This is going to be fairly long. I'm going to spoiler tag each individual section to make it easier to navigate and read.
The 'slinger is an interesting class, but it has a LOT of problems. I'll be going through each individual class feature and picking apart what's wrong and why. In each section, I'll add my own ideas and suggestions, as well as others I have seen on these threads. So, let's begin...
Overview:
I like the choice to change out Fort for Ref as the good save, it makes sense. However, that's about where the good changes to the fighter base stop. Most everything else is a vast downgrade. I'll explain why in other sections. Furthermore, in a playtest I'll post up tomorrow (probably), I'll show how a standard fighter, using a gun, is superior in combat to the gunslinger.
Class Features:
Firearm:
The problem is, the battles the historical weapons were used in were a lot different than the combat scenarios in a tabletop RPG. Flintlock firearms were either to be used once and then shouldered in favor of a blade, or used in tandem with dozens if not hundreds of other gunners, firing from a rank-and-file block. On occasion, firing lines would be used to maximize how many shots managed to get off. As soon as you fired, you began reloading. A gunner from behind you, with his gun already reloaded, would come to stand in front of you and fire his as well. Then another man, and another, until you were at the back of the line, and had your musket reloaded again. Then you ran to the front and fired. Meanwhile, an entire army would be on either side of you, doing the exact same thing.
We don't have those kinds of numbers, as players. We (generally) have one person. That's all. So to use a gun efficiently, one must fire off a single shot, then holster the gun and draw a sword. Get a quick burst of damage off the bat, then hack away the rest of your opponents hit points. As they are now, the firearms presented work great. To have a class dedicated to using a gun though, these firearms are terrible. No one would be able to use these as a primary weapon without being a part of an infantry regiment, which most characters are not.
In order to have a class that's dedicated to using a gun, and revolves around being good with a gun, you're going to need better guns. Either better guns need to be introduced, or the gunslinger needs to be scrapped entirely. Better guns seem the better option, especially considering the source material (real world guns).
Issues with guns as presented:
Let me first say that the firearms presented in the playtest bear a close resemblance to the "Brown Bess" muskets used by the English in the 1700's. I will be basing all of my comparisons on that gun.
1. Smooth bore vs rifling:
For a long time, firearms had smooth bores. This made them (generally) faster to reload, though terribly inaccurate and fairly weak, comparatively. The bore (diameter) of the barrel was larger than the bullet being fired, leaving some space on the sides. This meant that a bullet had no resistance dropping down the barrel to the awaiting powder charge that would propel it. Easy to load.
When fired, though, the bullet would tumble around in the barrel, ricocheting off the sides. When it finally exited the barrel, then, it would not travel completely straight. It would fire off at a slight angle, which would change with each shot. It was next to impossible to get a consistent shot from a musket. The solution to this problem was rifling. A bore the same size as the bullet, giving a tight fit, that contained rotating grooves spanning the length. When the bullet is fired, these grooves impart spin onto the bullet, causing it to travel a straighter, more accurate path, and to keep its penetrating power over longer distances.
Some will argue that because rifling wasn't used in real-world guns then it shouldn't be given to Pathfinder guns. This is incorrect. Rifling was well known for providing a more accurate shot. Rifled guns were around as early as 1476, over 225 years before the Brown Bess was created and issued to the English, and over 125 years before the flintlock was even created. So why wasn't it used, if the technology was well known? Christianity.
No, this isn't a blow against christianity. In those ages, people lacked the knowledge of aerodynamics that we take for granted these days. Not knowing why spin made for a more accurate shot, they turned to superstition, and the answer became that demons or wicked spirits would affect the path of a fired bullet. Some argued that these imps could not sit astride a spinning bullet, and could not force it off its path. Other argued that the little devils preferred the spin, and as such the rifled guns' accuracy was infernal in nature.
In 1547, a test was performed by the Sharpshooters' Guild of Mainz in Germany to decide. 40 bullets were fired from a rifled gun at a target 200 yards away. 20 were standard lead, the other 20 were silver, marked with a cross, and blessed thrice. 19 of the standard bullets hit, none of the silver ones. So it was decided that demons preferred spin, and rifling was banned (or heavily looked down upon). In truth, the silver likely didn't catch the rifling enough (unlike the softer lead), or the tiny crosses added undue tumble to the bullets. Or both.
So, without christianity in Golarion, or any other fantasy world, rifling would never have been banned, and rifling would be more commonplace. Though it does bring up another problem. The tight bore of the rifled guns meant that loading a muzzle-loading rifle was hard. You had to hammer the bullet home, inch by inch. It took a lot longer than loading a smooth bore musket. Breech loaders and repeaters fixed that problem.
2. Firing rate:
At lower levels, having only a single rate of fire isn't so much of a hinderance. At higher levels, though, it gets to be a problem. Cynics will argue that the historical guns that these seem to be based on were single shots. However, repeaters and revolvers have been around a lot longer than one might imagine. While Samuel Colt may have invented the MODERN revolver, revolving chamber guns were around a lot longer than he was.
