From what I understand by reading the description of bayonet you cannot make any ranged attacks while you have attached it. If that is true and I haven't misunderstood it what's the point of using it? If you lose a move action to attack it and another one to remove it you could instead draw and sheathe a more serious weapon with greater qualities. Am I missing something.
Draw a weapon and drop the gun.
Sometimes ill-advisable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From what I understand by reading the description of bayonet you cannot make any ranged attacks while you have attached it. If that is true and I haven't misunderstood it what's the point of using it? If you lose a move action to attack it and another one to remove it you could instead draw and sheathe a more serious weapon with greater qualities. Am I missing something.
Basically, the bayonet in the APG (a "plug bayonet," if you want to get technical) is a dagger/knife shoved into the barrel/firing groove of a crossbow/gun. This was historically used to turn a gun into a polearm-like weapon (without the added weight of carrying anything other than a dagger/knife); the bayoneted weapon can be used two-handed to take advantage of 1.5 x Str mod to damage, Power Attack, etc.
Not a bad deal: carry a ranged weapon and a light weapon, combine the two to turn the ranged weapon into a two-handed weapon. The benefits were high enough that mounting rings were developed to allow the bayonet to be mounted below the barrel, so that the weapon could still fire while being ready to be used as a melee weapon (eliminating the biggest drawback).
From what I understand by reading the description of bayonet you cannot make any ranged attacks while you have attached it. If that is true and I haven't misunderstood it what's the point of using it? If you lose a move action to attack it and another one to remove it you could instead draw and sheathe a more serious weapon with greater qualities. Am I missing something.Basically, the bayonet in the APG (a "plug bayonet," if you want to get technical) is a dagger/knife shoved into the barrel/firing groove of a crossbow/gun. This was historically used to turn a gun into a polearm-like weapon (without the added weight of carrying anything other than a dagger/knife); the bayoneted weapon can be used two-handed to take advantage of 1.5 x Str mod to damage, Power Attack, etc.
Not a bad deal: carry a ranged weapon and a light weapon, combine the two to turn the ranged weapon into a two-handed weapon. The benefits were high enough that mounting rings were developed to allow the bayonet to be mounted below the barrel, so that the weapon could still fire while being ready to be used as a melee weapon (eliminating the biggest drawback).
I agree with all that you say. BUT my problem is why a ranged weapon is unusable as arranged weapon while it has a bayonet attached? I thought that you could fire with a rifle while it had a bayonet. Did you have to remove it every time you needed to fire. This is my question.
Basically, the bayonet in the APG (a "plug bayonet," if you want to get technical) is a dagger/knife shoved into the barrel/firing groove of a crossbow/gun.
you even quoted that text, how do you want to fire a gun with a dagger IN the barrel?
the dagger under the barrel was a later usage, and Pathfinder is not on that Tech-level, most likely because of balance reasons.
Basically, the bayonet in the APG (a "plug bayonet," if you want to get technical) is a dagger/knife shoved into the barrel/firing groove of a crossbow/gun.you even quoted that text, how do you want to fire a gun with a dagger IN the barrel?
the dagger under the barrel was a later usage, and Pathfinder is not on that Tech-level, most likely because of balance reasons.
I argue that the bayonet is useless in the way it is introduced in Pathfinder. In return I receive arguments that either show me the historical use of bayonet or that show me why it is impossible to fire a ranged weapon with a bayonet attached to its barrel. I cannot argue at these things because I AGREE with you. The problem is that you do not see my point before you answer. Each weapon has advantages and disadvantages. The better ones usually require special training to use in order to balance things.
Bayonet should be compared with a simple two handed weapon. If you decide to introduce it to the game you must offer it some characteristics that would make it attractive, some advantages.
Instead you require the same actions to draw and sheath it and as a weapon it is less effective than another simple two handed weapon that you could use. One advantage could be that you could fire with your crossbow while you have attached it, but this in not the case here for the reasons that YOU explained and I agree. So I am asking if someone can think of another advantage that I cannot see. The only one that I can see right now is that you do not need to put away the ranged weapon before you draw the bayonet so if you do not want to drop it and still use a two-handed weapon then you do not loose a move action to sheath the crossbow.
ah, I think I know where you are coming from
advantage is that you don't need to carry a simple two handed weapon. Less weight, less costs ( I think).
