There's been a lot of talk around here about wanting swashbucklers or musketeers and whatnot, and since guns themselves are a part of this playtest, I thought I'd issue a new thread on them.
So, guns. Guns are cool! I mentioned that in my earlier thread. I know I'm not the only one to think guns own. However, there are disagreements on what the gunslinger should be. I think this is less an argument about gunslingers, however, and more an argument about guns.
I'd like to say that, overwhelmingly, it seems that people are all unhappy with the current state of guns in the playtest we have. I'm not going to be yelling about them sucking or bluh bluhing over disliking them. Instead, I'm using this to present a set of questions both to you, dear reader, and to the developers.
1) Are guns meant to be a weapon used by non-gunslingers? Currently, guns need gunslingers, or at least gunslinger abilities, to function well. If guns are meant to be sort of a "gunslinger only" thing then this technically is functioning as planned. However, this limits the number of archtypes you can make down to, well, 1 (the gunslinger)
2) Are guns intended to be a "main" weapon? Currently, the only "main" ranged weapon is the bow due to its ability to full attack. Crossbows and throwing weapons serve as a secondary weapon due to being a one shot deal and due to how everyone has proficiency in them. Guns have the negative trappings of both.
3) Are other archtypes intended to be useable? That isn't to say mechanical archtypes, but rather, do you see the ability to make swashbucklers or musketeers with gun rules? There was a feat in 3.5 that allowed a person to dual wield a hand crossbow and a melee weapon and to fire it without taking an AoO. Is it possible to see similar feats or abilities or etc to cover other styles of play?
4) What reason do characters have to spend a feat to gain guns? Guns have most in common with crossbows. With misfire rules in place, guns are an actively worse weapon then crossbows are, x4 notwithstanding, and most crossbows are simple weapons. Are they an exotic weapon for fluff reasons or because you feel they are actively strong enough to deserve it?
5) What are the reasons for the extreme costs? A gun costs more then a magical set of armor as it currently stands. Is that desirable? It seems to paint magic as being distinctly more common then even the weakest of guns. Likewise, bullets are literally lead that costs more then gold (bet those alchemists feel silly now).
Well I dislike quoting myself, but the Gunslinger topics seem to be pretty ...random.
As I've said before, the reason I'm more focused on guns then the class is:
...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.
Now as for your Questions. Well #4&5 I can't answer, but I'd have to say the answer to #1&2 are "Yes."
Guns Should be usable&useful for ALL classes and they should be the main weapon of the 'Gunslinger'.(If only by name alone, if they named changed then maybe not, But when people see a class called 'Gunslinger' they expect a focus on, well, guns. :P)
And as for #3. It seems like by 'arch-types' you mean feat chains or making a 'Gunslinger' in concept but without using the class. It's Probably possible but again I think it would come down to the firearms needing to be upgraded to be done effectively.
As for 'Gunslinger' arch-types in General, I have this to say:
I say this because things like 'Sub-class' archetypes Might get a little confusing to people and seems like rule stacking that we don't need.
IE: You have a Fighter class that's not a Fighter and can't use Fighter arch-types but has it's own 'Fighter' arch-types that the Fighter cant use. O_o;
It might not be that confusing to most of us that have played longer or have a good understanding of the rules, but to some one Just getting into Pathfinder (Specially someone going "Oh cool! A Gunslinger! I want to play that!") or the more casual player, it would seem to lead to a bit of confusion and unnecessary extra work to figure out what the class can and can't use or what it does and does Not qualify for.
To clarify, when I talk about archtypes, I don't mean side mechanical classes, I mean things like "a ranger with a gun" or "a fighter/rogue with sword and handgun to illustrate a swashbuckler/pirate."
I'll take a shot at this one (pun quite intended, thank you).
