
*applause*
+1 to Fire Guy, ^_^
|
for a quick and easy conversion, you could do what I did.
Bows = Firearms.
A "Rifle" is a 2 Handed Martial Ranged weapon, 1d8 20/x3, 100gp, 2 lbs.
Can be made Masterwork as normal. Can be made with "greater recoil" to allow for Str bonus to damage.
(identical to Longbow in every way but description)
Gunpowder works in very small quantities (ie, individual shells) but quickly becomes inert out of the metal casings (ie, no blackpowder barrel-bombs, etc...)
Like I said, quick and easy, and gets guns into the game without changing anything mechanically.
-t
I recommend checking out Dragon magazine #321, which you can probably purchase on this site in the Paizo store as a pdf download. There is an article detailing a wide array of gunpowder weapons for use with 3.5 D&D. I looked it over pretty carefully to see if it was PF-compatible, and found nothing that contradicts the PF weapon rules.
I have your firearms RIGHT HERENow thats funny stuff
Yeah, I'm a funny guy. :)
Even more funny was that when I sent a link to that pic to our RPG mailing list and titled it FIREARMS one player replied to ask where the guns were on that pic.
Cyd the Arcmagi wrote:
Even more funny was that when I sent a link to that pic to our RPG mailing list and titled it FIREARMS one player replied to ask where the guns were on that pic.
Ouch!
Again, the question was aimed ay info on the ranger class they mention in the world book. I will assume that either it has not been released anywhere yet, or the idea has been shelved.
Again, the question was aimed ay info on the ranger class they mention in the world book. I will assume that either it has not been released anywhere yet, or the idea has been shelved.
According to the index there are only three places in the pathfinder campaign setting/world book that mention firearms. In the section on Alkenstar, it does not specifically mention rangers anywhere in that chapter but does mention "Gunmarshals" which is more of a title really. As far as I could tell the other two places do not mention rangers either.
A quick read through of the ranger class in the world book also did not provide me with any mention of rangers using firearms.
Without further info on what exactly you mean, I'm afraid that we cannot provide you much help.
|
|
Again, the question was aimed ay info on the ranger class they mention in the world book. I will assume that either it has not been released anywhere yet, or the idea has been shelved.
There is no specialized ranger class that uses firearms. They may have meant for you to whip one up or to use the ranger but give him firearm proficiency or something but as of now there is none. I doubt there will be one in the future either as the developers have expressed that they are not going to focus on the guns in Golarion beyond what has been mentioned unless they sometime in the future decide to do an adventure in an area that has guns which they haven't announced as of yet.
You might also look at Privateer Press's Iron Kingdoms line. They have rules for firearms of different types, but they are done in such a way as to not be overpowerful nor very easy to obtain. Magical creations from the ground up, including the *blasting powders* used in the cartridges. As I commented in another thread, I will probably be kitbashing Iron Kingdoms into Pathfinder in the near future since it doesn't look like it will be making the cut for 4e.
Gah, no, ignore Iron Kingdoms firearms! Much as I love steampunk-ish gameplay, Privateer Press completely missed the point of firearms.
That is, guns are EASY to use. They sure the hell weren't in Iron Kingdoms. Suddenly gun users needed Craft Small Arms and Concentration and feats galore to actually make guns work half-way decently...I understand they made some changes in their magazine, but that's pretty much an admission that they screwed up :-/
If I was running a campaign with firearms (muzzle loaders), I'd use the following principles:
A.) Guns are Simple Weapons. They're as easy to use as crossbows, really. They actually might be easier to maintain as well.
B.) Reloading a gun is a Full Round Action that provokes an AoO (and that's being generous - it probably should be like 2 rounds at least, but so should crossbows). Until cased ammo comes around, the only real way around this is multi-barreled firearms, which would be heavy as hell (and they'd exist, probably in 2-barrel variants at most).
C.) Gun damage is above most other ranged weapons, mostly because you can't full attack with them due to reloading considerations. I'd probably put pistols a 1D8 and rifles at 2D6 for starters. However, I'd make criticals on 18-20 (x2)
D.) Using guns is more expensive than using crossbows and bows, but not brutally so - it becomes an issue on an army scale, not a PC hero scale. Like 10 shots costing 5G for powder and bullets.
E.) Gun ranges are generally inferior to bows and crossbows - at least until rifling comes around. I'd peg pistols at 20ft and rifles at 70ft, then double it when rifling becomes available. YMMV.
F.) Making gunpowder is a craft: alchemy check, probably DC20.
G.) Bayonets let you use the gun as a short spear. Rifles can be used as a non-improvised club (stock) as well. Pistols could be used as an improvised clubbing weapon.