But your problem seems to be a problem of perspective (no offense).
New weapons, classes, feats were always supposed to be better than the ones existing back in 3.5. They often were, so that the one who possesed the latest books had the best character.
However Paizo doesn't try to make everything new, better (in game mechanics terms) than the rest. They try to approach usability from the low end, like they are doing with the magus.
However the bayonet wasn't game-tested, and because it isn't really a bad weapon, there is no need to fix it. If you are not satisfied, don't use it.
However you can always ask your GM to invent a bayonet that's fixed under the barrel, I think in Complete Scoundrel from WOTC was such a thing. It's not a big deal, perhaps a little bit better than the average weapon, but not by more than the current is worse than the average weapon.
So as in general, if it ain't broken, Paizo won't fix it. If a player is unsatisfied, the GM can fix it.
Less costs? Less weight?
You still have to enchant them separately, which is where most of your money goes anyways, right? Doesn't sound like it saves you much of anything.
Same with weight. You saved, what? Two pounds compared to just having a second weapon?
I certainly hope there is more to it than that.
I partly disagree
Scenario:
You want a +5 ranged weapon, a +5 light one handed weapon and a +5 two-handed weapon.
Subscenario 1:
Buy +5 crossbow, and +5 bayonet. You buy 2 items.
Subscenario 2:
Buy +5 crossbow, +5 dagger and +5 Longspear or something.
What is cheaper?
I know that you'll tell me, that noone wants these 3 things, and crossbow isn't as good as a bow, and everything, but still, there is a scenario that can happen, that will save your money. Dragonchess Player pointed this out already.
weight is more for mages at very low lvl who would use this weapon.
I agree that this option is very unlikely for a specialized warrior, but I see the bayonet more of a thief or mage kind of weapon.
First of all thanks for the discussion and of course I will not offend as, I hope none of us will.
I started this thread not complaining that bayonet is broken. I started this thread wondering if I misunderstood its mechanics or didn't notice something. For example before our conversation I wasn't sure if this weapon was intended to prevent you from firing with your crossbow while attached. Now it is clear to me since other people understood the same thing after reading the weapon description.
I agree with all those who say that is nice to have it for fluff and things like this. But this is a rule thread. We all know that you can do many things for fluff but considering the rules there is only one Golden rule for me. Everything has a reason for existing in the rulebook of a game except for fluff. Otherwise you could just add it to the game as fluff as a DM and choose that its mechanics are the same as an other weapon of the book in order to make it balanced.
I agree that in later books of most of the games broken weapons/items/spells appear and this is something that should be avoided in my opinion. In Pathfinder this is something that I haven't noticed yet and I am happy with it.
Dragonchess Player beat me to the history lesson :(
Of course from a cinematic view nothing is as cool as bellowing out "Fix...Bayonets!" followed by a 100 soldiers attaching bayonets in unison, it was kind of like the sound of pumping a shotgun of its day. Of course a fixed bayonet essentially turns your rifle into a spear, very effective.
Well, not as effective as far as spears go (gun barrels are much heavier than most spear shafts)... although it did carry quiet a punch due to the extra weight.
Generally, it was something that could be cheaply added onto your musketeers (it is just a fancy knife...sometimes just a spike). The threat of gunfire generally meant that iw was hard to use proper polearms (relatively unwieldy, occupies your hands so you can't use a gun yourself)- at best, you get the tactical stuff like pikes that survived later on. Those worked well against cavalry, which presented an obvious problem of a ton of horse rampaging through your lines.
Anyway, onto the bayonet....yeah, it seems more like an item used to give a VERY specific tech level to these firearms. But honestly...you are a gunslinger that DOESN'T want to shoot his gun? Pathfinder has a weird thing with specialization, which makes anything like that a poor choice (cause you are going pure dex, and you are using a kinda sucky, unwieldy spear- do the math). Mechanically... the bayonet is not for the gunslinger, but for the lay person- other classes that took up fire arms because it was 'guns everywhere' setting, or the like. So this is more for a switch hitting fighter, for instance, who shoots the gun as enemies approach, and then quickly switches to bayonet.