The earliest known repeating rifle was the Kalthoff repeater, made in 1646. Roughly 50 years after the advent of the flintlock system, and 50 before the Brown Bess. These guns were able to hold 6 rounds worth of powder and ball, and could be ready to fire again between shots in a matter of seconds. They had an unmatched firing rate until the cartridge repeater came to be in the 1850's. They were rare, sure, but they existed. I believe that a class dedicated to mastering the gun should be able to get their hands on repeating weapons, pure and simple. Perhaps not right off the bat, but by the time iterative attacks start coming into play, a gunslinger needs to have access to repeating firearms.
Suggestions:
Beyond that, I have this idea: Upgrading guns. Read it through before passing judgement.
Any amateur shooter knows how to care for their gun. How to take it apart, clean it, replace broken or worn out parts, and put the thing back together. The gunslinger, being the master of the gun, should have some leeway with his weapon. My idea is to allow for the upgrading of one's gun over time. Perhaps at a certain level, he gains the ability to modify the guns he started with.
What I'm talking about is things like adding a 6-chamber revolver mechanism or upgrading the sights or putting in rifling. Things that make the gun better, as he gets better. This could be a class feature (similar to building an eidolon), but I think a list of upgrades would be the best option. These could be added to any gun with a Craft (Gunsmithing) check, or added by a gunslinger (to his own guns only) without a check. Have the upgrades cost differing amounts to keep the balance. This would allow for more flexibility, and more diversity between different 'slingers.
Deeds and Grit:
I want to like the Grit system. I really do. There are just too many problems with it.
1. Amount. The monk's Ki Pool is based on Wisdom, but it's not used for a good majority of the monk's class abilities. It grants a passive onus and can be used for utility abilities as needed. Grit, though, is used more like the Magus's Arcane Pool, and as such should be given an amount as such.
2. Deeds. I have to agree with what another poster (I'm sorry, I can't find your post) had said, about the deeds just trying to make a bad weapon viable, instead of making a viable weapon great, like it should be. With the exception of a few deeds, most of them are crap. It feels like trying to pack in a bunch of useless class features that aren't needed.
Honestly, I'd love to see deeds be more like Alchemist discoveries or Rogue tricks. Choose the ones you want, not get an entire list. Further, they need to be ramped up. Only a few of them are useful, especially at the level you get them. Utility shot really needs to be a 1st level ability.
Furthermore, replacing the fighter's bonus feats with the deeds was a TERRIBLE move. Give me back the feats, make deeds something you get once every three or four levels. Right now, the gunslinger is starved for feats and drowning in useless class features.
Brave and Tough:
Idea: Drop the ability altogether. Give us back our 2nd level bonus feat, and make it so that the gunslinger gets a bonus to fort and will saves as long as he has at least 1 grit left.
True Grit:
Wrap up:
1. Need more guns to playtest with. With the guns available now, the gunslinger is crippled beyond all belief.
2. Grit and deeds need to be reworked.
3. Give the gunslinger his feats back. He needs them.
The gunslinger should be able to make a viable weapon amazing, not make a crappy weapon viable. With better guns and class features that make them even more so, this will be a great class.
I'm a bit strapped for time. Tonight or tomorrow, I'll go through all the deeds and pick apart the issues with them. Until then, there's my review of the gunslinger and the guns.
First of I just wanted to say that this was a really good read.
The idea of a gunslinger tinker with is gun is nifty, but being abel to pomp other guns might get out of hand. What's the point of playing a gunslinger if you can just buy his/her gun? What if upgrading added to a guns missfire value and every x level in Gunlinger lowered it? That would keep the Gunslinger as the prime gun-user class and still hold the door open for working on non-slinger guns.
I believe that both the ninja and the gunslinger could benefit from an approach more closely resembling the maneuver system of the old Tome of Battle from 3.5. I recognize that the wounds between Paizo and W's haven't healed yet (and as such I have taken Paizo's side), but the Bo9S had something going on. Well it was spells disguised as sword blows, but so what?, this approach could help by leaps and bounds the broken grit/deed system. Another optimum change could be trading the second level ability (tough and brave) for the bonus feat Quick Draw, then Rapid Reload, Precise Shot, Far Shot, and cap it off with an ability to automatically confirm critical.
Note to the Moderator: My apology if I actually infringed TM or Copyright,I actually do not understand the legalities too well.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, all in all, here's what I've got:
1. Need more guns to playtest with. With the guns available now, the gunslinger is crippled beyond all belief.
2. Grit and deeds need to be reworked.
3. Give the gunslinger his feats back. He needs them
1) I agree, but they have said the guns are static and not changing without great paid (as they have already been printed.) I really think the way guns ended up, is sad. Especially since they were a lot of people unhappy with the Campaign Setting version and we ended up with a (IMHO) worse version than we had.
2) I hate Grit, but I love the name. I think they should kill the feature entirely and make it a static thing (tone it down) instead of having a pool to keep track.
3) If we do that, then we just end up with a fighter. Maybe make a lot of feats (Combat) and give Gunslinger bonus feats like Fighter progression where he can take Combat feats? But then we end up with a "mostly Fighter" class. Maybe abandon it entirely and make an Archetype for Fighter?