So rifles are slightly more deadly than heavy crossbows, but about the same in actual usage. They'd cost more to make and use, however, meaning only wealthier nations would take advantage of them. On a personal scale, pistols are very dangerous short range weapons, especially if you have a brace of them and the Quick Draw feat, but once you've made your 2-4 pistol shots you pull out the sword and melee. Reloading in combat should not really be an option - although you could probably enchant it to reload itself (a la dancing weapon).
Point is, a well trained longbowman will be significantly more deadly at range - the problem being that well trained longbowmen were hard to come by. Guns replaced bows mostly because they were deadly without lots of training required. Crossbows had their own unique problems - stringing the beasts being one of them (bulkiness and inability to attach a bayonet effectively being another, I think - I'm not a gun historian). Once rifling happens, range and damage should outperform both bows and crossbows, but rate of fire wise, bows should rule the day until cased ammo comes around.
Again, the question was aimed ay info on the ranger class they mention in the world book. I will assume that either it has not been released anywhere yet, or the idea has been shelved.
I think I only ever read references about the Alkenstar ranger here on the boards. Maybe a search of the boards will turn up more?
Tome of Secrets has an optional ranger combat style using firearms (p185).
Musketeer Combat Style
2nd Level - Quick Load (musket)
6th Level - Far Shot
11th Level - Precise Shot
Must be wearing light or no armor to gain the benefits.
First and most important thing about firearms is this.
Think about how crappy early firearms are and how the rules would apply that. Two rounds to reload, horrible AoO each time, and far, far less range then a bow.
Got all those?
Burn them. Throw them out. Devour them. Get rid of them.
When you can string multiple arrows on a bow and hit a single target with it over a hundred feet away with pinpoint accuracy, you've already accepted "Reality need not apply." All you're doing at that point is demanding that guns - and, sadly, crossbows - have to play by crippled rules compared to bows.
There are two dirty secrets D&D refuses to share: Longbows were not precision weapons, not at range. You didn't aim. Nobody trained with a longbow for accuracy at a distance - you trained for range. The goal was to hit the distance the flag showed, not the flag itself. Oh sure, you could be accurate with a longbow, there's no denying that - but not at the ranges D&D presents. And the other one? Longbows weren't martial weapons - they would be, by D&D rules, exotic weapons. You spend a decade or so training with just the bow in order to use it correctly. There was martial training aside from just the bow, but longbowmen were specialists.
If longbows don't have to play by the rules, neither should crossbows and firearms. Crippling weapons for "realism" is boring and pointless; it makes your game actively less fun.
Awesome stuff
I think I love you...
As it stands... any standard Ranger with the Ranged Combat Style could pretty much pick up a firearm and use it well. As you have a list of feats you can select from, its not too hard to pick those that will work well with a firearm. By using your odd level feats, you can pick weapon proficiency and the Gunslinger feat from the Alkenstar region.
First and most important thing about firearms is this.
Think about how crappy early firearms are and how the rules would apply that. Two rounds to reload, horrible AoO each time, and far, far less range then a bow.
Got all those?
Burn them. Throw them out. Devour them. Get rid of them.
When you can string multiple arrows on a bow and hit a single target with it over a hundred feet away with pinpoint accuracy, you've already accepted "Reality need not apply." All you're doing at that point is demanding that guns - and, sadly, crossbows - have to play by crippled rules compared to bows.
There are two dirty secrets D&D refuses to share: Longbows were not precision weapons, not at range. You didn't aim. Nobody trained with a longbow for accuracy at a distance - you trained for range. The goal was to hit the distance the flag showed, not the flag itself. Oh sure, you could be accurate with a longbow, there's no denying that - but not at the ranges D&D presents. And the other one? Longbows weren't martial weapons - they would be, by D&D rules, exotic weapons. You spend a decade or so training with just the bow in order to use it correctly. There was martial training aside from just the bow, but longbowmen were specialists.
If longbows don't have to play by the rules, neither should crossbows and firearms. Crippling weapons for "realism" is boring and pointless; it makes your game actively less fun.
You're thinking of English peasant archers. They were the most famous for using composite longbows in military applications, but for the most part they trained with targetting after church. The longbow typically requires more pull than your average bow, so you would just need to be stronger. The Japanese actually made some funky-looking bamboo longbows that were considered some of the finest ever made, as they weren't especially hard to use. A gun is easier to use than a bow, but by no means should it be up there with the nunchaku and the double sword (Which makes no sense).