Yes, it sucks, and it would only ever apply to a very, very small subset of gun users. Seriously- even if it was the type mounted under the barrel, how often would you use it as a gunslinger? The occasional AoO...at best? Sorry, the way dedicated archers are built, particularly when they don't need dex, just doesn't meld with that. The concept was mostly doomed to fluff from the beginning.
We just ignore this dumb rule and allow the bayonet to stay in place, without affecting your ability to use the ranged component.
Has not caused balance issues.
Firing in melee still provokes, but at least the Martial isn't wasting actions switching weapons.
Does not affect casters.
In my Skulls and Shackles campaign, we have NPCs who have muskets and bayonets. They tend to fire their musket in round one then afix bayonets and engage in melee in subsequent rounds. It just feels more "realistic" for pirate-fighting marines. Personally, I like the flavor of it. Is it optimized? Of course not. Do you want me to have all the mooks the PCs fight be super optimized musket masters?
|
Less costs? Less weight?
You still have to enchant them separately, which is where most of your money goes anyways, right? Doesn't sound like it saves you much of anything.
Same with weight. You saved, what? Two pounds compared to just having a second weapon?
I certainly hope there is more to it than that.
Ravingdork, you need this kind of bayonet.
|
|
The only use I'd have for a bayonet in Pathfinder is for the occasional case where you run out of bullets... that way your flaming burst musket which you have Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization on turns into a melee weapon with flaming burst, +1 to hit and +2 on the damage... considering that most gunslingers are probably at STR 10, not entirely a bad deal (but compared to the +15 damage you get when shooting your gun, still pitiful, so don't get me wrong here...)
Mind you, that's assuming that the bayonet IS this kind of bayonet.
For any other type of bayonet: complete waste of time IMO. You're better off drawing backup poisoned throwing daggers or darts (what my gunslinger calls "last resort"); anything in melee is a waste for dex-based gunslingers.
Note 1: This thread is almost 5 years old.
Note 2: Harsk was originally a 3.5 iconic; Complete Scoundrel had a crossbow bayonet that didn't prevent firing.
Reign of Winter: Rasputin Must Die introduces the Socket Bayonet, for 5 gp has the same stats as the Bayonet for Advanced player's Guide and Ultimate Equipment but it allows you to fire your ranged weapon while it is attached but incurs a -2 penalty on attack rolls
Note 1: This thread is almost 5 years old.
Note 2: Harsk was originally a 3.5 iconic; Complete Scoundrel had a crossbow bayonet that didn't prevent firing.
So we should add to the 135k+ threads... okay.
Nah, I'm gonna try to avoid that, thanks.
Reign of Winter: Rasputin Must Die introduces the Socket Bayonet, for 5 gp has the same stats as the Bayonet for Advanced player's Guide and Ultimate Equipment but it allows you to fire your ranged weapon while it is attached but incurs a -2 penalty on attack rolls
F U MARTIALS! You CAN NOT have a blade on your gun WITHOUT A PENALTY!!!
*wizard goes and casts wish*
F U!!!!!
I was wondering about using a bayonet as a melee fighting weapon (not a ranged weapon accessory) in terms of weapon type (light, 1 handed, or 2 handed). Trying to create a novelty character (Father Alexander Anderson from Hellsing Ultimate) and just wanted to ask.
Hmm, we never did get an answer to this did we? I hope Anderson is cutting up vampires somewhere in Golarion...
Reign of Winter: Rasputin Must Die introduces the Socket Bayonet, for 5 gp has the same stats as the Bayonet for Advanced player's Guide and Ultimate Equipment but it allows you to fire your ranged weapon while it is attached but incurs a -2 penalty on attack rollsF U MARTIALS! You CAN NOT have a blade on your gun WITHOUT A PENALTY!!!
