(First, I lost my first version of this post due to my own stupidity while digging up a link I forgot, Though I partly blame Firefox for throwing a dropdown menu that I didnt want in my way. -_- So forgive me if this seems short as I was on a time limit when I started about 15 minutes ago. Please also forgive my spelling for much the same reason.)
So I seriously, extremely, Really, did not want to make this thread. Mostly because of how such ...discussions go, and I might not be able to reliably reply in any sort of timely fashion.
So first off, the 'Interesting Historical Facts':
An interesting find I made while doing research for my own firearm system, is that there were revolvers and breach-loaders back in the 1400-1500s. During the time that flintlocks were used. (Seriously, pretty much bolt-action flint locks. Huh. The things you learn.)
I have never seen such info on Wikipedia, at least when I looked into such things. But I was in Walmarts and found a documentary series called 'Amazing War Machines'. It has two episodes that I was interested in. Early firearms and handguns ('Flint and Steel) and rifles ('Rifles and machineguns').
http://www.walmart.com/ip/13917837
I was also surprised at the lack of firearms in the playtest of a class that is built around using them. (imo; Thats like saying 'Playtest a Wizard, but you can only use spells up to second level.')
So on that note, here are some links from around the net that offer firearms (all open and legal for posting):
Iron Kingdoms:
http://www.whitedragon.dk/Download/Iron_Kingdoms/privateer_firearms.pdf
(It seems the original link from the Privateers Press site is gone. So I found the pdf hosted elsewhere instead.)
Ptolus:
http://www.ptolus.com/images/Technology.pdf
And lastly firearms from Pathfinder:
http://www.archivesofnethys.com/gearWeapons.htm
(You have to scroll down a little for that one.)
And now, my time is up by 20 minutes so I must go. I hope the information here is useful to some people in the playtest and that the Devs might consider the new (to me anyways) information on flintlocks in the documentary for their firearm weapons.
|
I think the OP meant lack of firearms in general. It only provides two.
Firewrath, it's probably a good guess that the reason they only put the pistol and musket into the playtest is because those are the only options for a first level gunslinger and this is, after all, just the playtest.
When the book comes out it'll probably have the rest of the guns statted out in the new equipment section.
The point of limiting the weapon selection is to remove that as a variable. If everything else is constant, then the one variable (the class) is easier to evaluate.
But the class is made up of several changing variables and the constant in this case would also have several variables in the form of weapon enchantments that could be applied to it.
It is akin to play testing the wizard while only having access to burning hands.
It would be impossible to balance a class based on that information.
The point of limiting the weapon selection is to remove that as a variable. If everything else is constant, then the one variable (the class) is easier to evaluate.
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner! There are already more firearms in the Inner Sea Guide, and there will be even more in UC. But thank you, Firewrath, for those awesome links. I'm sure they will be helpful in the further development of the firearms section of UC.
The point of limiting the weapon selection is to remove that as a variable. If everything else is constant, then the one variable (the class) is easier to evaluate.But the class is made up of several changing variables and the constant in this case would also have several variables in the form of weapon enchantments that could be applied to it.
It is akin to play testing the wizard while only having access to burning hands.
It would be impossible to balance a class based on that information.
Actually it is more like giving the character two schools of magic, which I could totally see doing—especially if those schools were evocation and abjuration.
Don't worry; you'll get to see more firearms in the future. Right now we are really interested in how the class interacts with these two types of firearms.
The point of limiting the weapon selection is to remove that as a variable. If everything else is constant, then the one variable (the class) is easier to evaluate.
I can see your point but just like determining ballistic arc in high school physics where you assume one variable (air resistance) is constant or negligable produces wrong results compared to actual implimentations, the same applies here.
Sorry Stephen to step on your baby but you are not getting anything close to accurate results by trying to hedge the equations. Bring in all the available guns and even prohibit them by level for the playtest these are 1-4 options these are 5-8 options thse are 9-12 these are 12+ so that folks can playtest with something close to the real opportunites they will have in game.
to do less hurts this classes actual play at publishing.