Composite bows were usually very high on the poundage needed to pull it back, as were the longbows the English military used. It's not necessary to have one that heavy, however. The Japanese still teach archery in schools as a form of recreation like kendo, called kyudo. If what you say is true, then just the size of the bow would require those high school students to have began training as young men. This is simply not the case: The average draw for the English longbowmen was from 150-200 pounds. It's no small wonder they could punch through plate metal at close range when they were packing that kind of power! Compare to an average person's hunting longbow, which is around a 50 pound draw. Finally, the longbow has been in use as far back as hunter-gatherers existed, long before military training may have even existed. The Ice man, the world's oldest preserved mummy, was found with an unfinished longbow in his possession.
Finally outdoor target shooting for archery typically takes place at 30 meters to 90 meters, so around 90 to 270 (!) feet. Archery for hunting typically takes place at 80 yards or less. So yes, the "primitive" bow was a hell of a lot more accurate than a musket, and took less time to reload. If your character is supposed to be as good as an Olympic archer (And why shouldn't he be?) pegging a target at 100 feet should be a non-issue.
If we're going to go into which deals more damage, I could always site that History channel show (Which is also the most fabulous troll in existence) where the hand-cannon failed to penetrate layered plate mail.
One thing the musket ball could do was travel fast. Stat-wise I would give the baby a X4 crit due to the nasty things that lead ball could do to all the tissue it ran through on its way to your center of mass. Maybe keep the range lower than the longbow (around 80 feet), and a die size lower? If you're going to make it exotic then the same die size would be appropriate, but with the reduced range for flavor. As for the reload... I'd make these babies simple if they were full-round. If they're move reload, rapid reload to free, they'd be exotic. And not a lot like conventional rifles in that respect.
You're thinking of English peasant archers. They were the most famous for using composite longbows in military applications, but for the most part they trained with targetting after church. The longbow typically requires more pull than your average bow, so you would just need to be stronger. The Japanese actually made some funky-looking bamboo longbows that were considered some of the finest ever made, as they weren't especially hard to use. A gun is easier to use than a bow, but by no means should it be up there with the nunchaku and the double sword (Which makes no sense).
Uh, peasant longbows are indeed what I'm thinking of, seeing as how there by and large the most numerous. There were very, very few standing armies in the middle ages, and yes, if you want "historical accuracy," compound longbows very much go up there with nunchaku and double sword. Of course, nunchaku really don't go there, but exotic/martial weapons have never had anything to do with actual balance, historical accuracy, or time needed to learn the weapon, and everything to do with...well, just look at the name. "Exotic weapon." Somehow I guess being a weapon from outside of cliche Europe makes the weapon EXTRA HARD to learn.
A bunch of other stuff
You're missing the issue.
Guns and crossbows both suck. Completely. When you have to make a full round to reload, your weapon is bloody worthless. The reason they suck is given as "historical accuracy."
However, the BENEFITS of both are never given. Crossbows could penetrate the bigger and badder steel armor that bows couldn't - that's why they won out. Firearms could penetrate the bigger and badder steel armor that crossbows didn't, and eventually made "armor" go extinct - that's why THEY won out. And yet neither of these are covered.
The negatives of guns and crossbows aren't just used, they're often magnified. But what about bows? Compound longbows required a straight decade to use well, and yet any bog standard "warrior class" can use them with absolute perfection along with a hundred other weapons at age 16. Longbows were used for EITHER range OR accuracy, and yet the D&D longbow can kill an orc from ten million miles away.
I'm not saying longbows have to suck. They don't. But other ranged weapons shouldn't either. Just because previous editions had a great big hard on for prancy elves and their stupid bows doesn't mean everyone else has to sit in the back and try to ignore the game makers gushing over the Complete Book of Elven Fappery And Their Fantastic Bows.
It comes down to tropes, but this is a really stupid trope. No, the bow is not the BEST THING EVAR, and it shouldn't be given a giant advantage over every other ranged weapon just because "omg legolas totally used one!" Unfortunately, that's how the game is made - Legolas used a bow, so now everything else has to suck.
It's dumb.
So, throwing two cents in.
Having played with the Iron Kingdoms setting? I do think their Fire arms rules work very well within any D20 game. I would recomend them and the great thing is that the DM can still tweak things as the game goes along to keep adjusting for the right balance. Adjusting the price of powder. Since a certain price may be too high, while another price may be to low. The same for maintaining the weapons etc.
As for some of the comments previously posted?
The Long bow was initially Welsh, not English.
There weren't 'peasant' archers, peasants at best were given simple armor (basic leather) and long pointy sticks. The Long bows of Crecy fame weren't composite, either. They were straight (relatively :P) wood and string.
Yes, the Japanese bamboo bows were 'good'. However to get the same sorts of poundage from the Bamboo they were generally 'taller' than an equivalent Long Bow and made more like modern fishing poles in construction. Not shaped solid pieces of Tree heart wood.