1) Are guns meant to be a weapon used by non-gunslingers? Currently, guns need gunslingers, or at least gunslinger abilities, to function well. If guns are meant to be sort of a "gunslinger only" thing then this technically is functioning as planned. However, this limits the number of archtypes you can make down to, well, 1 (the gunslinger)
I don't think they're "meant" to be used by non-gunslingers any more than bastard swords are "meant" to be used by, say, bards. That is, it's an option (with a feat pick-up) but non-gunslinger classes aren't built to use them as a main weapon without some work. I think it's working as planned, which will also limit the number of guns running around. Also, I should point out that the gunslinger isn't an archetype but an alternate class, similar to an anti-paladin. I haven't seen an archetype of an anti-paladin (yet), but there is a distinct difference between the two. (Not sure if you meant alternate or archetype in the above, so wished to clarify.)
2) Are guns intended to be a "main" weapon? Currently, the only "main" ranged weapon is the bow due to its ability to full attack. Crossbows and throwing weapons serve as a secondary weapon due to being a one shot deal and due to how everyone has proficiency in them. Guns have the negative trappings of both.
Ooo...see, the thing is, I think the gun *is* intended to be a main weapon, but not in the "traditional" sense of bows and longswords. I know I go against the grain, but "main weapon", to me, isn't about full-attacking. It's about the weapon you use and love--the one you put your feats towards--and each is going to be different. I don't think full-attacking with a gun should be as simple as doing so with a bow or sword. Maybe when revolvers come around, but I'd want to see a higher misfire chance with those. (I know, I'm weird for liking misfire.)
3) Are other archtypes intended to be useable? That isn't to say mechanical archtypes, but rather, do you see the ability to make swashbucklers or musketeers with gun rules? There was a feat in 3.5 that allowed a person to dual wield a hand crossbow and a melee weapon and to fire it without taking an AoO. Is it possible to see similar feats or abilities or etc to cover other styles of play?
I would be shocked if, when the book finally came out, there weren't feats and other cool things to go along with the new mechanic. As the class stands, I intend to make a rapier/gun-wielding fool the next chance I get (which admittedly won't be for another week).
4) What reason do characters have to spend a feat to gain guns? Guns have most in common with crossbows. With misfire rules in place, guns are an actively worse weapon...
I'd think the same reason characters have to spend a feat to use whips, or double-bladed-anythings: character concept. If you want the biggest, baddest ranged fighter out there, take up composite bows. If you want to pull out a pistol in a bar fight and (using a grit or two) shoot someone in the face for hitting on your half-orc wizard, go with a gunslinger.
Yes, it can be argued that the gunslinger isn't as good as x, y, or z class/archetypes. It could also be argued that bards suck, and I happen to love them. Does the gunslinger need work? Possibly (as I said, I haven't playtested it). Is that what the playtest is for? I believe so.
I'm curious to see the class in action. A player in my Runelords game may be bringing one in Monday, and I'm looking forward to seeing it from a GM-perspective.
I don't think they're "meant" to be used by non-gunslingers any more than bastard swords are "meant" to be used by, say, bards. That is, it's an option (with a feat pick-up) but non-gunslinger classes aren't built to use them as a main weapon without some work. I think it's working as planned, which will also limit the number of guns running around. Also, I should point out that the gunslinger isn't an archetype but an alternate class, similar to an anti-paladin. I haven't seen an archetype of an anti-paladin (yet), but there is a distinct difference between the two. (Not sure if you meant alternate or archetype in the above, so wished to clarify.)
I'm surprised you used "bard" as bards can grab a bastard sword and use them quite effectively, whereas no non-gunslingers can do the same for guns.
Also, as I mentioned above, I'm not using archtype to mean "mechanical alternate," I mean it to be "style and identity of narrative character."
Ooo...see, the thing is, I think the gun *is* intended to be a main weapon, but not in the "traditional" sense of bows and longswords. I know I go against the grain, but "main weapon", to me, isn't about full-attacking. It's about the weapon you use and love--the one you put your feats towards--and each is going to be different. I don't think full-attacking with a gun should be as simple as doing so with a bow or sword. Maybe when revolvers come around, but I'd want to see a higher misfire chance with those. (I know, I'm weird for liking misfire.)...
Here's the problem then: If you can't full attack with it, it's not a main weapon.
It can be a weapon that you use and love and put feats towards, but with such an abysmal amount of damage that you'll be dealing, it's not a main weapon. You can make a fighter that loves and adores slings, but at the end of the day, you can't make the sling a "main weapon" because it's so terrible.