So, all in all, here's what I've got:
1. Need more guns to playtest with. With the guns available now, the gunslinger is crippled beyond all belief.
2. Grit and deeds need to be reworked.
3. Give the gunslinger his feats back. He needs them1) I agree, but they have said the guns are static and not changing without great paid (as they have already been printed.) I really think the way guns ended up, is sad. Especially since they were a lot of people unhappy with the Campaign Setting version and we ended up with a (IMHO) worse version than we had.
2) I hate Grit, but I love the name. I think they should kill the feature entirely and make it a static thing (tone it down) instead of having a pool to keep track.
3) If we do that, then we just end up with a fighter. Maybe make a lot of feats (Combat) and give Gunslinger bonus feats like Fighter progression where he can take Combat feats? But then we end up with a "mostly Fighter" class. Maybe abandon it entirely and make an Archetype for Fighter?
That's unfortunate. Without better guns, the Gunslinger might as well be scrapped. I've heard that revolvers exist in the Pathfinder CS, but I don't have that available to me.
The grit/deeds system needs to be reworked, somehow...
That would be fine. And probably better than what they have now.
Perhaps they could take a page out of the Ranger book. Create firearm combat styles for the gunslinger. Either you're a musket wielder, a two gun pistoleer, or a pistol and melee weapon (pirate style), and provide free feats based on the path choice of the character, just like the two-wp style or archery style (and the other archetype styles in the APG). I think, despite the gunslinger being a "fighter alternate" we may as well use already proven and provided mechanics within the Pathfinder RPG system. Its all a matter of finding the right fixes and combinations with pre-existing ideas. The more and more I read about the gunslinger, I think he needs to be a new base class, built upon fighter skeleton, with some ranger and alchemist ideas added in. He really is a unique entity compared to many of the other classes.
All of the above are great suggestions, hats off to the OP, this is the best break down (with historical citing none the less) that I've seen so far.
The gunslinger should be able to make a viable weapon amazing, not make a crappy weapon viable.
I couldn't agree with this any more.
Though on the note of better guns there was mention of more guns/alternative rules that we'll be seeing in the final book made over in This Post by a designer. Why we're not seeing those in the play test I couldn't tell you...
I also really like the suggested idea of the firearm combat styles, that might get people a little bit more away from stereotyping the class as the spaghetti western class and thinking more pirate or minuteman.
I have not been able to formulate my thougts on the gunslinger yet, but Odentin just did it for me.
I agree on all points.
Honestly, I'd love to see deeds be more like Alchemist discoveries or Rogue tricks.
This in particular I think would help the class.
I also think more guns should be released for playtest in order to accurately asses the abilities of the class.
Alright, here we go. Part two, detailing what's wrong with the deeds and any ideas I have about fixing them (not many).
First off, though, allow me to clarify my thoughts from before. Rifling and repeating weapons were available IRL earlier than the weapons that the playtest firearms are based on. They should be allowed as options.
Ok then. I'll be going over each deed and why it's good or bad. Most deeds seem to be half-baked or not-worthwhile class features that are jsut tacked on as a lump.
Mechanically, there's not much wrong with this. You drop prone in order to get a bonus on your AC against a ranged attack. I think, in most cases, I'd rather take the hit than be prone. The name of this "deed" gives the impression of diving behind some sort of barrier. If it allowed you to make a 5' step to be behind some sort of barrier, or another creature, I could understand. As it is now, however, it's pretty useless.
Deadeye: I'm really not sure how this one works. How does having exceptional aim improve the armor penetrating power of a firearm? Especially with smoothbore weapons, where you're lucky to hit your target, period? I think, with rifling, something like spending a full round action to get one shot, ignoring all distance penalties MIGHT be better, but only with rifled guns, where aim means something.
Quick clear: Seems to make sense. Clear out the fouled barrel of a gun that misfired. It works.
Pistol whip: This makes sense, but I don't understand why it costs grit to use. Why would someone just suddenly be able to do this, but not all the time?
Gunslinger initiative: I like this one. It makes perfect sense, mechanically. So long as you have grit, you get a bonus to init, and can draw your guns before your turn. I like it. Probably the best and most thought-out deed here.
Covering shot: I kind of understand this one, but it's still bad design. If you manage to miss, you can pin down your opponent for the cost of a grit point. That seems a little backwards. Instead of intentional cover fire, like the name implies, this is like a consolation for a missed shot. I'd really rather this be some kind of intentional ranged combat maneuver. That would make more sense.
Targetting: Ok, now this would make sense with rifled guns. It makes no sense with smoothbore firearms. Even if you aim, unless you're standing within about 5' of the person you're shooting, you have NO guarantee that what you're aiming at is what you'll hit. In fact, you're somewhat LESS likely to hit what the barrel is pointed at than you are to hit something a few inches to a few yards in any direction (depending on distance to target).
All in all, though, I like the attempt at the called-shot system. I don't think they all make sense, but yeah.
Head: Confused? No. Try double damage, at least. I'd also recommend giving the doubled crit range to this one.
Torso: Crit range here makes sense, as well, but less than the head. I'd say maybe bleed damage for the torso. Nick one of those organs, bleed em to death from the inside...
Arms: Bad. Damage should still be taken, and dropping an object just seems cheesy. A no-CMB disarm? Cheesy. I'd say perhaps unable to use said arm until it gets healed.