A second thing is that the poundage and draw length of a bow also dictate the type of arrow shaft that it launches. So with a lot of study in such matters, the Japanese were a little more advanced than their Welsh counter parts. Also, Bamboo actually makes for a better arrow shaft than bow, while conversely Welsh/English bows were made of Yew, which made for good bows, but not so good arrow shafts.
Otzzy's bow was a rather simple 'Short' (Possibly re-curve?) type bow, if memory serves me. Definitely not a war type Long bow.
As another note. Accuracy over distance is not a function of the propelling powder. It's given by the 'riffling' within the barrel. So a smooth bore barrel and your squished, accelerated lead ball is going to tumble and veer off course quickly over distance, hence the shorter range. A chemical means of power will deliver more than sheer muscle power. It's why we drive cars and don't ride horses any more. ;P
Again, the Iron Kingdoms, I think, is a good balance between damage, crits, cost, complexity etc reflected within guns. With more investment the weapons become more dangerous, which is how you want the game mechanics to be/reflect.
As for a "Ranger Class with Rile/Gun" I can only think of the "Big Game Hunter" affair from Iron Kingdoms. I do know that another setting "Seen Seas" had a class that used rifles, but I can not remember much about it and do not have the books handy/available as of this posting.
I do hope those and previous pointers help your question.
*bows*
You're thinking of English peasant archers. They were the most famous for using composite longbows in military applications, but for the most part they trained with targetting after church. The longbow typically requires more pull than your average bow, so you would just need to be stronger. The Japanese actually made some funky-looking bamboo longbows that were considered some of the finest ever made, as they weren't especially hard to use. A gun is easier to use than a bow, but by no means should it be up there with the nunchaku and the double sword (Which makes no sense).Uh, peasant longbows are indeed what I'm thinking of, seeing as how there by and large the most numerous. There were very, very few standing armies in the middle ages, and yes, if you want "historical accuracy," compound longbows very much go up there with nunchaku and double sword. Of course, nunchaku really don't go there, but exotic/martial weapons have never had anything to do with actual balance, historical accuracy, or time needed to learn the weapon, and everything to do with...well, just look at the name. "Exotic weapon." Somehow I guess being a weapon from outside of cliche Europe makes the weapon EXTRA HARD to learn.
A bunch of other stuffYou're missing the issue.
Guns and crossbows both suck. Completely. When you have to make a full round to reload, your weapon is bloody worthless. The reason they suck is given as "historical accuracy."
However, the BENEFITS of both are never given. Crossbows could penetrate the bigger and badder steel armor that bows couldn't - that's why they won out. Firearms could penetrate the bigger and badder steel armor that crossbows didn't, and eventually made "armor" go extinct - that's why THEY won out. And yet neither of these are covered.
The negatives of guns and crossbows aren't just used, they're often magnified. But what about bows? Compound longbows required a straight decade to use well (snip)
Sorry that you have to suffer because chainmail came late to the armor penetration club.
Also you missed MY point: I just provided several examples where the longbow WASN'T an exotic weapon by any means, the damn thing was used all over the world for longer than we had copper! Try reading my post again.
Also guns could penetrate armor... At about the same distance one of those beastly bows could. After the arbalest, however, firearms saw a significant drop in firepower until rifling was invented (yay for drilling through the target with a blunted ball!), save cannon which are basically the most ridiculous thing in warfare for 400 years.
You can train a man to shoot a bow well in a month. The physical conditioning required to use a 200 pound bow would take a decade in all likelihood. Physical training not the same as skill with the weapon. I know you read this stuff in a history book but it's not true of every bow everywhere. I got the basics of firing a bow down in a weekend of archery classes, after that it's just practice until you can not fail at hitting things.
There is seriously millenia of history that says what you're saying about longbows is a lie. The reason guns surpassed bows was because they were easier to use, didn't depend on the physical strength of the user, and packed a punch at long range, not because bows couldn't penetrate plate armor (Which takes a long time to produce, another reason for its retirement). The reason guns are so prevalent now is that we kept improving on the design. Aside from building the weapon and ammo out of new materials, there's not too much we can do to improve a bow. Though bows can fire a lot more silently than a firearm can.
The Long bow was initially Welsh, not English.
There weren't 'peasant' archers, peasants at best were given simple armor (basic leather) and long pointy sticks. The Long bows of Crecy fame weren't composite, either. They were straight (relatively :P) wood and string.
You're damn right about the bows. I must've been thinking of them being yew, ash or elm.
The English army usually conscripted peasants, however, so it's likely a number of them were chosen as soldiers in their young age.
Otzzy's bow was a rather simple 'Short' (Possibly re-curve?) type bow, if memory serves me. Definitely not a war type Long bow.
