well like i said above, ive already covered the issue with the brace of pistols. If your blazing down commoners and goblins yea, ok.
But it a decent fight where something has hit points there just sint a sustainable rate of fire with weapons that have a capacity of 1
|
Unless, of course, because of his encumberance effecting his ac and saves he died even earlier. And as you may not have funds to get all of the +1 pistols wihtout redoing your gear you would be loosing damage per (every other) shot.Inaccurate data is inaccurate data even if it only produces one more round of combat than accurate data.
Wow, you guys arguing about encumbrance are REALLY missing the point of all this. First, there is NO official ruling on the weight of bullets, so Yueng's estimation of weight is JUST as valid as yours. Second, and MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, is how the class is faring in battle. If you are gonna tell him he is wrong because YOU decided bullets weigh different than Yueng does, fine, lets pretend he goes into each round of the area with 15 bullets. That should fix the weight issue and make these test valid. I swear. AS Yueng said, forest through the trees people! This data is not inaccurate.
Wow, you guys arguing about encumbrance are REALLY missing the point of all this. First, there is NO official ruling on the weight of bullets, so Yueng's estimation of weight is JUST as valid as yours. Second, and MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, is how the class is faring in battle. If you are gonna tell him he is wrong because YOU decided bullets weigh different than Yueng does, fine, lets pretend he goes into each round of the area with 15 bullets. That should fix the weight issue and make these test valid. I swear. AS Yueng said, forest through the trees people! This data is not inaccurate.
Unless, of course, because of his encumberance effecting his ac and saves he died even earlier. And as you may not have funds to get all of the +1 pistols wihtout redoing your gear you would be loosing damage per (every other) shot.Inaccurate data is inaccurate data even if it only produces one more round of combat than accurate data.
If you don't understand how ignoring rules that effect AC and saves; or the concept that overgearing because you didn't think purchasing something correctly was important could throw off results then I don't know how else to explain it to you.
/sees the forest including the root people are tripping over
I hope this does not become another exception based class ala the summoner.
|
Human Ranger 6 "Betta"
Str 14
Dex 22 (17+2 racial+1 level+2 belt)
Con 12
Int 9
Wis 14
Cha 7
Feats
1 Point Blank Shot
1b Weapon Focus (Longbow)
2b Rapid Shot
3 Precise Shot
5 Deadly Aim
6b Manyshot
Gear (16,000)
+1 Mithral Chain Shirt (2100)
+1 Corrosive Composite(2) Longbow (8600)
Belt of Dex +2 (4000)
Cloak of Resistance +1 (1000)
AC 21
CMB +8
CMD 24
Fort 7
Ref 12
Will 5
HP 52
+14/+9 d8+3+d6 acid
+15/+10 d8+4+d6 acid (Pointblank)
+13/+13/+8 d8+4+d6 acid (Pointblank+Rapid Shot)
+13/+8 d8+8+d6 acid (Pointblank+Deadly Aim)
+11/+11/+6 D8+8+d6 acid (Pointblank+Deadly Aim+Rapid Shot)
---
OK, so I thought I'd just make a Ranger for comparison. I felt comfortable dumping Int a bit because the Ranger gets so many more skills and won't be using craft so much. This is what you can do when you have enough feats to pump your damage some. I used the same dice rolls for the Elemental as I did for the Gunslinger's test.
---
CR5 - Lightning Elemental
Lightning Elemental wins initiative. Moves forward 30’ and attacks (14) for a hit. Deals 6 damage (46 remain).
Betta full attacks with Deadly Aim. AoO hits (14) and deals 7 damage (39 remains). Betta hits once (4,8,3) for 7 damage (53 remains).
The Lightning Elemental full attacks (4,4) missing twice.
Betta full attacks with Deadly Aim. AoO is another 4 missing. Two hits (including the first one for extra Manyshot arrow) (19,12,5) for 37 damage after DR (16 remains).
Lightning Elemental full attacks again (12,17) dealing 9 and 14 damage (16 remains).
Betta full attacks without Deadly Aim this time. AoO hits for 9 more damage (7 remains). Two hits (2,13,10) for 11 and 5 damage! This puts the elemental at 0! Close enough for me!