I'd think the same reason characters have to spend a feat to use whips, or double-bladed-anythings: character concept. If you want the biggest, baddest ranged fighter out there, take up composite bows. If you want to pull out a pistol in a bar fight and (using a grit or two) shoot someone in the face for hitting on your half-orc wizard, go with a gunslinger.
See, it doesn't work out though. Do you know what happens when you pull out your pistol in a bar fight and shoot them in the face right now? They laugh at you, pull out their weapon, and cleave you in half. Character concept only works when the mechanics support them.
Yes, it can be argued that the gunslinger isn't as good as x, y, or z class/archetypes. It could also be argued that bards suck, and I happen to love them. Does the gunslinger need work? Possibly (as I said, I haven't playtested it). Is that what the playtest is for? I believe so.
Anyone who's told you the bard sucks is terrible at this game, truefacts.
|
1) Are guns meant to be a weapon used by non-gunslingers? Currently, guns need gunslingers, or at least gunslinger abilities, to function well. If guns are meant to be sort of a "gunslinger only" thing then this technically is functioning as planned. However, this limits the number of archtypes you can make down to, well, 1 (the gunslinger)
No, but I am not sure the current crop of guns are meant to be used by gunslingers, either. In PFS, only a gunslinger can get a gun, and the Amateur Gunslinger feat is not allowed, so only gunslingers can use guns. Outside of PFS, I strongly suspect that the Amateur Gunslinger feat is not worth as much as a more "traditional" feat for whatever feat tree your character is working down.
Possibly for a archer build, as an emergency back-up weapon. Or, maybe, just for the Leap for Cover grit deed...
2) Are guns intended to be a "main" weapon? Currently, the only "main" ranged weapon is the bow due to its ability to full attack. Crossbows and throwing weapons serve as a secondary weapon due to being a one shot deal and due to how everyone has proficiency in them. Guns have the negative trappings of both.
Crossbows, thanks to the addition to the feat chains available in the APG, can be a full-attack weapon.
However, IMO, guns as presented make for a soften-them-up weapon, use and drop, as your opponent(s) close on you, then switch to a more standard melee weapon when they come into melee.
3) Are other archtypes intended to be useable? That isn't to say mechanical archtypes, but rather, do you see the ability to make swashbucklers or musketeers with gun rules? There was a feat in 3.5 that allowed a person to dual wield a hand crossbow and a melee weapon and to fire it without taking an AoO. Is it possible to see similar feats or abilities or etc to cover other styles of play?
It is possible, but not really very feasible with the Gunslinger being a Fighter variant, but not getting anywhere near the number of feats that a "real" Fighter would get. Now, with a similar design, I could see it as possible for a Ranger variant Gunslinger, but it would probably require the currently illegal multi-classing into Fighter to pull it off.
4) What reason do characters have to spend a feat to gain guns? Guns have most in common with crossbows. With misfire rules in place, guns are an actively worse weapon then crossbows are, x4 notwithstanding, and most crossbows are simple weapons. Are they an exotic weapon for fluff reasons or because you feel they are actively strong enough to deserve it?
Mainly for the cinematic effect, IMO, at this time. "I pull out my gun as he moves close, shoot him in the face, then drop my gun and pull out my rapier/cutlass."
5) What are the reasons for the extreme costs? A gun costs more then a magical set of armor as it currently stands. Is that desirable? It seems to paint magic as being distinctly more common then even the weakest of guns. Likewise, bullets are literally lead that costs more then gold (bet those alchemists feel silly now).
Imported materials/knowledge for the guns and black powder, not sure quite why the bullets cost so much, unless they include extremely anachronistic (and unneeded) machining to extremely high tolerances. In which case the misfire chance is set too high, and should drop to needing a confirming miss on a critical miss to have a misfire, if the bullets are built to that high a standard.
However, IMO, guns as presented make for a soften-them-up weapon, use and drop, as your opponent(s) close on you, then switch to a more standard melee weapon when they come into melee.