The point of limiting the weapon selection is to remove that as a variable. If everything else is constant, then the one variable (the class) is easier to evaluate.Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner! There are already more firearms in the Inner Sea Guide, and there will be even more in UC. But thank you, Firewrath, for those awesome links. I'm sure they will be helpful in the further development of the firearms section of UC.
heres the problem. without a revolver type weapon to go off of you cant see how effective the class will be at mid range. the weapons they get in the playtest are very nice to use at lower levels, but the fact that the gunslinger cant upgrade his weapons at around 5th or 6th level is the problem. meaning that looking at the midlevel effectiveness of the class is severely nerfed. and one of the biggest problems with this class right now without this information is they dont become good until 11th level.
for a playtest to be viable in my opinion is to not limit what gear they can use. because then you are a gear dependent class already. the reason for the playtest is to judge the abilities of the class and how well they mesh with the rest of the game. with revolvers, the class' playtest is fine. the class is actually very good. without them......not so much.
The point of limiting the weapon selection is to remove that as a variable. If everything else is constant, then the one variable (the class) is easier to evaluate.But the class is made up of several changing variables and the constant in this case would also have several variables in the form of weapon enchantments that could be applied to it.
It is akin to play testing the wizard while only having access to burning hands.
It would be impossible to balance a class based on that information.
Actually it is more like giving the character two schools of magic, which I could totally see doing—especially if those schools were evocation and abjuration.
Don't worry; you'll get to see more firearms in the future. Right now we are really interested in how the class interacts with these two types of firearms.
Okay I can see what you are getting at there.
Side question since you're looking here. Any chance that materials and enchantments will affect the base misfire chance? ie adamantine negating the misfire creating a broken condition?
So first off, the 'Interesting Historical Facts':
An interesting find I made while doing research for my own firearm system, is that there were revolvers and breach-loaders back in the 1400-1500s. During the time that flintlocks were used. (Seriously, pretty much bolt-action flint locks. Huh. The things you learn.)
I have never seen such info on Wikipedia, at least when I looked into such things. But I was in Walmarts and found a documentary series called 'Amazing War Machines'. It has two episodes that I was interested in. Early firearms and handguns ('Flint and Steel) and rifles ('Rifles and machineguns').
http://www.walmart.com/ip/13917837..
The earliest known English breech-loading rifle was made by Willmore, who was apprenticed to Foad in 1689.
please don't quote a walmart source with any kind of insinuation that it might be accurate.
Other gaming information also wouldnt be historically accuate.
The use of pistols for duelling purposes became general as the practice of carrying the rapier or small sword died out between 1750-1765, these are the types of pistols our 'gun slinger' is using.
Duelling pistols became officially standardized weapons -then it was laid down that they should be 9 or 10 inch barreled, smooth bore flintlocks of 1 inch bore, carrying a ball of forty- eight to the pound
in 1777
Single trigger pistols, with side by side, and also under and over barrels, were made by Egg about in 1789.
so there is a 100 year spread of gun history in our world.
With magic and 'real' working alchemy (our worlds alchemy was mostly a farse, with gun powder being an exception) I would assume guns and gun powder could exist much earlier and in tandem with swords and sorcery.
The revolving principle is as old as firearms, but manufacturing methods permitting sufficient accuracy of workmanship and precision of boring for a really safe cylindered or chambered weapon date from 1810-1820.
The first serious military breech loader was an American invention, Colonel John H. Hall's patent of 1811
Note: This was made first as a flintlock, then as percussion, and is the first breech loader officially adopted by any army. The flintlocks were made till 1832, the percussion model from 1831
The true flintlock revolver is the very rare weapon made by Collier about 1820
Colt claims the ratchet motion, locking the cylinder and centre fire position of the nipples as particular points of his specification in 1835.
Colt did not know that the revolving principle was an age-old European idea until he visited England in 1835.
so what we can see here is, yes someone thought of the revolving concept earlier, but it wasnt put into use because it wasnt safe, reliable or accuarate until years and years later, no was the metallurgy available until then.
Now with galorians mithral and adamantite, metallurgy shouldnt be an issue.
the question is tho, for flavor? Do we want cowboys and sorcerors in pathfinder?
I think other games that hand gone sword/sorcery/gun have prooved single and/or double barreled pistols is where sorcery meets gun fire.
Revolvers would just ruin the theme.
|
I do not want revolvers. I'll let them stay in Alkenstar, where the method of their manufacture is apparently a state secret, but as of "modern day" in the setting I don't want guns everywhere.