Legs: This has been brought up before, but being able to no-CMB trip any creature is broken and cheesy. Perhaps crippling movement speed, instead? Makes a little more sense.
Arms and Legs both seem a little less than thought-out. For creatures much larger than humans, taking a shot in the arm or leg isn't going to cripple them that much. For some, it may be to them just like a needle prick to us. Does getting a flu shot cripple your arm? No. There should be something worked in about that.
Bleeding wound: Brought up bleed damage above. This one makes sense, though I do believe that it should be declared BEFORE the attack is made.
Utility shot: WHY ISN'T THIS A 1ST LEVEL ABILITY? Seriously. By the time the gunslinger gets this, it's worthless. These are the kinds of things amateurs should be able to do. The stop bleeding one needs to clarify if you can use that attack to damage another creature, then stop some bleeding.
Further, why do any of these cost grit? It makes no sense...
Startling shot: In a world where wizards hurl fireballs, this one doesn't make much sense. It's another one of those consolation prizes for missing a shot. To startle anything of above-animal intelligence, though, seems odd.
Expert loading: Why would you be firing a broken gun? Especially when you have quick clear? Bad. Just bad.
Stunning shot: This one seems viable mechanically, but I don't know. Something about it rubs me the wrong way. I really can't describe why, though. Sorry...
Deadly Shot: THIS should have been the capstone, though used like the bard's cap. Take a full round action to make a single shot. If it hits, they make a save, or die. Simple as that.
So, all in all, if some of these were ramped up, and needed to be chosen, just like rogue talents and alchemist discoveries, they would work so much better. I also suggest new ones allowing for the sort of combat styles that others have suggested. Perhaps one that allows pistols to be treated as light for the purposes of TWF, or one that allows for TWF with a melee weapon and a gun, or one that allows the pickle method.
I still also think that giving the gunslinger the fighter's bonus feats back, and limiting the deeds chosen to every third or fourth level would be optimal. That way 'slingers would be able to TRULY put together their own unique style, so that no two are alike.
I might do another post tomorrow about the kinds of gun options I'd like to see (both in possible upgrades and just in general guns that should be made available), but I won't promise anything...
Odentin, you have just made yourself my favorite poster on these forums. Congratulations, I love your ideas.
But I'm pretty sure I remember there being a mention that more powerful guns would be in UC. Like more than one barrel, and whatnot...
Though on the note of better guns there was mention of more guns/alternative rules that we'll be seeing in the final book made over in This Post by a designer. Why we're not seeing those in the play test I couldn't tell you...
Ah, there it is. In other words, ninja'd. In this case, this might be a bad pun...
Until those guns appear in the playtest, they do us and the class no good at all. Right now the gunslinger is centered around using the two guns available in the playtest, neither of which are any good for use by a class that uses guns as their primary weapon.
The class needs viable weapons in order to be used.
Stephen, please take this to heart:
Unless better weapons are introduced as BASE RULES, the Gunslinger needs to be scrapped.
I've given two easy (and historically accurate) ways to improve upon the guns. Rifling and repeating. Even if the gunslinger starts with a smoothbore musket and later has to sell it and upgrade to a kalthoff repeating rifled musket, that's fine.
Rifling would increase the range increment on the guns. I'd say double it. Repeating would merely allow for multiple shots before reloading. 6 is a good place to start. Reloading those 6 might be a royal pain, but it makes the gun viable.
Even if only gunslingers can get their hands on these sorts of guns, it's an improvement over what we have now. And again, I'll provide a full explanation on what I'd like to see in my next post, probably tomorrow.
6 is a good place to start. Reloading those 6 might be a royal pain, but it makes the gun viable.
6 for low to mid level play (i'd say sub 10) really isn't to bad. Your dealing with 2 shots sub level 6 and 6-10 at 3 providing you have rapid shot (and why wouldn't you?).
That's 3 rounds at 2 shots a round or 2 rounds at 3 shots a round, and providing you have rapid reload at least 1 shot a round, move - reload, standard - shoot. Add lightning reload feat in there and you can do two shots a round once your "empty". It would still be nice to see a "gun mastery" along the lines of crossbow mastery that gives you free or even a swift reload at later levels, probably around 10ish or so since i think that's where your going to start running into issues with attack numbers. Obviously haste is going to skew these numbers a bit with the extra attack.
3 rounds of full(ish) shots isn't bad as most combats tend to be decided by that point. As the added bonus the touch attack means your hitting more often than most people. We're running a game with a guns using the touch rules and the 1d8+ 1d6 elemental + enhancement bonus + Point blank (when applicable) + Deadly aim (because lets face it, when your hitting touch attacks you can afford the -) + (in this case) dex , every shot hurts. Even say level 7 you should be shooting with + to hit of bab 7 + 1 focus + 5 dex (18 + 2 for belt) 13 vs touch you won't drop the BBEG in one round, but your still guaranteed a good chance of hitting him, let alone playing pick off the poor little minions.
I like the tinkering idea too. I was actually making a Gunslinger class for my campaign and it was based around the idea of a gunslinger has but one gun he upgrades. You choose either musket or pistol, and as you level up you able to add on to the gun. It was essentially an "animal companion" in the sense a gunslinger forms a bond with his gun. You loose your gun you have to bond with another gun kinda like the wizard.