The problem is that, unless you're a gunslinger or at really low levels, a bow or even a crossbow/throw weapon is a better choice for a soften them up attack before rushing into melee for a couple of reasons.
The cost, both in gold and feats, really hurts guns. If you're spending 1,000gp(for a pistol) or 1,500gp(for a musket) you need to see a return on that investment in usefulness. For that same price you can have a Masterwork Crossbow or Composite Longbow of pretty much any strength rating plus a Masterwork melee weapon and some additional gear. You'll also have a free feat to spend improving your abilities with one of those weapons or improving your character in some other way.
Also, is it really better than any other ranged weapon? Throwing the cost aside momentarily how do guns stand up? A musket is a 2-handed ranged weapon that does 1d12 damage with a x4 critical that allows you to target your opponents touch AC within 40ft. This stands up quite well in a single shot to a heavy crossbow, which is 1d10 damage and 19-20/x2 crit, though that is to be expected as the crossbow is a simple weapon. It also stands up well against a Composite Longbow so long as the character has below 16 strength and is at close enough range that the musket is hitting touch AC and not dealing with penalties.
However, the musket will misfire and break 10% of the time, which offsets its x4 criticals somewhat, and hitting touch AC only works within 40ft, so in more open spaces the Longbow's greater range helps a lot. Still, if priced the same as a bow or crossbow I think it be fair to say that in a close encounter, single shot, fire and drop situation the musket would be a useful weapon, equal or slightly better than a composite longbow for most characters.
The problem remains that it costs way too much for this kind of thing. There's just no reason to pay 1500gp and 11gp per shot when, as a switch hitter with just 16 strength, you could pay less than half that cost and use a Masterwork +3 str bonus Composite Longbow that is useful in many more situations than the musket while still being as useful in fire and switch situations. Or you could buy a suit of magical armor and use simple throwing weapons that are less effective than the musket but much, much cheaper. Adding a feat tax onto the musket, for everyone who isn't a gunslinger, makes them even less likely to be used by dabblers or switch hitters. I really want guns to be able to work at least as well as a bow for any class that spends a feat and the cash to buy one, but as is I think they fall far short.
What makes guns exotic?
People are tending to over simplify guns because they are thinking of modern guns.
These guns are not modern guns, they are the powder, patch and ball guns, as such being proficient with one, means knowing how to operate one. not just point and pull the trigger.
Loading, measuring of powder and priming, and the quick and steady reloading of one are all part of the operation. Someone not trained in this could not only manage to reload in a move action, they could not reload in 4 rounds!
It does take longer than you think. Doing it in a move action, is really quite quick. (just not quick enough for game purposes)
if one were to be not proficient with this type of gun, jamming or breaking would be the least of their worries as loading too much powder would blow the gun up 100% of the time, and too little would get a 'squib' where the ball would get stuck in the barrel and the gun would be come unfireable until the bullet was somehow extracted.
Then there is fouling of the chamber, overloading the primer etc etc and so on.
alot more going on than just sticking a bullet in a chamber.
Also these guns tended to have a delay between pulling the trigger and the actual ignition of the round (called flash time) it's the blink of the eye, but the untrained person had a tendancy to move between pulling the trigger and the ball leaving the barrel.
There is also the issue of someone unused to guns being startled by (and flinching) with the flash bang of these guns, or being accustom to the acrid smoke blocking your view for follow up shots.
These things didnt have to be dealt with once we had self contained cartridges and chambers etc.
so these guns are a heck of alot more exotic than one might think.
also you can train a gunman way faster than one year.
US Army basic is only 8 weeks. and you learn alot more than just one gun.
It is thought that the standard rifleman of the civil war era (conscripts not professionals) were given one week of training to be able to learn to load and fire one aimed shot every 30 seconds.
could you imagine that?? your gunslinger shooting once every five rounds?
Kobolds would eat him for lunch!
Just doing a little math for fun. A 1th level fighter attacks thrice on a full attack in 6 seconds. thats one attack every two seconds, or 30 attacks in a minute.
I'm thinking...what kind of a gun can shoot 30 rounds a minute?
Most assault rifles are around 300 rounds per minute at max.