Ball, shot and powder I think I'll be alright with, but a lot of the Inner Sea already makes me think of the 30 years war or early 1700's.
|
Single trigger pistols, with side by side, and also under and over barrels, were made by Egg about in 1789.
Actually, pistols were first produced in the 1540s in Pistoia, Italy. I think the name of the city and the name of the weapon can say something.
P.S. Fun fact that the first pistols were produced only 100 years after Full Plate Armor began to be used in the form we see in the fantasy setting. It's really not that much of a stretch to put pistols in a "medieval" (It's really a mishmash of renaissance, medieval, etc. to be honest) setting.
Single trigger pistols, with side by side, and also under and over barrels, were made by Egg about in 1789.Actually, pistols were first produced in the 1540s in Pistoia, Italy. I think the name of the city and the name of the weapon can say something.
P.S. Fun fact that the first pistols were produced only 100 years after Full Plate Armor began to be used in the form we see in the fantasy setting. It's really not that much of a stretch to put pistols in a "medieval" (It's really a mishmash of renaissance, medieval, etc. to be honest) setting.
so you want to quote a fact, with 'actually' followed by a hearsay opinion.
What i said was Single trigger pistols, that fired multiple barrels were made in 1789.
"pistol" is a generic term and in those days the "hand gun" had a hammer that held a 'wick' that lit a primer charge of powder (the lever, not trigger, was pulled to drop the wick into the pan to light it). a kin to early cannon that had to be "lit" as well.
So don't say 'actually' when your talking about something different entirely, and vaguely talking about the origin of the word "pistol". I don't think anyone is this game wants to lit a wick to fire their pistols. That is not the 'pistol' we are talking about.
what you quoted from me is a historical fact. Single triggers to fire multiple barrels were made first in 1789. there is no "actually" to that.
before that, there were still multiple barrels, they just needed individual triggers.
I used to have an old double barrel 10 gauge shot gun that had two triggers one for the left hammer and one for the right hammer.
these days alot of modern double barrels might even have a switch to set which barrel the trigger is going to fire.
Even today a trigger that fires one barrel and then the other, without any other interrupting mechanism is still difficult and expensive to make. as it will fire the top one, then the bottom, one the breach is open, it resets.
Pretty complicated device seeing as no electronics are involved and the parts are very small and work over and over again.
Interesting to note, Egg was a clock maker by trade.
|
|
Wow, I don't think you need to be so antagonistic. I may not be a subject matter expert, however the reason I quoted the line I did was because it was the closest to pistol. Your history, as far as I know, is exceedingly accurate however only begins around 1689. My point is to show that they existed before that point, and quite possibly could've existed much earlier had the dark ages not been so dark.
I think it would behoove many people to be a little nicer on the playtest forums. I'm seeing entirely way too much antagonism in the past few days.
So first off, the 'Interesting Historical Facts':
An interesting find I made while doing research for my own firearm system, is that there were revolvers and breach-loaders back in the 1400-1500s. During the time that flintlocks were used. (Seriously, pretty much bolt-action flint locks. Huh. The things you learn.)
I have never seen such info on Wikipedia, at least when I looked into such things. But I was in Walmarts and found a documentary series called 'Amazing War Machines'. It has two episodes that I was interested in. Early firearms and handguns ('Flint and Steel) and rifles ('Rifles and machineguns').
http://www.walmart.com/ip/13917837..
The earliest known English breech-loading rifle was made by Willmore, who was apprenticed to Foad in 1689.
please don't quote a walmart source with any kind of insinuation that it might be accurate.
Other gaming information also wouldnt be historically accuate.
The use of pistols for duelling purposes became general as the practice of carrying the rapier or small sword died out between 1750-1765, these are the types of pistols our 'gun slinger' is using.
Duelling pistols became officially standardized weapons -then it was laid down that they should be 9 or 10 inch barreled, smooth bore flintlocks of 1 inch bore, carrying a ball of forty- eight to the pound
in 1777Single trigger pistols, with side by side, and also under and over barrels, were made by Egg about in 1789.
so there is a 100 year spread of gun history in our world.
With magic and 'real' working alchemy (our worlds alchemy was mostly a farse, with gun powder being an exception) I would assume guns and gun powder could exist much earlier and in tandem with swords and sorcery.