*wizard goes and casts wish*
F U!!!!!
a -2 penalty doesn't hurt that much since firearms target touch ac
a -2 penalty doesn't hurt that much since firearms target touch acReign of Winter: Rasputin Must Die introduces the Socket Bayonet, for 5 gp has the same stats as the Bayonet for Advanced player's Guide and Ultimate Equipment but it allows you to fire your ranged weapon while it is attached but incurs a -2 penalty on attack rollsF U MARTIALS! You CAN NOT have a blade on your gun WITHOUT A PENALTY!!!
*wizard goes and casts wish*
F U!!!!!
It's death by a thousand cuts... -2 here, -2 there...
Martials already have diminishing chances of affecting CMB as they level, this is just more salt in the wound.
Where are the penalties for casters?
Reign of Winter: Rasputin Must Die introduces the Socket Bayonet, for 5 gp has the same stats as the Bayonet for Advanced player's Guide and Ultimate Equipment but it allows you to fire your ranged weapon while it is attached but incurs a -2 penalty on attack rolls
I'm sure many DM's will not allow it, because it's from an adventure path book full of Great War era firearms.
And I don't want to get off on a rant here, but the bayonet rules (plug and socket) make no goddamned sense at all, and is just another indication that when it comes to martial combat, the designers are so afraid of making something overpowered that they pile on caveats and penalties until the thing is worthless.
For balance? Compare it to if the character was using a Spiked Gauntlet instead, all he's gaining is one damage from the die, and maybe a tiny bit more damage from Strength. How much Strength do Gunslingers have? 14 at the most? He'd gain a tiny bit more from Power Attack, but how many Gunslingers take that? How many can give up even one extra feat? And if the character is a high Strength melee bruiser? He's losing significant damage from the die, and from going to 20x2 crit, all so that he can deal 1d12+not much damage at range with something that takes him a full round to reload.
For realism? A tiny bit more weight at the end of the barrel isn't going to make a difference. If anything, it would (slightly) reduce muzzle rise, allowing you to get back on target to take the next shot faster. Note that competitive shooters often add weights to the ends of their guns for that reason. And (in this game) even primitive muzzle-loaders can fire quite rapidly, making muzzle rise a real problem.
Again...I doubt it was because they feared the power of bayonets...they just came to a rather reasonable assumption the few people will ever get a real chance to use them very well.
It is, by its very nature, a switch hitter weapon. But most gunslingers wouldn't be cause dead with anything more than 7 str (sometimes they are literally caught dead- shadows adn their lethal str damage and all), and few others use guns since they are strictly worse than bows if you aren't a gunslinger (or at least take those 5 levels) due to the gun rules (which of course has its own room, or should I say mansion, to argue about).
The only thing that immediately comes to mind that is 'good' with guns would be the trench fighter...and they are from reign of winter as well where the underbarrel bayonet was released. So they already have their switch hitting niche satisfied. They also have modern guns that could very well hold enough bullets that they never have to deal with that reload thing that makes it near impossible to viably use rifles as a nongunslinger.
I think it was just a trash fluff option, no matter what kind of bayonet they released, and they decided to make it VERY specific to a certain time period for fun.
|
|
It's death by a thousand cuts... -2 here, -2 there...
Martials already have diminishing chances of affecting CMB as they level, this is just more salt in the wound.
Where are the penalties for casters?
Part of me feels the bleeding of your heart here, as casters once had to put ranks in Concentration in order to keep casting near kaijus, but that's gone...
However I'm not too troubled by this: historically no one jumps at playing the wizard (too much bookkeeping) and the cleric (don't want to play the healing battery) and EVERYONE has a cool martial build they want to test out...
(I'm not even talking about the rogue here... he's the leftover choice for that guy that never showed up at the first session where character creation occurred... I understand outcries for the rogue, but martials... meh... lots of cool options there)
It's death by a thousand cuts... -2 here, -2 there...
Martials already have diminishing chances of affecting CMB as they level, this is just more salt in the wound.
Where are the penalties for casters?
Part of me feels the bleeding of your heart here, as casters once had to put ranks in Concentration in order to keep casting near kaijus, but that's gone...