---
So this is how a ranged character ought to work. I put an archer in the same position the gunslinger was in and the archer did much better with arrows which are substantially cheaper and lighter than the bloody bullets.
Plus, the Ranger will have access to spells, more skills, and more class skills. Not to mention I didn't even use the bloody animal companion for this fight because I was too lazy.
The Gunslinger needs to be fixed badly. It probably should be based off the Ranger. The Ranger has abilities I associate with a cowboy like tracking and hunting. The gunslinger has abilities I associate with Monks, like sucking.
|
|
If you don't understand how ignoring rules that effect AC and saves; or the concept that overgearing because you didn't think purchasing something correctly was important could throw off results then I don't know how else to explain it to you.
/sees the forest including the root people are tripping over
Christ on a cracker, what the hell is your issue?
If you use my estimate for bullet weight which is based on actual bullet weights, Roland is not encumbered. If you just assume that he gets 15 bullets per round in the Arena as Kabump said, Roland is not encumbered.
NOT ENCUMBERED
If you have further issues with encumbrance please make a thread about it. You're needlessly sidetracking this one and I've ceased to be able to find value in that line of questioning.
forget ranger the idea of basing him off the alchemist but with engineering seems so much more flavorful.
But yes I concur with those comparison of results
@Yuengling, I find your comparison interesting,
because I previously wondered why Ranger wasn´t used as the basis...
It has 2 good saves (which Gunslinger ALMOST has by deign of 1 good save + bonus to other), and it has 4 level casting... which seems a good basis to swap out for a non-vancian grit mechanic.
i could see the animal companion be compared to some lesser-bomb/demolitionist ability, as i´ve suggested elsewhere. since they´re expected to be proficient in alchemy/engineering, better skill points (not necessarily equal to ranger) also seems reasonable. i think gunslingers really only need light armor, but that area is in any case as close to ranger as fighter.
That doesn´t really necessitate starting the class over from scratch, just measuring it from a different vantage point. I think it would help the design process.
|
|
If you don't understand how ignoring rules that effect AC and saves; or the concept that overgearing because you didn't think purchasing something correctly was important could throw off results then I don't know how else to explain it to you./sees the forest including the root people are tripping over
Until you show me, in text in the play-test document, where it states bullets weigh a half pound each, YOU ARE JUST USING YOUR BEST GUESS. Yueng's assumption is EQUALLY AS VALID as yours.
I understand where you are coming from, being overburdened effects your abilities. IF bullets weight as much as you claim then yes it will be an issue, but you are obviously and completely missing the point here. This playtest is testing combat capabilities in a vacuum. We can handwave encumbrance to get data we need, and the data is 100% valid. Yueng in this case is assuming certain variables to be static in order to test specific applications, in this case assuming to be light encumbrance. Obviously you have never done any sort of scientific testing before; the whole idea is to LIMIT the amount of variables to see how specific aspects effect results.
And you obviously ignored the part where I say, if you MUST insist on your 100% made up weight for bullets as an example, the part where I say to think of the gunslinger going in with only 15 bullets, 7.5 pounds. This COMPLETELY invalidates your concerns about being in medium encumbrance, and there fore NONE of the issues you are worried about even come into play. Again, as we are testing in a vacuum, this is 100% valid and the data is 100% useable.
I really want to open up a huge thread-jack about Rolands lack of Charisma and how that surely would have affected his chances to woo his opponents in the arena. Because that'd be totally relevant to the final outcome of Yuenglings playtest. :p
The Gunslinger needs to be fixed badly. It probably should be based off the Ranger. The Ranger has abilities I associate with a cowboy like tracking and hunting. The gunslinger has abilities I associate with Monks, like sucking.
I snorted on my frappuccino reading this.
I can't vouch for the Monk sucking, but I do agree about it based on the Ranger to an extent, though many of the class' abilities would be completely different from the original. It would be another case of the Ninja and Rogue - the Samurai is really the only realistically portrayed alternate class.