The revolving principle is as old as firearms, but manufacturing methods permitting sufficient accuracy of workmanship and precision of boring for a really safe cylindered or chambered weapon date from 1810-1820.
The...
so let me ask you this. youre ok with having a full martial class that cant use his full base attack bonus until 11th and thats if you follow the structured set of feats you need to do such a thing? would you also be ok with the fighter not being able to do the same with a sword?
you know, the forums have always been complaining about how melee isnt balanced compared to spellcasters (which i dont believe) but then they dont complain about not being able to use your attacks with your signature weapon until 11. this is ignorance people.
|
|
so let me ask you this. youre ok with having a full martial class that cant use his full base attack bonus until 11th and thats if you follow the structured set of feats you need to do such a thing? would you also be ok with the fighter not being able to do the same with a sword?
you know, the forums have always been complaining about how melee isnt balanced compared to spellcasters (which i dont believe) but then they dont complain about not being able to use your attacks with your signature weapon until 11. this is ignorance people.
Yeah, that's a serious problem. It's keeping me from wanting to bother playtesting.
I actually have little desire to play with any of these classes. Too niche. I hope there is cool stuff for the other classes in this book or I'm skipping it.
Historical facts eh? In my opinion that shouldn't have much relevance in a fantasy rpg.
so let me ask you this. youre ok with having a full martial class that cant use his full base attack bonus until 11th and thats if you follow the structured set of feats you need to do such a thing? would you also be ok with the fighter not being able to do the same with a sword?
you know, the forums have always been complaining about how melee isnt balanced compared to spellcasters (which i dont believe) but then they dont complain about not being able to use your attacks with your signature weapon until 11. this is ignorance people.Yeah, that's a serious problem. It's keeping me from wanting to bother playtesting.
I actually have little desire to play with any of these classes. Too niche. I hope there is cool stuff for the other classes in this book or I'm skipping it.
No i think my argument would be for double barreled pistols, pistol and ammo being cheaper (maybe a double barrel one costs 1,000 gold, with the tricky trigger) and the character being able to carry more pistols.
Ive also mentioned having more weapons and have a hireling follow you around to reload for you, and the fact that you could hang a bunch of pistols off sashes that hung from your neck.
Even with revolvers at some point you will have to stop and reload.
I think a better mechanic (like rangers have) for two gun fighting gunslinger.
But all of this boils down to weapon.
I seriously doubt they will come out with revolvers, but to be able to run about with say 6 pistols, they need to be cheaper.
I also think there should be the option to fire both barrels of a double barrel gun at one target (and one target only) for double the damage per attack (but running your attacks out faster)
I also think there should be a class ability allowing deadly aim to work with gun fire (being a ranged touch attack) as well as vital strike to burn up those iterative attacks.
double barreled pistols and cheaper pistols are going to be the way to go.(so one can carry multiples)
obviously however, there is going to be a point the gun slinger doesnt act for a round or two, or resorts to melee combat, but this will happen with anyone using any kind of gun in any situation.
'actually; is another way of saying "you're wrong"
it refers to a term that is "in all actuality" meaning that the reverse or opposing statement is not based on truth.
So to say someone is adversarial, or antagonistic, you must first look at your own post.
it is said Leonard Davinci "invented the tank", it was more a drawing with some notes than anything not an invention, which really occurred in 1913.
The 1540 'pistol' was as much a functioning and useable concept as Leonardo Davinci's tank (or his parachute for that matter)
So to say that pistols were around or in use in 1540 is false.
they were merely being toyed with on a conceptual basis, and as ive said, they were lit with a wick, and that pistol is not related the the guns we are talking about.
Thomas Edison invented the "fax" machine, but had no idea how to use it or what it would do, so it never got past his set of notes and maybe a pair of 'toys' to proove the concept worked.
Faxes didnt come into use until the late 1970s and became 'common place' in the 1990s.
Your 1540 'pistol' is in that category as well, so to speak, it's irrelevant and not 'actually' anything.
actually is an antagonistic trigger word, there is no way to use in in any sentence that doesn't mean that something else you are pointing to is wrong.
