We're agreeing too much, I may have to call NY and see if paranormal activity has increased...
This playtest is WEIRD it happened I pointed out an idea of CARTIGAN about malfunctioning and "+1ed" Cirno several times! People i generally don't agree with! :D
Anyway, I really hope devs evaluate the idea. IMHO the grit mechanic can be adjusted and adapted to swashbuckling stunts too.
Musketeer would have been a better choice for a class. That way it would have been feasable to give them the musket as a combat opener, deal a lot of damage, and then have the use of a rapier or light melee weapon for the rest of the fight. Or going even more primitive, an arquebusier class which makes use of some kind of pavise shield. Highwayman is another possibility, makes use of a flintlock pistol, but doesnt rely on it exclusively. If you're going with primitive pistols, they should not be quick/reliable enough to rely upon solely.
Some gun abilities could include scaring animals and mounts, halting charges if readied etc etc.
Gunslinger seems to me to be a class better suited to more modern weaponry, out of keeping with the style and setting of Golarion. A gunslinger evokes images of Eastwood style characters spamming six shooters everywhere, not some guy spending an entire round reloading his flintlock pistol so he can take one more shot. The name and concept just seem a poor fit.
Why don't have a choice?
A Core fighter can be built for TWF, THF, bow, switch hitting, S&B...
Why should this Fighter alternate class not being able to be a Musket sniper like the crossbowman, a rapier&pistol wielder, a duelist...
This is what fighters do. Become weapons expert (of more than a weapon a lot of times) and kill people.
The grit mechanic, reworked or not, could be used for stunts related to fire weapons, and even to other swashbuckling stuns.
So, wanna a gunslinger? check. Wanna pirate? check. Wanna musketeer? Check.
You know. Fighter.
Yeah I guess thats what I'm driving at, doesn't require a new class to implement. It would be better to introduce the weaponry and then fit archetypes around them if needed. Musketeer could possibly be quite a good archetype for cavalier, highwayman for rogue possibly, sniper/marine/pirate for fighter etc etc.
So much for the end of A Fistful of Dollars - Clint Eastwood would be dropped by a touch attack :)
Doesn't the touch AC thing make it awfully easy to confirm a critical hit? That would seem to me to be the most imbalanced thing about using touch attacks, especially if the hit modifier is x4.
Doesn't the touch AC thing make it awfully easy to confirm a critical hit? That would seem to me to be the most imbalanced thing about using touch attacks, especially if the hit modifier is x4.
I wish to point out that, 'til now, the gunslinger is SUB-par.
Havent had a chance to read the class properly due to work, had a brief skim over it last night. There has to be a better way of giving the weapons some oomph without a rule that just seems kind of bordering on illogical.
Perhaps upping the damage to something around 2d8 for a pistol, 2d10 for a musket/rifle/etc, full round action to reload - reduced to move with feat/special ability, keep the x4 crit. I would throw in a miss chance when firing further than close range with the pistols as well to reflect their primitive nature (although archetypes/classes could reduce or negate this with class abilities etc). Other things that could be cool gun-wise:-
-Blunderbusses that fire in say a 20ft cone/line and knock people prone on a failed save.
-Different kinds of shot - lead shot for hitting multiple enemies in a narrow cone/line etc.
-Bayonets/bladed weapons for versatility.
These ideas are probably awful as I'm not a professional game designer, but I just think guns as a basis for an entire class will not really work very well, perhaps as part of a class but not as its entire "thing". Anyway everyone has their own idea, it just seems no-one has had much positive to say about this class - it might warrant a bit of a rethink.
I will read the class through again tonight and make a more informed opinion, but these are just my initial thoughts.
So wouldn't using touch attack imply that you are sundering the armor? If you are going right through, you are punching holes in it.....just saying. How come a crossbow doesn't do the same thing?
So wouldn't using touch attack imply that you are sundering the armor? If you are going right through, you are punching holes in it.....just saying. How come a crossbow doesn't do the same thing?
Maybe if crossbows did ranged touch attacks at PB range people wouldn't think they are such horribad weapons ;)
So wouldn't using touch attack imply that you are sundering the armor? If you are going right through, you are punching holes in it.....just saying. How come a crossbow doesn't do the same thing?Maybe if crossbows did ranged touch attacks at PB range people wouldn't think they are such horribad weapons ;)
Heh maybe, thing is if we are arguing that the guns are punching through the armor then they should be sundering it. If they are not sundering it, then the armor should be providing some protection
Heh maybe, thing is if we are arguing that the guns are punching through the armor then they should be sundering it. If they are not sundering it, then the armor should be providing some protectionSo wouldn't using touch attack imply that you are sundering the armor? If you are going right through, you are punching holes in it.....just saying. How come a crossbow doesn't do the same thing?Maybe if crossbows did ranged touch attacks at PB range people wouldn't think they are such horribad weapons ;)
Guns did punch holes in armor at relatively short range like suggested range limits on Ranged Touch Attacks.
It's just that punching a quarter sized whole in a breastplate doesn't sunder it in game terms. Sundering in game terms means breaking or destroying the item. Having a whole in your breastplate doesn't mean that it can't turn away a mace strike.
If D&D had armor degradation rules you could say that the hole would reduce AC by a little because now someone could thrust a dagger point in the defect but D&D simply doesn't have that sort of granularity in terms of combat. If they ever make a fantasy Phoenix Command though...
Heh maybe, thing is if we are arguing that the guns are punching through the armor then they should be sundering it. If they are not sundering it, then the armor should be providing some protectionSo wouldn't using touch attack imply that you are sundering the armor? If you are going right through, you are punching holes in it.....just saying. How come a crossbow doesn't do the same thing?Maybe if crossbows did ranged touch attacks at PB range people wouldn't think they are such horribad weapons ;)Guns did punch holes in armor at relatively short range like suggested range limits on Ranged Touch Attacks.
It's just that punching a quarter sized whole in a breastplate doesn't sunder it in game terms. Sundering in game terms means breaking or destroying the item. Having a whole in your breastplate doesn't mean that it can't turn away a mace strike.
If D&D had armor degradation rules you could say that the hole would reduce AC by a little because now someone could thrust a dagger point in the defect but D&D simply doesn't have that sort of granularity in terms of combat. If they ever make a fantasy Phoenix Command though...
Guns did punch holes in armor at relatively short range like suggested range limits on Ranged Touch Attacks, and so did crossbows and arrows at close range.And remember not all armor is plate armor, arrows went through many types of armor rather easy and others less easily, If an opponent was wearing leather at 20' an arrow from an 80lb cross bow or longbow would go right in, Touch attack also means the shield ac is eliminated, and if you tell me primitive firearms punched through shields and armor into the person, I am going to have to cry BS but this is an abstracted system so why is this the only weapon to break the model and try to emulate armor penetration?
The hole from a steel ball, (remember these are not bullets) would be more like the size of a silver dollar, but maybe that's irrelevant, there are other guns than those shown planned, the campaign book has a scatter-gun, sort of a primitive shotgun, if that makes it in, then I now have many holes in my armor, is it now sundered? I think this mechanic has issues myself and is unnecessary, find another way to accomplish the same thing
You know what?
I'm actually thinking about keeping the touch attack at short range, AND adding that ability to Crossbows. They need the love, and the "faster reload" upgrades do not sit well with me.
Not that this has any bearing on the playtest...