Gunslinger would probably just be different as an entire class on its own. Then the devs won't have to worry about leaving its abilities even vaguely similar to those of the Fighter (Brave and Tough, Gun Training, etc.)
|
|
I really want to open up a huge thread-jack about Rolands lack of Charisma and how that surely would have affected his chances to woo his opponents in the arena. Because that'd be totally relevant to the final outcome of Yuenglings playtest. :p
Ha! Heroic.
I snorted on my frappuccino reading this.
I'm always happy when my nerd rage comes off funny instead of mean. Jason has said that they're releasing playtest docs earlier in the process now than in the APG. The first version of the Magus was atrocious too. This can be salvaged.
They genuinely screwed up the Monk, though.
I can't vouch for the Monk sucking, but I do agree about it based on the Ranger to an extent, though many of the class' abilities would be completely different from the original. It would be another case of the Ninja and Rogue - the Samurai is really the only realistically portrayed alternate class.
I have a thread for this over here. The human brain is pretty good at making associations (even where they don't exist) and I think I've made some decent ones between Gunslinger abilities and Ranger abilities.
It would seem that with the (current) mechanic of Gunslingers wanting to get Up Close & Personal with their targets, Point Blank Master would be an obvious choice. How would Roland fare against Sir Element then?
Edit for flavor: Since this feat is an extension of Weapon Spec, does that mean Roland would be performing a Gun Kata, Equilibrium style?
Let's hope not, the Gun Kata was stupid.
|
|
It would seem that with the (current) mechanic of Gunslingers wanting to get Up Close & Personal with their targets, Point Blank Master would be an obvious choice. How would Roland fare against Sir Element then?
Edit for flavor: Since this feat is an extension of Weapon Spec, does that mean Roland would be performing a Gun Kata, Equilibrium style?
Let's hope not, the Gun Kata was stupid.
Point Blank Master wouldn't help. He'll still provoke for reloading.
Wrong. Theres a post on one of the topics in the gunslinger playtest forum where a Dev has confirmed deadly aim won't with the firing at touch ac firearm rule.
At greater ranges, its still very good.
It just strikes me as so bizarre and counterintuitive that the gunslinger probably has a better chance to kill you in one pistol shot at 40 feet than he does at 20 feet, despite using a short-range weapon.
|
|
It just strikes me as so bizarre and counterintuitive that the gunslinger probably has a better chance to kill you in one pistol shot at 40 feet than he does at 20 feet, despite using a short-range weapon.
I don't think it was done purposefully for the class. The original language exists, I assume, to ensure that Wizards aren't using Deadly Aim to add damage to rays.
There may be some language added to allow the gunslinger to use Deadly Aim in another version of the playtest. Or maybe they'll drop the touch AC bit and make guns better in some other way. I like exploding dice, personally.
alchemist, ranger. I like them both for this class.
In fact maybe both?
Have an alchemy gunner and a ranger based gunslinger as separate classes and a prestige class to combine the two! oooooo now me likey!
back to the play test.
I cant really see a gun type being weighed down by bullets with a 10 str.
they weigh that flippin much!
Even if we are talking .75 calibre (700 grains of lead) that is only 1-3/4 ounces.
So at most we are talking a 2 ounce bullet.
(and they havent specified calibre so this is probably a gross over assumption)
16 oz to a pound = 8 shots to a pound, ten pounds would be 80 shots.
gun powder? maybe the same, so powder and shot would be 80 shots for 20 lbs of ammo.
Edit: I just looked up arrows.
20 arrows to 3 lbs.
for bullets it's 24 shots to three pounds ;unless you count powder too, however, like i said, there are no official calibres, so assuming the balance on arrows theme, assume powder and shot is roughly the same as arrows, so 24 shots to three pounds.
He's really no more encumbered than a 10 str archer would be (which you see alot of)
33lbs is alight load.
Assume an archer with dagger (which you hardly ever see), longbow, 40 arrows, and leather armor. thats 25 lbs, leaving 8 for misc adventuring gear...preeeeety tight.
two pistols is 8 lbs, 48 shots is 6 lbs, kukri 2 lbs. leather 15 lbs. thats 31! ooooo leaving 2 lbs for his leather duster and fedora! no wonder cowboys had horses!
|
|
Even if we are talking .75 calibre (700 grains of lead) that is only 1-3/4 ounces.So at most we are talking a 2 ounce bullet.