You my friend are looking for the Gun Mage from Iron Kingdoms (Privateer Press)
The issue with repeaters is that you wouldn't be able to muzzle load them (taking the move or standard action to reload them). You'd have to reload the internal magazines or the revolvng chambers, which would take a while.
Still, 6 shots is a good place to start.
Ok, the big one. I had a few more ideas last night after I posted, and had all day today at work to flesh them out. So, here's the list of things I think might make the class better.
This is the post that you guys should bring to Stephen's attention if you like the ideas...
Grit and deeds.
Make the grit pool 1/2 Gunslinger + Cha or Wis modifier (whichever is finally decided on).
Deeds are another matter. Completely replace the fighter's bonus feats with them (hear me out). 1st level and every even level, just like the fighter's bonus feats.
Now, make the deeds choices, just like the Alchemist's Discoveries and the Rogue Talents. Now, make one of the deed choices "Feat." Just like the rogue talent. That way, we have the gunslinger-only abilities that are really cool, but aren't cut off from the feats that the gunslinger desperately need.
Obviously, remove the bonus feats at every 4th level.
Brave and Tough.
I don't want to say "Just get rid of it," but I think it may need to be gone. I stand by my previous statement, that "As long as you have at least 1 grit left, you get a +X bonus on Fort and Will saves." Perhaps X is 1/3 of the gunslinger level? Something like that?
Gun Training.
This one strike me as odd. You get to choose a type of guns 4 times. 4 times. There's only 2 types of guns. What? Even if you add blunderbusses into the mix, that's only 3. I can't think of any type of gun that doesn't fall into those three categories. Pistols, long guns (rifles/muskets), and blunderbusses (early shotguns).
True grit.
Drop it, and give the class something better. I suggested Deadly Shot for the capstone, above. I dunno.
Now, for deed suggestions. Utility shot should be available at 1st level, for one. New ones should be introduced for 2-pistol fighting (count a pistol as light for TWF), the gun-and-cutlass method, and the pickle method. I'm just repeating what I wrote above, huh? Moving on...
Gun upgrades:
Honestly, I love this idea too much to let it die. A gunslinger should be able to upgrade his gun, to make it better. Make it viable. Make it so that ONLY gunslingers can upgrade guns. Make it so that once a gun is upgraded, only a gunslinger can use it. Make it so that certain upgrades require a minimum level to take (or use).
This would remove the issue of having guns that were rare even in the real world available to everyone, while still giving the gunslinger a viable weapon. Give options for rifling, repeating (whether revolver or internal magazine), breech loading (which should increase misfire rate), double-barrel, blunderbuss, maybe even one for making the gun more reliable.
And that's all I have, for now. I did promise a playtest with the gunslinger vs the fighter. I have the next two days off, so we'll see if I can get that done.
Please, guys, if you like these ideas, get them out there. Make sure Stephen knows these ideas exist. If you don't like them, explain why.
Thanks for reading.
Very nicely done!
I honestly haven't taken a real detailed look at the class that much but I can definately see your points. I think your reasonings behind the rules for Firearms actually fitting in with a class and making it viable might be the reason that Iron Kingdoms made the Gun Mage as their gun focused class. You could shoot something with a bullet or a Scorching Ray and generally didn't have to worry too much about loosing out of attacks.
I'm not a fan of the Firearms rules as a whole. They cost more then first level wands, you have to buy bullets and powder seperately (making them cartridges would have simplified things), and the Touch Attack seems weird to me. I mean, if guns can ignore your armor bonus with in the first range increment then a Long Bow and most Crossbows should too. When I've used firearms I made them essentially Exotic Crossbows with a 19-20/x3 Critical and I'm a little biased towards that over 20/x4. Unnfortunately the rules are unlikely to change.
From my uses of Firearms, people have gotten around the rate of fire a bit by using a brace of pistols so they could draw, fire, drop, and draw the next. With Quick Draw I allowed players to get their Full Attack in, if they had enough loaded pistols. There was also the multiple barrel upgrade from Iron Kingdoms, which helped out with rifles some but often was more of a benefit to the pistoleer, who could now count on having most of the pistols of in their brace to have two or three shot instead of one.
I'd go with the Multiple barrels myself rather then a revolver style. As some one pointed out earlier, they had a tendancy to fail big. In another thread some one brought up early breach loaders and how they often blew gas and ash back into a users face and eyes causing muzzle loaders to be favored. Of course I am willing to hand wave the issue of whether the guns should be smooth bore or rifled as having rules for accuracy outside the normal attack rules would just complicate things. This means I can deal with a gunslingers ability to have special "aiming" abilities with a smooth bore, even though they are horribly inaccurate weapons.
Oh well, I'm falling asleep now.
|
|
I thought your post was a very detailed breakdown of issues you see with the class. I agree with you on all points that the class has some major reworking to be done at the very least before its really ready to go.
Here's what i think is the real problem behind the issues with the class.