According to my article it's a longbow. Then again, Otzy wasn't exactly the tallest guy, so it wouldn't take much to qualify it as one there. It wouldn't be a war-like bow, since organized military didn't exist at the time, it was an unfinished hunting bow, along with some unfinished arrows in his pack, including two that were mostly complete (Save rotted fletchings) that he may have pulled out of the ground while running from a pursuer.
As for guns... I'm not saying they can't do more damage than bows. Just that the guns for the period we're talking about are pretty horrible for non-wartime scenarios.
First and most important thing about firearms is this.
Think about how crappy early firearms are and how the rules would apply that. Two rounds to reload, horrible AoO each time, and far, far less range then a bow.
Got all those?
Burn them. Throw them out. Devour them. Get rid of them.
<snip>
Crippling weapons for "realism" is boring and pointless; it makes your game actively less fun.
That's all well and good, but if firearms and crossbows have as good or better rate of fire than longbows, melee combat becomes fairly redundant. Why? Well, look at the heavy crossbow; d10 damage and 19-20 crit range. It's a bastard sword clone that's a ranged SIMPLE weapon. If it didn't have a slow rate of fire no one would use anything else.
It's not about crippling weapons for realism, though I think a nod in the direction of some realism isn't a bad thing. It's about keeping a bit of balance between the various weapon types - making sure that there's no one single clear-and-away BEST weapon to use in the game.
Which would be boring.
If the goal is to replace bows with firearms (which pretty much is realistic, as soon as gun tech gets good/cheap enough), absolutely go for it. But if you give guns great range, rate of fire, damage and crit value...people would be very dumb to use anything but guns.
Side Note: People talking about the physical conditioning needed to use a longbow...that all depends on the longbow. Welsh longbowmen in Pathfinder are probably best represented using +3 Mighty Composite Longbows (composite seemingly only being defined in a manner that allows for being mighty, not how it's constructed). So they'd need a 16 STR to use it - there's your physical conditioning.
Tome of Secrets has an optional ranger combat style using firearms (p185).
Musketeer Combat Style
2nd Level - Quick Load (musket)
6th Level - Far Shot
11th Level - Precise ShotMust be wearing light or no armor to gain the benefits.
Isn't that a Pathfinder book? Those are 3.5 rules.
Pathfinder Rangers get a tiered list of bonus feats to choose from, and can use medium armour.
Isn't that a Pathfinder book? Those are 3.5 rules.
Pathfinder Rangers get a tiered list of bonus feats to choose from, and can use medium armour.
It's a Pathfinder compatible book, yes.
It is also the only one that had any information rangers and firearms that I have been able to find.
|
Pathfinder firearms are not so bad. I was once considering a tiefling paladin gunslinger with two-weapon fighting feat using two 5-shooters (total of 5 rounds before you need to reload; main hand -2, off hand -2; you also save on feats as you no longer need to take rapid shot; plus if you're forced into melee and if you wear spike armor or spiked gauntlets you can still threaten in melee AND you get to make use of your two-weapon fighting feat)
That paladin gunslinger idea is pretty appealing considering the combined devastating effect of the divine bond and smite evil abilities, as well as the fact that you're now at a range...
Pistols are better than crossbows as you don't get a penalty for using two of them (crossbows have a penalty IN ADDITION to the -2/-2 main/offhand penalty... firearms don't)
Pathfinder firearms are not so bad. I was once considering a tiefling paladin gunslinger with two-weapon fighting feat using two 5-shooters (total of 5 rounds before you need to reload; main hand -2, off hand -2; you also save on feats as you no longer need to take rapid shot; plus if you're forced into melee and if you wear spike armor or spiked gauntlets you can still threaten in melee AND you get to make use of your two-weapon fighting feat)
That paladin gunslinger idea is pretty appealing considering the combined devastating effect of the divine bond and smite evil abilities, as well as the fact that you're now at a range...
I'd like to see this statted up at the lowest possible level to pull this off. It sounds intriguing!
I'd assume the biggest limiting factor would be the cost of buying TWO of the pathfinder revolvers.
I'd assume the biggest limiting factor would be the cost of buying TWO of the pathfinder revolvers.
Could have been bequeathed or an Alkenstar native where the cost may not be as excessive. Perhaps he crafted it?
In the PBP I'm in with my 'honest craftsman' (rogue with max ranks in Craft: Firearm), we're using the Tome of Secrets firearms and we don't have revolvers yet, just flintflocks.
Check out chapter on Equipment in this Gamma World doc I put together: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BxCliOSSjOuZMjM0Yjg2NzMtZDMwYS00ZDVhLWE 2ZDAtMDViNjgyYjg3MmJi&hl=en
You will have to sift through a bit to find it, but I adapted the firearms from the Dragon article I mentioned earlier, it may be of interest.