However I'm not too troubled by this: historically no one jumps at playing the wizard (too much bookkeeping) and the cleric (don't want to play the healing battery) and EVERYONE has a cool martial build they want to test out...
(I'm not even talking about the rogue here... he's the leftover choice for that guy that never showed up at the first session where character creation occurred... I understand outcries for the rogue, but martials... meh... lots of cool options there)
But the important thing here is to make sure you apply as many penalties to martials as possible...
don't let any of them slide. those damn sword wielding bastards are WAY too powerful.
Reign of Winter: Rasputin Must Die introduces the Socket Bayonet, for 5 gp has the same stats as the Bayonet for Advanced player's Guide and Ultimate Equipment but it allows you to fire your ranged weapon while it is attached but incurs a -2 penalty on attack rollsI'm sure many DM's will not allow it, because it's from an adventure path book full of Great War era firearms.
And I don't want to get off on a rant here, but the bayonet rules (plug and socket) make no g$!@*~ned sense at all, and is just another indication that when it comes to martial combat, the designers are so afraid of making something overpowered that they pile on caveats and penalties until the thing is worthless.
For balance? Compare it to if the character was using a Spiked Gauntlet instead, all he's gaining is one damage from the die, and maybe a tiny bit more damage from Strength. How much Strength do Gunslingers have? 14 at the most? He'd gain a tiny bit more from Power Attack, but how many Gunslingers take that? How many can give up even one extra feat? And if the character is a high Strength melee bruiser? He's losing significant damage from the die, and from going to 20x2 crit, all so that he can deal 1d12+not much damage at range with something that takes him a full round to reload.
For realism? A tiny bit more weight at the end of the barrel isn't going to make a difference. If anything, it would (slightly) reduce muzzle rise, allowing you to get back on target to take the next shot faster. Note that competitive shooters often add weights to the ends of their guns for that reason. And (in this game) even primitive muzzle-loaders can fire quite rapidly, making muzzle rise a real problem.
instead of buying it outright you could work with your dm and have your gunslinger design and make it themselves in game after getting tired of having to put away their rifle and draw a melee weapon
For realism? A tiny bit more weight at the end of the barrel isn't going to make a difference.
A Brown Bess weights about 10 lbs. The Bayonet adds another pound. I wouldn't call that tiny, especially because it's out at the end of the rifle that acts as a moment-arm. The fact that it's 16 inches long or thereabouts adds to the ungainlyness.
If anything, it would (slightly) reduce muzzle rise, allowing you to get back on target to take the next shot faster.
Not an issue with muzzle loaders that have to be taken completely off target in order to be reloaded.
And (in this game) even primitive muzzle-loaders can fire quite rapidly, making muzzle rise a real problem.
Ah, no. Not when you've got to take the weapon's but to the ground. The bayonet significantly raises reload time with muzzle loaders because there's a large sharp thing in the way.
|
|
don't let any of them slide. those damn sword wielding bastards are WAY too powerful.
Pretty much. They're unstoppable killing machines unbound by "swings per day" rules. There's not even a rule that says your arm will be a dead lump of tired muscles after 3 minutes (30 rounds) of non-stop fighting, in HEAVY ARMOR, in the SUN.
Have you ever seen two boxers going at it for 3 min? these guys are practically naked, with a full pit crew hydrating them and toweling them off.
F U martials.
F U!!
|
|
PRD:
A character can walk for more than 8 hours in a day by making a forced march. For each hour of marching beyond 8 hours, a Constitution check (DC 10, +2 per extra hour) is required. If the check fails, the character takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from a forced march becomes fatigued. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue. It's possible for a character to march into unconsciousness by pushing himself too hard.
...yet, a martial can swing that pointy stick for 10 hours straight, and it's fine. Have your DM throw you more than one or two encounters per day and you'll really start appreciating the advantage of a martial. 3.5 had way more fights leading to a boss, somehow. 2nd edition had dozens of fights before the boss. That wizard was always saving on the spells. Now, most wizards blow their top spells in the first encounters, 'cause nothing has taught them otherwise in recent AP history.