The staff responsible for the making of the Gunslinger class/ Guns in the games world / the mechanics behind those guns has most likely played Arcanis. Maybe they are afraid that if they do what they really want to do with guns, they will be going too close to the system Arcanis used for its guns? ( unless paizo owns green ronin or whoever owns Arcanis ) Possible Copyright lawsuit or some such thing. I could be wrong on this obviously, but its currently my theory.
Maybe that seems rude or ignorant to say but I've never played a gaming system that was based around a largely medieval and magical world where firearms felt correct other than Arcanis. Knives and arrows are deadly too, but guns add a whole other level to the field.
And for Alkenstar. A no magic zone dedicated to the creation and production on mass of firearms to be sold to the outside world? They should be pumping out a new idea for a gun every other month. Keeping the best for themselves. Giving the world their 3 year/whatever old models to make sure their military can stay ahead of very large aggressive army's.
While the entire time, making money from rich conquers and noblemen seeking high powered protection for their low level guards. You never know when some do good'r is going to claim your wine cellar is a dungeon and try to loot your estate.
Gun upgrades:
Honestly, I love this idea too much to let it die. A gunslinger should be able to upgrade his gun, to make it better. Make it viable. Make it so that ONLY gunslingers can upgrade guns. Make it so that once a gun is upgraded, only a gunslinger can use it. Make it so that certain upgrades require a minimum level to take (or use).This would remove the issue of having guns that were rare even in the real world available to everyone, while still giving the gunslinger a viable weapon. Give options for rifling, repeating (whether revolver or internal magazine), breech loading (which should increase misfire rate), double-barrel, blunderbuss, maybe even one for making the gun more reliable.
If Paizo where to implement a system like this I think that they need to make sure that Gunslingers have more options then just getting a cylinder magazine for their gun.
What about a larger caliber barrel that makes every shoot deal more damage but makes firing multiple shoots in a round impossible, or a scop that increases that damage you deal if you use Vital Strike?
The gun upgrades could also be added to the ammo or black powder. Things like exploding rounds, blessed black powder or the ability to shoot under water sounds quite nifty right?
All of this is probably really unrealistic but hey, if they add a upgrade that you hate, just ban it. =)
Gun upgrades:
Honestly, I love this idea too much to let it die. A gunslinger should be able to upgrade his gun, to make it better. Make it viable. Make it so that ONLY gunslingers can upgrade guns. Make it so that once a gun is upgraded, only a gunslinger can use it. Make it so that certain upgrades require a minimum level to take (or use).This would remove the issue of having guns that were rare even in the real world available to everyone, while still giving the gunslinger a viable weapon. Give options for rifling, repeating (whether revolver or internal magazine), breech loading (which should increase misfire rate), double-barrel, blunderbuss, maybe even one for making the gun more reliable.
If Paizo where to implement a system like this I think that they need to make sure that Gunslingers have more options then just getting a cylinder magazine for their gun.
What about a larger caliber barrel that makes every shoot deal more damage but makes firing multiple shoots in a round impossible, or a scop that increases that damage you deal if you use Vital Strike?
The gun upgrades could also be added to the ammo or black powder. Things like exploding rounds, blessed black powder or the ability to shoot under water sounds quite nifty right?
All of this is probably really unrealistic but hey, if they add a upgrade that you hate, just ban it. =)
Of course! I never said the list was exhaustive. Just a few basic examples.
Hey, I just posted some changes to the Gunslinger on the
Gunslinger Review - Gunslinger, Guns, Core Classes (Multi-Part)
post. Go check it out. I'd link to it, but have no idea how.
I agree that there are problems with the guns - specifically with the misfire rules. My players won't go NEAR intelligent weapons with EGO for fear of something going wrong in the middle of combat, let alone equipping a weapon that is liable to explode. I do, however, like the increase in damage and the touch attack system with guns, so I think they are better options than what was listed in CS.
However, I also think that one of the limitations that NEED to be placed on guns is that they are not TOO powerful in the hands of first and second level characters. Experience needs to make gun use better, and I think it is WRONG to limit that progression to one class (ie gunslinger)
I think gunslinger should be totally scrapped, and Piazo should focus on a set of feats and skills (and maybe a couple of character alt-builds) that would incorporate guns EFFECTIVELY into their class. That would make guns within the campaign more flexible than just as useless weapons in the hands of anyone OTHER than a gunslinger.
See, I disagree completely. From what I can gather, Paizo doesn't want Pathfinder (and especially Golarion) to become a world where everyone uses guns and forsakes all other weapons. They seem to want guns to be a rarity that only a few people use and even fewer actually master.
Any person that can find a gun can use it. And, like the historical weilders, it wouldn't be their primary weapon. They would shoot, then either holster or drop the firearm, then wade into melee. The rare few who study and tinker and experiment with their weapons deserve to have better options. The real world eqivalent "upgrades" were incredibly rare, not the kind of thing just anyone would have, even if they owned a gun.
Mind you, this is at a time when firearms were used as status symbols. Apart from their main purposes for war and hunting, nobility were fond of carrying ornate, beautiful firearms in order to show off. This was also the time that duels were at the peak of popularity, a holdover from more "chivalric" times. Even still, these men were nowhere near being masters of the gun. Even if they could find and afford the most accurate, most reliable, most efficient guns in the world, the guns would mostly go to waste, hanging on the hip of some spoiled duke.