My own research shows flintlock pistols typically having a.50 cal ball or just under a half inch in diameter, I believe. It's been a long time since I bothered with geometry but if my calculations of the volume of a half inch sphere are correct then based on a weight of .4lbs per cubic inch we're talking about a bullet weighing less than half an ounce. Thus we're talking about 32 shots per pound.
I could be wrong in my calculations and I encourage someone better at math to check me.
How is he encumbered?!?!?! I've already told you that I think using weight figures for sling bullets is illogical and I've done something different. With a masterwork backpack or without it (since he honestly doesn't need "random adventuring gear") he has plenty of ammo!Unless, of course, because of his encumberance effecting his ac and saves he died even earlier. And as you may not have funds to get all of the +1 pistols wihtout redoing your gear you would be loosing damage per (every other) shot.
Inaccurate data is inaccurate data even if it only produces one more round of combat than accurate data.
Firearm bullets do not weigh the same as sling bullets, so don't worry overly much about the encumbrance.
I'm on the road, and I didn't bring the full draft of the new rules with me, but I will be posting the actual weight of bullets with an sticky update on all the classes in the next week.
If you can't wait, assume that 20 bullets with black powder weigh 1 lb. That may not be the exact weight, but it's close enough for our playtest purposes.
|
|
Firearm bullets do not weigh the same as sling bullets, so don't worry overly much about the encumbrance.
I'm on the road, and I didn't bring the full draft of the new rules with me, but I will be posting the actual weight of bullets with an sticky update on all the classes in the next week.
If you can't wait, assume that 20 bullets with black powder weigh 1 lb. That may not be the exact weight, but it's close enough for our playtest purposes.
Thanks for the update. That will help a lot with the confusion. Travel safely!
YD, yea your right, I was thinking rifled muskets (long guns) when thinking bullets (which were .75 to .84 cal)
20 bullets with powder to 1 lb sounds better.
we are probably looking at something like .41 cal for the standard bullet then.
So with a 20:1 ratio vs. the archers 20:3 ratio, a gunslinger can pack more ammo than an archer, pound for pound.
YD, yea your right, I was thinking rifled muskets (long guns) when thinking bullets (which were .75 to .84 cal)
20 bullets with powder to 1 lb sounds better.
we are probably looking at something like .41 cal for the standard bullet then.
So with a 20:1 ratio vs. the archers 20:3 ratio, a gunslinger can pack more ammo than an archer, pound for pound.
Consider, though, that the pistol weighs 4 lbs(and how many will be carried?), as opposed to a bow's 2 or 3.
And there's not much encouragement for gunslingers to put points in strength.
True, an archer could get bonus damage with the right bow, and the gunslinger would only get increased encumbrance value from strength, however the gunslinger will also have pistol whipping/buttstrokes and/or back up switch hitting melee weapons to use as well.
I can see the gunslinger getting into melee much more than the archer, because most archers try to stay out of melee and the gunslinger wants to close the distance because close range for his gun is often going to be better.
I hope this does not become another exception based class ala the summoner.
Oh god, I hope the same thing. The summoner is a pain.
I don't see why Paizo can't just introduce feats and and equipment to turn vanilla or even archetyped fighters into gun-using fighters, but I'll reserve judgment until the final product comes out. Not looking good at this point though.
Now, Pathfinder weights for weapons are always unreasonably high aproximations.
I think I remember seeing a dev somewhere mentioning that item weights account for the bulky nature of item. So, things with off-center-of-gravity and oddly shaped items will 'encumber' more. It's not the best system, but that does explain why a mundane item (masterwork backback) can decrease encumbrance for the character wearing it.
In a completely separate and less researched calculation, I determined that 40 (39.89) lead bullets each with a volume of 1cc (diameter will be close to .5 inches) equal 1 pound. That's pretty close to your calc. If we assume the powder cap weighs roughly the same, 20 bullets(with powder) = 1lb, which correlates with Stephen Radney-MacFarland's suggestion, above.
EDIT: And if we assume a powder cap weighs half as much as a bullet, it's 25(26.66...)