Historical facts eh? In my opinion that shouldn't have much relevance in a fantasy rpg.
well it is the topic of the thread and is the basis for any knowledge that man has at all, besides the awareness he has hands, feet, a tongue and a wee wee.
anything else is based on something that was learned before, and as such is history.
it's nearly impossible to discuss anything that isnt based on something you have, seen, heard, or learned previous, so in fact it's all history.
some people are trying to state revolvers and hand guns existed before they did, as some sort of loose argument to why gunslingers should have multishot pistols.
(or at least I think thats where they are going with it)
I really really doubt pathfinder is going to go with revolvers (especially since single shots are blowing up!)
So in that sense, yea, its a moot point.
|
|
I'm sorry you misunderstood my tone, which wasn't meant to be antagonistic. There are other definitions and I suppose I may use the word too much in speech.
That being said, the only purpose of my original post was to point out for those that did not know that a concept/design/manufacturing of some form of pistol existed in the mid 1500s. Obviously you disagree with this statement, but others may find use in it.
even if you have multibarreled guns, your still gonna run out and need more guns. and the more guns you have, the more encumbered and the more money you have to spend.
I'm sorry you misunderstood my tone, which wasn't meant to be antagonistic. There are other definitions and I suppose I may use the word too much in speech.
That being said, the only purpose of my original post was to point out for those that did not know that a concept/design/manufacturing of some form of pistol existed in the mid 1500s. Obviously you disagree with this statement, but others may find use in it.
i believe i mentioned in my original post that the concept of guns existed earlier but weren't viable in use (see after colt entry)
even if you have multibarreled guns, your still gonna run out and need more guns. and the more guns you have, the more encumbered and the more money you have to spend.
everyone runs out of ammo. even archers. most people dont play by making the archer keep track of arrows (which makes the archer kind of unbalanced against melee counterparts.) but keep track of how far 20 arrows goes, not far.
The issue of how pricey the gun is, is another issue.
Pistoleers in history did have many pistols.
Carry a bunch of long guns however, for those who want to use a rifle, is way harder than carrying a bunch of pistols.
(i can see an efficient quiver with long guns in it now!)
guns run out of ammo.. period.
even with six shooters (which were really 5 shooters because most experienced gun fighters carried them hammer down on a empty chamber for safety)
one in each hand, for a 6th level gunslinger would get you four shots a round (5 I supposed with rapid shot) so you would be out of ammo in 2 and a half rounds (or just 2 depending on how loaded)
Now pack 12 new cylinders with shot, patch and ball.... how long does that take? 3 rounds would be 18 seconds... your out of the fight for three rounds!
(minimum, i think it would take longer)
the gunslinger it would seem is clearly constructed to fight as pirates did...that is to day, open combat with bursts of gun fire and then close for melee (there would be no other reason to make this a fighter and give it all martial weapons)
Like it or not, the gunslinger is going to use a melee weapon....alot.
the gunslinger it would seem is clearly constructed to fight as pirates did...that is to day, open combat with bursts of gun fire and then close for melee (there would be no other reason to make this a fighter and give it all martial weapons)
Like it or not, the gunslinger is going to use a melee weapon....alot.
It's really, really not. It has no bonuses or any reason at all to get into melee.
Oh, certainly I agree the gunslinger will melee a lot, but that's not due to intentional design, and very much due to the class being rubbish.
the gunslinger it would seem is clearly constructed to fight as pirates did...that is to day, open combat with bursts of gun fire and then close for melee (there would be no other reason to make this a fighter and give it all martial weapons)
Like it or not, the gunslinger is going to use a melee weapon....alot.
It's really, really not. It has no bonuses or any reason at all to get into melee.
Oh, certainly I agree the gunslinger will melee a lot, but that's not due to intentional design, and very much due to the class being rubbish.
hmm maybe i misspoke myself, thats how its designed right now!
I dont like the idea of it having all weapon prof. either. It stinks.
too many classes get them all for free already, and the gunslinger shouldnt have use for xbows, bows, blow guns etc.
they should have a weapon list similar to the rogue, because they should have some melee ability.
Bayonet comes to mind.
As would rapier, dagger, etc.
Can't really see gunslinger dropping the two smokey pistols and reaching for his greatsword.
Plus when a character class has limited weapons it makes the weapon bonuses from certain races or traits useful. stop giving away unneeded, unwarranted weapon proficiencies for free.