I'd assume the biggest limiting factor would be the cost of buying TWO of the pathfinder revolvers.Could have been bequeathed or an Alkenstar native where the cost may not be as excessive. Perhaps he crafted it?
[of topic reply]
True... the DM can always rule so. Technically, you could get one masterwork firearm for free with a item bond as a wizard.Feat-wise... you can easily pick up any feats you need by 5th level you you'd first pick up Divine Bond.
Wealth-wise... a quick look at the Gamemastering section of the PRPG tells me you'd have 10,500 gp by 5th level. (I'd almost forgotten they bumped up wealth by level) 5,200 gp later for two revolvers though its only half your total wealth so I think its reasonable to stat the build at 5th.
[/off topic reply]
Again, you all seem to be missing my point.
You can put multiple arrows on a single bowstring and hit a single target from hundreds of yards away with ease.
You are already breaking the rules of physics with bows.
As for bastard swords, they don't take an AoO to use in melee combat, gain strength to damage and to hit, and have a huge number of other assorted goodies involved.
Again, crippling crossbows with "only one shot per round, ever, period," and crippling guns with "see above, only now it takes more then one round, and you get AoOs on both rounds" doesn't make the game fun. It makes the game less fun, because as soon as someone goes "Man I want to use a crossbow," he's making his character terrible.
Here's the crux of the issue: who uses a crossbow? Rogues don't, they can't sneak attack at range that well at all. martial classes don't, there's no extra attacks with a crossbow. Half bab classes don't, they gain no bonuses and, again, no extra attacks.
Right now, in D&D, crossbows serve only one function: for the level 1 wizard to plink at enemies with when he has no spells left.
That's a horrible, stupid place for a weapon to be pidgeonholed into. Even throwing weapons had some cool stuff in 3.5, with master thrower and whisperknife PrCs. But crossbows and slings? They were mechanically garbage - nobody used them, because using them made your character worse. They weren't just less powerful, they actively made your character WORSE.
And that's a stupid place for a weapon to be.
In fact, crossbows had one niche: a really stupid build where someone would carry thirty hand crossbows on him and just draw and fire them endlessly. It almost had a second, which required feats and PrCs from multiple different books to become useful, and that was becoming useful on accident, and it could still be done better with a bow.
Making choices suck for no reason adds nothing to the game - it only takes away from it.
Again, you all seem to be missing my point.
You can put multiple arrows on a single bowstring and hit a single target from hundreds of yards away with ease.
You are already breaking the rules of physics with bows.
As for bastard swords, they don't take an AoO to use in melee combat, gain strength to damage and to hit, and have a huge number of other assorted goodies involved.
Again, crippling crossbows with "only one shot per round, ever, period," and crippling guns with "see above, only now it takes more then one round, and you get AoOs on both rounds" doesn't make the game fun. It makes the game less fun, because as soon as someone goes "Man I want to use a crossbow," he's making his character terrible.
Here's the crux of the issue: who uses a crossbow? Rogues don't, they can't sneak attack at range that well at all. martial classes don't, there's no extra attacks with a crossbow. Half bab classes don't, they gain no bonuses and, again, no extra attacks.
Right now, in D&D, crossbows serve only one function: for the level 1 wizard to plink at enemies with when he has no spells left.
That's a horrible, stupid place for a weapon to be pidgeonholed into. Even throwing weapons had some cool stuff in 3.5, with master thrower and whisperknife PrCs. But crossbows and slings? They were mechanically garbage - nobody used them, because using them made your character worse. They weren't just less powerful, they actively made your character WORSE.
And that's a stupid place for a weapon to be.
In fact, crossbows had one niche: a really stupid build where someone would carry thirty hand crossbows on him and just draw and fire them endlessly. It almost had a second, which required feats and PrCs from multiple different books to become useful, and that was becoming useful on accident, and it could still be done better with a bow.
Making choices suck for no reason adds nothing to the game - it only takes away from it.
Very true. I would say use the rules for repeating crossbows if you must have a reload time, and make them simple. Really, having to eat a feat to make it remotely viable is dumb.
I would also have rules for crossbows being mighty, since they did actually have varied strengths for custom built ones. And honestly? A whole feat to figure out how a crank works? Dumb.
I like their bastard swordiness. Maybe guns should be a 18-20 crit for a similar price. They could also have a magazine, since revolver tech doesn't exist in PF but apparently crossbow clips do. That would mean a possible reload that takes like a move action (Swift with rapid reload if it really has to stay) every time the ten shot clip is emptied. For guns, maybe a 8 shot clip just for difference's sake.
I know why they made ranged weapons load slower, but the bow should also be subject to that as well if that's the case. Since a draw and fire takes around 10 seconds on a battlefield and 4 seconds on targets. Compared to the fighter who is making around 1 second long attacks, and well, you're just screwed. The abstractions in this case are not abstract enough.