Maybe it's time to roll on those random encounter tables once in a while... just a thought.
Have your DM throw you more than one or two encounters per day and you'll really start appreciating the advantage of a martial.
Without magic support against standard encounters, the martial will be pretty dead or even lower in resources.
Maybe it's time to roll on those random encounter tables once in a while... just a thought.
Yes, because nothing makes the game more fun than.... making the game less fun. On purpose.
"Hey, here's a rule that everyone hates! I'm going to bring it back, because I don't want to GM any more, and I'm too passive-aggressive simply to say so!"
PRD:
A character can walk for more than 8 hours in a day by making a forced march. For each hour of marching beyond 8 hours, a Constitution check (DC 10, +2 per extra hour) is required. If the check fails, the character takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from a forced march becomes fatigued. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue. It's possible for a character to march into unconsciousness by pushing himself too hard....yet, a martial can swing that pointy stick for 10 hours straight, and it's fine.
Not really. A martial can swing that pointy stick for about 5-7 rounds.
After that, the martial will typically be lying on the ground, bleeding out.
For realism? A tiny bit more weight at the end of the barrel isn't going to make a difference.A Brown Bess weights about 10 lbs. The Bayonet adds another pound. I wouldn't call that tiny, especially because it's out at the end of the rifle that acts as a moment-arm. The fact that it's 16 inches long or thereabouts adds to the ungainlyness.
If anything, it would (slightly) reduce muzzle rise, allowing you to get back on target to take the next shot faster.Not an issue with muzzle loaders that have to be taken completely off target in order to be reloaded.
And (in this game) even primitive muzzle-loaders can fire quite rapidly, making muzzle rise a real problem.Ah, no. Not when you've got to take the weapon's but to the ground. The bayonet significantly raises reload time with muzzle loaders because there's a large sharp thing in the way.
I hadn't thought of that, I had it in my head that any gunslinger that could fire five shots in six seconds had some way to reload without having to go through the muzzle-loading rigamarole. Still, it would apply to double-barreled/repeating firearms (especially those that self-load with magic). As far as the weight goes, the axe-musket or hammer-musket don't seem to be affected by much more weight at the end. If ungainly length is a problem, then treat the musket with affixed bayonet as a reach weapon.
Ranting about realism is fun and all, but it's the mechanics that are the problem here.
For realism? A tiny bit more weight at the end of the barrel isn't going to make a difference.A Brown Bess weights about 10 lbs. The Bayonet adds another pound. I wouldn't call that tiny, especially because it's out at the end of the rifle that acts as a moment-arm. The fact that it's 16 inches long or thereabouts adds to the ungainlyness.
If anything, it would (slightly) reduce muzzle rise, allowing you to get back on target to take the next shot faster.Not an issue with muzzle loaders that have to be taken completely off target in order to be reloaded.
And (in this game) even primitive muzzle-loaders can fire quite rapidly, making muzzle rise a real problem.Ah, no. Not when you've got to take the weapon's but to the ground. The bayonet significantly raises reload time with muzzle loaders because there's a large sharp thing in the way.I hadn't thought of that, I had it in my head that any gunslinger that could fire five shots in six seconds had some way to reload without having to go through the muzzle-loading rigamarole. Still, it would apply to double-barreled/repeating firearms (especially those that self-load with magic). As far as the weight goes, the axe-musket or hammer-musket don't seem to be affected by much more weight at the end. If ungainly length is a problem, then treat the musket with affixed bayonet as a reach weapon.
Ranting about realism is fun and all, but it's the mechanics that are the problem here.
While the description doesn't pan out that way, I can easily imagine an axe musket with good balance.
It is all about putting the ax-head on the other end- put it on the butt of the gun, and then grab the gun by its barrel when you want to wield it. There are plenty of ax-head designs which would pose little problems comfort wise with this arrangement.
Since precision weapons tend to prefer the weight to be towards the wielder, while slashing weapons tend to prefer it towards the end... it could end up rather well with such a design.
Side note- thinking about it, why is there so much vitriol about bayonets when we have axe muskets and dagger guns? The niche is already filled.