So more or less you are looking at a 9mm semi automatic handgun, or a M1 Garand, or a bolt action rifle, something in that range of rate of fire.
Which is not the gun we are going to get for our gunslinger.
Now thats only an 11th level fighter.
So at some point, unless we are using magic, a melee fighter is going to out attack our gunslinger not matter what we do, because his weapon limits him in this manner.
Reloading all this powder etc etc in a swift action is nothing less than a magical ability.but even then, can he keep up with the attack rate of a melee fighter.....hmmmm
"these really old black powder muzzle loaders" yes that is what the used in the civil war. Thats what I was talking about, it took about a week of training, not a year.
Lever actions are faster in rate of fire than bolt actions, the draw back to the lever action was, until just recently (like the 2000s) lever actions with their tubular magazine could only use round nose bullets, because the conical ammo would accidentally fire off each other in the tubular magazine upon the report of the first round fired (the points of the ammo lined up directly with the primer of the round infront of it)
The round ammo is much less accurate than the conical pointed ammo and doesnt have the range either.
Bolt actions were thought to be more accurate than lever actions, but it wasnt the action, it was the ammo limitation.
The only thing faster than a lever action in rate of fire is a self loading semi auto, or a machine gun.
Lever actions are crazy fast, and can, depending on caliber hold alot of ammo.
The 'Yellow Boy' rifle was referred to as "that dang yankee rifle you load on sunday and can shoot all week", but the southerners.
It was introduced by the end of the Civil War but wasnt used much because the army was worried about soldiers wasting ammo.
Some commanders spent their own money to buy them for and equip their troops with them, notedly some cavalry units (which tended to have less men in them and kept the cost of buying the guns down)
but 98% of civil war troops went into combat with old blackpowder muzzle loaders, had about a week of training, before going into combat, with firing the gun, and could manage (on average) three shots a minute.
I see. Thanks for the clarification Pendagast. I had guessed you were thinking of breach loading rifles instead. But weren't most of these soldiers already familiar with using a rifle? Back then most people had one and learning to use it was part of growing up for a man wasn't it?
not really you are thinking more of the colonial age. (revolutionary war era)
By the time civil war broke out, the east coast was very 'modern', people bought meat at the market, they didnt hunt much, hunting was for the rich who could afford past times/free time. Men worked on farms or in factories etc. The Rail Road was quite common. People had ice boxes, cameras, and other fairly modern inventions, so hunting and gathering werent quite as common, especially in east coast cities. the days of the 'minute man' were long past.
this wasn't as true for soldiers of the south who were by and large more rural, or also soldiers of the western states.
The typical union conscript came from Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York and the like. The majority of them had never handled a musket never mind a rifle (which looked the same but was quite different).
The rifle (twists in the barrel to create a spin) was introduced just as the war broke out, so Tactics were based on the musket, yet technology had sprung forth allowing much more accuracy and range, which is why the death rate in this was was so high compare to previous ones (or even wars since).
WW1 had the first chemical war fare and machine guns, and the civil war was worse!
The southern army did have an initial upper hand at the beginning of the war because they had less "city" boys and as such many more of them had some sort of experience with a firearm, if only just used for hunting.
But once the union army got their troops trained and fielded, superior technology, resources, and production rate (they could make arms faster because all the steel mills were in northern states) the south really began to lag behind.
The southern army was certainly more experienced at the outbreak of the civil war.
One thing you have to think about tho, The firearm has always been quite expensive. you think 1000 gold for a gun is bad.
the main reason why most people in the 1800s did have a gun or use one is because they were crazy expensive (1 or 2 months wage for the average man) so if you think minimum wage today is 7$/hr , times 40 hours a week. thats $280, times 4 weeks thats $1120!. (or as much as $2240)
That for us is the same price range as an ar-15 or a really good Ak47, new.
So that's aLOT of money, back then a rifled musket was the pinnacle of military firearms (the m16/ak of their day)
during the cowboy era, a colt peacemaker was $8, which was a months pay for a cowboy.
the idea that anyone them had two of them is quite silly, really because they were so dang expensive.
Those of us who do own guns of our own, know how long it takes to buy one, most of us either save up or put them on layaway and make payments or use a credit card and pay it off over time.