To my knowledge, no one of the time mastered the gun. Hunters trained just enough to bag their prey. When they could afford it, they ignored the ban and used rifled muskets. Even still, they only had one shot, and it took forever to reload. Soldiers trained with their muskets to be able reload and fire as fast as possible. A trained gunner could fire one round every 12 seconds. That was the fastest. In Pathfinder, the slowest is one shot every 6 seconds, with the abilty to move ten yards.
But I digress.
I still believe that as they stand, the guns are fine. The gunslinger should have sole access to better guns. Perhaps some obscenely rich aristocrat might manage to get his hands on a gun that has a gunslinger upgrade or two that can be used by non-gunslingers, but not everyone should have that kind of access.
Thing is Odentin, if the guns are properly balanced as a weapon, they won't be weapons everybody uses. They'll be weapons some people use because they like them. Hell, just making a rule that non-masterworked guns can blow up on you means that pretty much no one except noblemen and adventurers would use them, and at least half of those adventurers would stick with the bow they've been using from level 1 since the two would be equally effective.
Isn't that what I said?
The gunslinger, on the other hand, focuses on the gun as a PRIMARY weapon, not as a starter or secondary, which is what they are at the moment. He's going to need to be able to be viable while doing so, hence these suggestions.
Ah, ok. Misread what you posted.
Ok, historically, the guns were used as openers in single combat, or used en masse by armies. As they stand now, they work that way. You can open with a shot or pair of shots, get a good frontload of damage out of it, then wade in and begin doing sustained damage with the usual weapons. This is how they are balanced, and they do that job beautifully.
They are not balanced as primary weapons, because they were not primary weapons historically. There is no use for them to be primary weapons, except in the case of the gunslinger. Even in the hands of the gunslinger, they aren't that hot.
Paizo wants them to be rare. If they were balanced as primary weapons, equal to the longbow, as you said, they'd be about as rare as a longbow. That is to say, not very. For everyone other than the gunslinger, they're fine.
For the gunslinger, they need to be better. So that's the problem: How do you make them better for the gunslinger without making them too good and therefore too popular? Hence the solution of allowing the gunslinger upgrading his guns.
Gods, I hate that term. 1 feat is hardly a "tax." Anyone wanting to be a ranged character would take it in a heartbeat...
I stand by what I said. Guns are balanced as they are, for all characters except the gunslinger.
Thing is Odentin, if the guns are properly balanced as a weapon, they won't be weapons everybody uses. They'll be weapons some people use because they like them. Hell, just making a rule that non-masterworked guns can blow up on you means that pretty much no one except noblemen and adventurers would use them, and at least half of those adventurers would stick with the bow they've been using from level 1 since the two would be equally effective.Isn't that what I said?
The gunslinger, on the other hand, focuses on the gun as a PRIMARY weapon, not as a starter or secondary, which is what they are at the moment. He's going to need to be able to be viable while doing so, hence these suggestions.
You said the guns are fine, with which I HIGHLY disagree. The guns, as they currently stand, are very nearly garbage for anybody except a gunslinger.
In my mind, the gun should have the same combat value as a bow in the hands of an adventurer (although perhaps in different ways) with some tiny measure in place to prevent armies from using them.
Agree, though I might go further. If a gun is going to cost as much as a magic item, take an exotic weapon feat, and have a chance of exploding I'd say they should be more than equal to a bow. In my opinion you can have one, possibly two, of either an overpriced weapon, an exotic weapon, or a weak weapon and be ok. If something is relatively cheap and strong, but exotic, that's fine, or expensive, but strong and not exotic, that's also fine. Even something expensive and exotic, but strong, would be an acceptable trade off. What we have in guns, in my opinion, is something that is expensive and exotic, but still weaker than the cheaper and non-exotic bow.
Give me a moment to collect my thoughts and...
As it stands right now, the firearms are actually MORE effective than longbows in a military situation. Think about it, soldiers are generally, what? 2nd or 3rd level warriors? Humans would have three feats. Exotic Weapon Prof: Musket and Rapid Reload, minimum. Give the human soldiers Point Plank Shot and you've got a great military unit.
Operating in pairs, you've got a great system. 1d12+1 every round to a wide range, with decent mobility, as well.
Give those same human warriors with much cheaper composite +2 str longbows. Heck, Masterwork +3 or more composite longbows would be cheaper, but we'll stick to the elite array for them and not have them be strong enough to use +3 Str bonus bows. They'll take Point Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, and we'll say weapon focus Longbow for the last one.
They can, at a much longer range, fire two 1d8+2 shots each round, with no need for reloaders to be standing around so their unit would either have double the men fighting or be half the size, needing a much smaller supply train and able to be much more strategically mobile. Within 30', the only place the musket can do 1d12+1 damage, the damage jumps to two shots of 1d8+3 but by then it's a melee anyways and they'll have put the bows away. Still, even as a martial weapon the sheer cost of the guns price them out of widespread use by a military force. Equipping 100 soldiers with a musket, no backup weapon, armor, or ammo would cost 150,000gp, an obscene amount of money. They would also cost 1,100 gp per shot fired, and 10 out of those 100 would have a misfire each round.