I have someone in my game using a repeating crossbow. I think I'll refund the feat. Let them get their dex bonus to damage maybe.
There are some marginal uses for crossbows:
Crossbow sniper feat gives a bonus to damage equal to 1/2 Dex Mod, which is tiny, but more importantly gives sneak attack out to 60'. That gives a ranged rogue a little more ability to do the sniping thing, since that's +3 effective stealth for an extra 30' of range.
Hand crossbow let's you fire twice with TWF... once. Which isn't all that useful, but since rogues get proficiency with hand crossbow anyway and often go TWF, it turns out to be somewhat useful as an opening move at range. Then drop the crossbows, draw and go in...
|
Just gotta add in here...
Light Crossbow = 1d8 19-20/x2 80ft rng
Longbow = 1d8 x3 100ft rng
Light Crossbow doesn't get a bonus or penalty on attacks from your str score. Requires reloading - Negated by rapid reload feat. May be fired with one hand at a -2. Simple weapon
Longbow is affected by your str penalty if you have one. Doesn't require reloading. Martial Weapon *may require feat to use without penalty*
Light Crossbow wins if you have a str penalty, and/or if you don't have martial weapon proficiency.
Longbow wins if you have Martial Weapon proficiency.
There is a formula behind each weapon to keep it in check with other weapons.
Should be pretty easy to apply it to firearms, to keep game balance.
Btw, rapid reload reduces the loading time for light and hand crossbows so that you can attack with them as many times in a full-attack action as you could attack if you were using a bow.
That's the wording used by rapid reload.
That's right, according to the wording of the feat, if you get some crazy number of attacks with a *long*bow or *short*bow or *insert*bow, you can get them with your crossbow.
Building a ranger with a poor str score? Go light crossbow. Same damage, more likely to crit (for less damage), and slightly less range. I think it's a fair trade-off to avoid that damage penalty.
Hmm... yeah...
Point blank shot
Far shot
Precise shot
Rapid Shot *extra attack*
Manyshot *first attack fires two arrows... or bolts-uses bow, not longbow..ect ect ect.*
Now, how to get past that pesky two-hands-to-reload thing... Well, maybe if you had a third hand..
Quickdraw would let you draw your weapons as a free action... why, oh why doesn't it say anything about sheathing them? :(
Or enchanting them with floating disk or something similar so you can let one go as a free action, load the other as a free action, grab and drop in reverse as a free action, load the first as a free action, and continue with your attack chain.
Lvl 20, what, ranger?, with base attack chain of 20/15/10/5
With the twf feats you'd get a -2/-5/-10 *light crossbow :D*
Attack chain is 18/18/15/13/10/8/3 * I think. Head is starting to hurt.
Soo... with the archery feats, it goes to...16/16/16/13/11/8/6/1
OH! I GOT IT! :)
According to the bestiary page 316, the options presented for the ranger's animal companion aren't all inclusive. So opt out for the ape and get him turned into small size. *Or, if you're brave, take the bird. Gotta convince your dm that the talons can do the job though.
Once you get to ranger level 7, your ape (or bird) gets a stat increase. Put it into intelligence. Now it can take any feat. At ranger level 8, it gets a feat. You should have stuck it with simple weapon proficiency at ranger level 5th, so now you can give it.... rapid reload! That's right, either have your monkey or your bird sitting on your arm, reloading both your crossbows for you!
/grin
Not bad for the straight ranger, methinks, in pathfinder. You're potentially dealing with each attack if it's against the right favored enemy:
1d8 +10 +1d8+10/1d8+10/1d8+10/1d8+10/1d8+10/1d8+10/1d8+10/1d8+10
Which comes to 9d8+80, or 89-152.
Someone check my mad math. I feel dirty now. Too bad the ranger spells aren't better.
*edited for typo*
Hmmm....
Pistol (Revolver, Cap and Ball)
Light One-Handed Exotic Weapon (Exotic Weapon(Firearms))
Weight : 4lbs
Dmg : 1d6/1d8/1d10
Crit : 19-20 x2
Range : 50
Type : Piercing
Price : 1,250gp
Extra Cylinder : 250gp
Pistol Revolvers come in 5, 6, and 7 round varieties. The cost differences are negligable. A 5 round revolver does 1d10 damage, while a 7 round does 1d6 damage (due to differences in projectile size). Each revolver is what is called a cap and ball, which means each cylinder has to be refilled with ammunition and powder separately. Refilling a chamber takes one standard action (rapid reload feat allows three chambers to be refilled as a standard action, or all chambers as a full round action). Reloading provokes an AoO, but can be done defensively.