Guns are/were always expensive.
Reloading/rates of fire have always been an issue.
Bullets being expensive have always been an issue (why do you think the US has spent so much darn money in the last 10 years, shooting like crazy all over the middle east!).
The Dev's have done a good job keeping the prices of guns and ammo very equal to being relative to "it costs ALOT" as they have always been historically.
Question is, does this make them "playable" under the current rules system.
At this moment in time, no.
my goblin with a club and his three buddies are going to kick your gunslingers butt.
A first level barbarian is quite the opposite, they goblins are cannon fodder for him.
I dare say my first level wizard can do a better job on his own against four goblins than the gunslinger can right now.
Woah. log into playtest forums. Get a history lesson. Spiffy!
The issue with the prohibitive price on the guns is that it is realalistic, but not balenced.
Those who play Whitewolf games, such as World of Darkness or Scion, are already familiar with this kind of mechanic. Weapons in those systems are based off of their real world counterparts for damage, price, speed, accuracy, and other issues. While this is great for flavor, it means that dozens of weapons are never used because they simply are not as good. Why would someone ever wield a shortsword when a spatha does the same amount of damage and has a higher attack speed?
Dungeons and Dragons, and by extention Pathfinder, has always been a game of balence. If you compare Battleaxes to Longswords the damage is the same, with longswords criting more often but axes criting harder, both for a comperable price (The axe is slightly cheaper, but weighs slightly more).
Guns do not, by themselves, balence with other ranged weaponry, and the price of guns are not offset by the relative advantages of guns (the misfire chance easily offsets if not overcompensates for the touch AC bonus and x4 crit).
Yes, cheap guns or efficient, non-jamming would be historically inaccurate. However, we have magic and dragons. I think that issue's long gone.
And Pendagast. My first level wizard casts burning hands :)
Bullets being expensive have always been an issue (why do you think the US has spent so much darn money in the last 10 years, shooting like crazy all over the middle east!).
The reason it costs so much money to provide ammo for soldiers is because it takes tens of thousands of bullets (I forget the exact number) on average to kill whoever you're aiming at. The reason for that is because standard procedure in a firefight is to lay down crap tons of suppressing fire until someone can get around and flank them.
|
|
1) Are guns meant to be a weapon used by non-gunslingers? Currently, guns need gunslingers, or at least gunslinger abilities, to function well. If guns are meant to be sort of a "gunslinger only" thing then this technically is functioning as planned. However, this limits the number of archtypes you can make down to, well, 1 (the gunslinger)
Few warriors are more dedicated to honor and the code of the warrior than the samurai. Trained from an early age in the art of war and sworn to the service of a lord, the samurai holds a position of power and respect in most lands, often serving as the voice and justice of the local noble. The samurai takes on his training with zeal, learning the art of the blade (typically a katana), the bow, and the horse. Some even learn how to effectively use firearms if they are available. The samurai is often the most trusted warrior in his lord’s employ. In him, the common folk see honor and sacrifice. He is an honorable warrior, dedicated to the realm and the leaders that guide it.
Apparently so. Why a samurai would cast aside his freely proficient bastard sword in favor of a broken weapon like the current crop of firearms I don't know.
Bullets being expensive have always been an issue (why do you think the US has spent so much darn money in the last 10 years, shooting like crazy all over the middle east!).The reason it costs so much money to provide ammo for soldiers is because it takes tens of thousands of bullets (I forget the exact number) on average to kill whoever you're aiming at. The reason for that is because standard procedure in a firefight is to lay down crap tons of suppressing fire until someone can get around and flank them.
well thats not accurate really.
That is simply NOT standard procedure. although it does happen.Ever heard of the 80/20 rule? (in any company 80 percent of the work is done by 20 percent of the employees?) well that applies to the military as well but its more 90/10...so 90 percent of the killing is done by 10 percent of the soldiers... the other 90 percent of the soldiers kill the last 10 percent of target, but blow a ton of ammo to do so.
So although that happens, that's certainly not policy or procedure or intended, they are just crappy shots, scared or whatever.