I can think of a ton of ways to make the class better, but he best one still starts with the alchemist as the base class to alternate from, not the fighter.
The point of limiting the weapon selection is to remove that as a variable. If everything else is constant, then the one variable (the class) is easier to evaluate.Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner! There are already more firearms in the Inner Sea Guide, and there will be even more in UC. But thank you, Firewrath, for those awesome links. I'm sure they will be helpful in the further development of the firearms section of UC.
Thanks This will hopefully stop all the posts about we need more guns
Maybe you should put this in its own thread by you or jason so people can get back to the playtest
The point of limiting the weapon selection is to remove that as a variable. If everything else is constant, then the one variable (the class) is easier to evaluate.I can see your point but just like determining ballistic arc in high school physics where you assume one variable (air resistance) is constant or negligable produces wrong results compared to actual implimentations, the same applies here.
Sorry Stephen to step on your baby but you are not getting anything close to accurate results by trying to hedge the equations. Bring in all the available guns and even prohibit them by level for the playtest these are 1-4 options these are 5-8 options thse are 9-12 these are 12+ so that folks can playtest with something close to the real opportunites they will have in game.
to do less hurts this classes actual play at publishing.
To repeat myself: that is a bad model to determine the capacities of this class.
i believe that the single shot guns that are presented in the playtest should do more damage and then with the release of others such as the revolver should do a bit less. makes having the single shot guns worth while at upper levels rather than inert.
Well, I'm not going to reply to a few post in this thread because I don't see the point of arguing of things that don't really matter as far as the purpose of my post.
Which was mainly this:
To me it seems too many people think the Only guns that should be available are the muzzle loading pistol and rifle. While from what I have read and seen there were actually a lot more choices at the time. Now I'm not a historical expert or even that much of a gun buff to know what was available Exactly when&where, but I don't think it matters.
To me the playtest firearms don't deal enough damage and have a slow reload for the System. Granted I personally feel their reload is too fast for the gun Types, (heck, I'd have it a full round action to reload 'old west' revolvers and repeating rifles.) but comparing their damage and reload time to the rest of the Pathfinder weapons, they don't have much of an appeal. Then basing a class on (what I consider) sub-par weapons and asking us to playtest it, Really skews the playtest in general. The class comes off as 'weak' and not very effective. So if they then 'fix' the gunslinger to be an acceptable class with these weapons, later on when they introduce other firearms that are either more powerful or hold more then one shot, the class will then come off as over powered. Hence my reason for mentioning the documentary to show the variety of firearms available and introducing other firearm sources.
Sidenote:
Yes. I know the Devs have said there will be more guns and I can't wait to see such information revealed. Personally I hope they decide to do so as a continuation of the playtest, but I'll be happy with seeing how they work them into the system in general.
even if you have multibarreled guns, your still gonna run out and need more guns. and the more guns you have, the more encumbered and the more money you have to spend.everyone runs out of ammo. even archers. most people dont play by making the archer keep track of arrows (which makes the archer kind of unbalanced against melee counterparts.) but keep track of how far 20 arrows goes, not far.
but the archer doesnt have to drop his bow and take out a new one everytime he wants to shoot, and he doesnt have to pay the exuberant amount for another +3 comp longbow either.
Just as a point, but with the talk about revolvers...
There's no actual need for the things to have six shots, is there? I do believe all down through the history of guns there have been many variations on the bore of the pistol and the number of rounds a cylinder holds.
One that comes to mind is an American Civil War pistol that had something like this one LINK
Now, I'm not advocating nine shots, but a sliding scale of cost rating per number of rounds in a cylinder. So a Gunslinger could start with a single shot, then move up to a pistol that has three shots in its cylinder, then upwards again etc.
Again, I do understand that the actual 'gun rules' are something else/work in progress but given that the whole name of the class is "Gunslinger" the gun is kind of a central theme of the character.
*Bows*
Aha! yea the Lemat!
It was quite cool, but there is a distinct reason it didnt get very popular. Weight, reliability and cost to manufacture!If a single shot gun is 1000 gold, imagine what that would cost??
its still a powder and ball pistol too, so no matter how many chambers you stack on something it is going to take all that longer to reload.
Multiple cylinders just prolongs the inevitable, taking the gunslinger out of the fight to reload or force him to use other weapons.