A revolver can have it's cylinder removed and replaced with a pre-loaded cylinder as a full action (standard action with rapid reload). Extra cylinders must always match the original cylinder with regards to number of rounds held.
All revolvers are considered Masterwork, and this cost is already figured in. A revolver can be fired as often as the wielder can attack, so long as it has rounds in it. A pistol revolver is considered a light weapon for purposes of Two-Weapon Fighting.
Rifle (Revolver, Cap and Ball)
Two-Handed Exotic Weapon (Exotic Weapon(Firearms))
Weight : 8lbs
Dmg : 1d8/1d10/1d12
Crit : 19-20 x2
Range : 100
Type : Piercing
Price : 2,500gp
Extra Cylinder : 250gp
Rifle Revolvers come in 5, 6, and 7 round varieties. The cost differences are negligable. A 5 round revolver does 1d12 damage, while a 7 round does 1d8 damage (due to differences in projectile size). Each revolver is what is called a cap and ball, which means each cylinder has to be refilled with ammunition and powder separately. Refilling a chamber takes one standard action (rapid reload feat allows three chambers to be refilled as a standard action, or all chambers as a full round action). Reloading provokes an AoO, but can be done defensively.
A revolver can have it's cylinder removed and replaced with a pre-loaded cylinder as a full action (standard action with rapid reload). Extra cylinders must always match the original cylinder with regards to number of rounds held. Cylinders of the same size can be used interchangeably between pistol and rifle revolvers. The difference in damage is due to the longer barrel and rifling in the rifle.
All revolvers are considered Masterwork, and this cost is already figured in. A revolver can be fired as often as the wielder can attack, so long as it has rounds in it.
Note : Enchanted revolvers have the main weapon enchanted, not the cylinders, allowing quick change of cylinders to work even with enchanted firearms.
EDIT: Maximum range increment on firearms is x10, not x5.
Crossbow Sniper is from Player's Handbook 2.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I think the biggest issue for guns in most fantasy campaigns is that you have 2 concerns: 1) you want guns to be available and mechanically worthwhile, and 2) you don't want them to be so awesome nobody uses anything else anymore. Most games want guns as a viable but not overpowering option, and out of reach of most folks except adventurers. So a PC can have a gun shtick if he wants, but armies don't all have cannon and musketeer regiments. It's hard to find a balancing point.
I've made a suggestion elsewhere on these forums that GMs wishing to house rule guns should use a wand of scorching ray as a starting point and extrapolate from there. Make guns good, but also very expensive per shot, just like a wand. Make guns competitive with bows for PCs who invest the feats to be good with gun fu. Since high-damage archery builds focus on arrow spam, perhaps the way to go with gun feats would be to build feat chains around the concept of enhancing the damage of single shots, a la Vital Strike.
Also, I'd like to point out 2 good uses for a heavy crossbow. 1) It's what you use in the surprise round before you drop it and full charge the next round, and 2) ship-to-ship combat, where the stand-off range is more advantageous than higher rate of fire.
Monte Cook does a good job with firearms and cannons is his 3.5 Ptlous book.
|
|
Sweet! check this out:
"The silver bullets are surprisingly hard, and even after impacting solid surfaces, there's very little deformation. I'm glad we got these sized properly prior to shooting them, because they're harder than we'd hoped. The ideal hunting round flattens on impact, forming a mushroom shape that limits penetration depth and increases the diameter of the wound. Unless we really slow them down or find some way to address the issue, these are going to create a .44 caliber hole right through the target. It's not what we'd hoped for, but it's something that the itenerate werewolf-hunter should be aware of."
http://www.patriciabriggs.com/books/silver/silverbullet14.shtml
...and:
"I decided to drill the hole the same but use my Dremel to grind out a ring in the base and several small grooves in the hole wall. I poured five more and went back to the range again with more homemade gelatine. These did much better as far as keeping their shape for longer and averaged between 4-5 inches of penetration before separation. These cycled well and I did not have any cycle issues with any of the bullets that were filled in with silver. Unfortunately I do not have any ballistic data as I did not have access to a speed trap at the time. However my goal was to make a semi auto round that was still reliable and used silver as a component. These rounds met that goal and and if a werewolf ever comes to visit I can sleep better at night knowing I wont be left wanting."
http://www.patriciabriggs.com/books/silver/hollowpoint.shtml
===========================
....soooo I think I'll be statting up that paladin at some point... :)
PDK
There's firearm rules for Pathfinder I wrote that have been released as a freebie by LPJ Design... Download 'em here. Cannon too!
We've been using them for many months in our pirate campaign (some Second Darkness, some Freeport) and they work pretty well. They are the classic slow-reload types but the exploding damage helps make up for it.