Bullets no matter what are and always have been an expensive commodity, if you have done any shooting on your own, you know that. Im sure thats why the Devs have it priced the way it is (in addition to making them rare)
However what I dont see is any mechanic allowed for casting your own bullets and creating your own powder, which must gun enthusiasts (except the rich ones) do and always have done.
military doesnt bother doing this because of the government war chest, and the relative 'unexpertness' of 90 percent of the soldiers in any given military.
however the gunslinger isnt in a military, hes a gun expert.
So Id say keep bullets and powder at their current price and give the 'slinger a mechanic for making his own.
I think we just need a range of firearms, an expansion of the campaign setting versions rather than a reduction.
Start with the crap black powder muzzle loaders and drop the price to be comparable to the crossbows they're competing with, maybe even drop their effectiveness a bit, requiring the exotic weapon proficiency is enough to keep them rare. Then ramp the tech up to the 1k-3k+ revolvers and rifles, giving them the superior rules support.
However, I do think the exotic weapon prof is strange given them being the simplest weapon to learn to shoot, would prefer simple weapon with long reload time reduced to usable with a rapid reload feat or chain.
If there's a problem with a revolver being too superior to a repeating cross-bow, then maybe give an extra penalty to enchanting them, like the cold iron 2k penalty, based on the idea that their mechanisms being more complicated takes more work to enchant. Maybe even a virtual +1 enchantment to make the gun possible to enchant, so a gun maxes at +9 for the cost of a +10 weapon.
Gunslinger should have some sort of hand-loader ability to give them x-free shots per level/week/day, otherwise the shooting gp thing seems too harsh for low level play, but as the day goes longer they'll have the nod to realism of resource management.
I like the misfire chance to emphasize that it's still a magic based setting and tech is less reliable, as long as a Gunslinger has the ability to clear them at a quicker rate, upgrading from move to swift to no action.
Well, everything is superior to the repeating crossbow in game, because it's a terribly designed weapon :p
|
|
Gunslinger should have some sort of hand-loader ability to give them x-free shots per level/week/day, otherwise the shooting gp thing seems too harsh for low level play, but as the day goes longer they'll have the nod to realism of resource management.
Indeed. Craft (Guns, Gunsmithing, Blackpowder, whatever) should make this a given - primitive lead balls (or even shaped bullets) can be made cheaply with little more than a small handheld crucible, scrap lead, a hand-closed mold and a campfire. Gunpowder itself isn't hard to craft if you know the formula and are carrying the right components (and are careful around that campfire).
Bullets aren't that expensive (in raw materials in a normal economy; we currently pay a premium because they're manufactured for us in an automated factory and there's a war on that ensures demand outstrips supply). Charcoal is easy to get. Sulfur and saltpeter I have no idea what the cost would be in a medieval fantasy economy - but sulfur is a spell component with no listed cost for Fireball and Halt Undead, so presumably has a negligible price. As for saltpeter,Into the 19th century, niter-beds were prepared by mixing manure with either mortar or wood ashes, common earth and organic materials such as straw to give porosity to a compost pile typically 1.5×2×5 meters in size.[3] The heap was usually under a cover from the rain, kept moist with urine, turned often to accelerate the decomposition and leached with water after approximately one year. Dung-heaps were a particularly common source: ammonia from the decomposition of urea and other nitrogenous materials would undergo bacterial oxidation to produce various nitrates, primarily calcium nitrate, which could be converted to potassium nitrate (saltpeter) by the addition of potash from wood ashes.
So, rotting vegetable material, pee and ashes*. This method was apparently discovered by the Arabs in 1270, so it's not anachronistic. Doesn't strike me as a huge material cost.
Guns being expensive is explained in the setting (Alkenstar pumping the price up by withholding supply, etc) - but please don't make bullets and powder expensive and then subject them to the awfulness that is the current, gp-based crafting rules.* - Though setting this sort of thing up in your bag of holding may severely compromise its resale value.
Bumping this as James was out and about earlier:
James, most pressingly I think, is this question:
"Are guns intended to be used by non-gunslingers?"
According to your answers on other threads, the answer to this appears to be "no." Could we get a definitive yes or no to this? It would potentially solve a lot of problems.
...Or create even more.
|
If guns are to be used by non gunslingers (to allow pirate gunmen type characters, which is what I'd most want them for), they need to have prices similar to this if they're going to be a competitive and viable option, and need to not waste one of your feats.
As for what we want in our UC, I put up a thread here that explains what I want to get out of Ultimate Combat, and how I would want to include firearms into my campaign (including several firearm archetype suggestions for other classes) - and the short version is: The current firearm rules are weak to the point of being non-usable.
As a GM, if a player wanted to play a character with guns, I don't feel like I can use the Ultimate Combat book to do it, and that is even if they're going for a cowboy gunslinger. I would probably have to ban the class and the items. The items are terrible, and the class would have to overcompensate to the point where - if I make guns a viable option for other characters, the gunslinger will likely become horribly broken.
As a side note; the approach taken with the alchemist where we have a 'these are items, but they stop working if they change hands' was immersion breaking enough that I can't deal with them having it - either it gets houseruled away, or the class doesn't see any use. Every one of my friends who has read the class initially looks and says 'ooh that's cool' and then when they read that section it becomes 'damn that's dumb'. I get why it was done, but the approach has been deemed widely unacceptable (at least in my circles) and has been the cause of complaint of the game becoming more like-
|
|
4e: Less RPG and more boardgame, and that's something we see as a bad aspect of 4e. It's immersion breaking.
That said, I really don't want the gunslinger to go the same way, if they make the guns stop working when held by a non gunslinger or make the guns be terrible in the hands of a non-gunslinger, it kindof ruins the guns and the class. (IMO, YMMV etc.)
I also think they need to think much more carefully about pricing things:
Example: First session, a 1st level gunslinger has his gun malfunction. In a dire situation he tries to use it anyways. The gun blows up. He now needs 1000g to replace it. He probably won't get a new one until he's leveled to two. As he loses alot of effectiveness, this makes things harder for everyone. Everyone else spends their 1000g on shiny new upgrades, and he's effectively now a level behind in equipment - still dragging down the group.
I had something like this happen with a witch. She did something slightly stupid, which resulted in a dead familiar. After figuring out that she couldn't afford to replace it, and would have no spells until she could afford a new one (and realistically, now no way to earn enough to afford the new one) she complained that she's now a glorified commoner, and was going to just retire the character and make something else. It totally ruined her day being crippled by the the unaffordable pricetag of her main class feature. I of course, Gm fiatted away the costs and made a way for her to get a new one without paying 500g (I think I made it cost 100g or so to replace).
Bottom line: I dont think that's something I should have to houserule, and hope to avoid a number of the disappointments I had with the new classes in the APG.
|
|
Now seems like a good time to chime in with this article.
The fact is, once you cross from 5th level into 6th level, you're above the best humanity can ever do in the real world.
It's still faster than reality, but not as bad once you realize if you're level 6 you're already outside human capabilities.
And back on topic: "What if I don't want to be a Vaquero?"
-Dear Paizo: Please don't make cowboys the only gun option, and please make the guns usable in general.
|
However, IMO, guns as presented make for a soften-them-up weapon, use and drop, as your opponent(s) close on you, then switch to a more standard melee weapon when they come into melee.
This is an accurate depiction of early usage.
To support this, what if guns had an actual softening affect? Say 1 point of bleed?
Guns are too expensive to use for that, and they take up one of your feats for an exotic weapon...
However, IMO, guns as presented make for a soften-them-up weapon, use and drop, as your opponent(s) close on you, then switch to a more standard melee weapon when they come into melee.
Yes. Currently the gun rules are completely opposed to the concept of being a good swashbuckling weapon. If you only want guns to be single shot and then fired before dropping, then you need to have guns be cheap and easy to use; which they are neither.
If you have ten pistols on board a ship, for example, you effectively could have purchased another ship (10,000 gp for 10 pistols, or 10,000 gp for a sailing ship), so...
There's also the whole "These are usual weapons, so while a monkey could pull the trigger and make it work, you really need to spend a feat on them" thing.
For swashbuckling, they aint.