Also, the longbow men won't be spending 11gp per shot each, won't have their weapons misfire 10% of the time, and would be much cheaper to equip. So, in this case, guns are just as bad in a military example since the only thing that early guns had going for them, ease of use and training, is completely negated in game by making them an exotic weapon.
On a single-combat basis, yes. Let us remember that the real strength of guns, historically was in their military application.
You guys are looking at this the wrong way. You want a weapon that pretty much anyone can pick up and use, which is FAR from what they were, and what Paizo wants them to be. The guns the Pathfinder guns are based on were NOT single-combat weapons. They were meant to be used en masse by squadrons of infantry, against other squadrons of infantry using firearms.
The fantasy RPG isn't going to stand up to the historical model, but it CAN come close. Moving in pairs, 2nd or 3rd level human warriors would be plenty effective against a traditional army, especially when backed by mages. It's probably good that they're rare enough in Golarion that most nations aren't going to outfit an entire army with them. Otherwise, we would see Golarion follow the real world in the way warfare is done.
Edit: Let's see here. 2 real scenarios, here. Either an army of gunners attacking a traditional army in a fortified location, or the opposite.
Gunners approaching:
Gunners approach in small groups, giving the archers as little chance as possible to lay an AoE volley (like in realistic warfare). They might well lose quite a few, but as soon as they get close enough, they lay waste to the other army.
Gunners defending:
Simply wait until the enemy closes, and lay waste en masse. At close range, nearly every shot is an instant kill.
Even at 11gp a shot, they're doing more damage, and hitting a LOT more often.
On a single-combat basis, yes. Let us remember that the real strength of guns, historically was in their military application.
You guys are looking at this the wrong way. You want a weapon that pretty much anyone can pick up and use, which is FAR from what they were, and what Paizo wants them to be. The guns the Pathfinder guns are based on were NOT single-combat weapons. They were meant to be used en masse by squadrons of infantry, against other squadrons of infantry using firearms.
The fantasy RPG isn't going to stand up to the historical model, but it CAN come close. Moving in pairs, 2nd or 3rd level human warriors would be plenty effective against a traditional army, especially when backed by mages. It's probably good that they're rare enough in Golarion that most nations aren't going to outfit an entire army with them. Otherwise, we would see Golarion follow the real world in the way warfare is done.
Sorry I edited my comment while you were posting, but they are still worse than a bow in a traditional army. A bow, in game, can fire faster, at a further range, 1,100ft compared to 400ft, and cheaper than a firearm.
Also, a composite +2 str longbow costs 1/5th the price of a musket, and you can fire 220 arrows for the cost of one round of ball and powder. On a larger scale, such as in a war setting, this just makes the cost more ridiculous, as you can outfit a company of archers with arrows for an entire campaign for less than the price of one volley from a company of musketeers.
Finally, 10% of the time a firearm is going to misfire, and has a good chance of breaking if you use it again(30% chance for muskets). Can a non-gunslinger even clear a misfired weapon in combat? I'd assume yes but I can't seem to find the rules for it. Also touch attacks, once the gunslingers finally have taken enormous casualties and moved as a unit to within 40ft, make little difference in a war setting, where ranged units would likely have leather or padded armor to save costs.
Unfortunately, not. Over a long time, yes, the bows are going to take the advantage. Where the guns take control, the real important part, is the speed. The bow users aren't going to get enough time to wear out the guns' supplies. Almost every shot is going to kill. The battle would be over in minutes, with most of the arrows left unused.
Whereas traditional battles might have taken a whole day or more, battles using guns were over in minutes. Battles, mind you, not wars...
And yes, a non-gunslinger can clear out a misfired weapon, it just takes longer.
Also, if robbed of the mass kills with their volleys, the bow users wouldn't be able to kill enough gunners before they got within range.
Edit: Let's see here. 2 real scenarios, here. Either an army of gunners attacking a traditional army in a fortified location, or the opposite.
Gunners approaching:
Gunners approach in small groups, giving the archers as little chance as possible to lay an AoE volley (like in realistic warfare). They might well lose quite a few, but as soon as they get close enough, they lay waste to the other army.Gunners defending:
Simply wait until the enemy closes, and lay waste en masse. At close range, nearly every shot is an instant kill.
Alright, two things. For one, mobile infantry tactics in warfare like you're describing weren't developed until long after the guns Paizo is simulating were created, not until the invention of the tank made trench warfare obsolete and guns had been much improved. And even if the troops used the tactics you're describing in an assault on an equal sized unit armed with bows they would have to cross 1,100ft of ground under constant fire, 700 of it before they could even try to fire back, at 60' per round they'd spend 11 rounds getting shot before they were even at their maximum range, and if the bowmen had rapid shot odds are that a natural 20 would come up among the 22 shots fired.
In the second case, the bowmen would just set up shop out of range and bombard the fixed position of the musketeers with volleys of arrows, assuming the position wasn't fortified the way a castle would be. Also, hilariously enough it is more likely that a shot from a bow would be an instant kill than a shot from a musket.
Even if the bowmen closed to 110ft, their close range, and the musket users were able to fire, the musket men are at a -4 to hit, and do 1-12 damage, while the bowmen have no range penalty and will be doing 3-10 damage each shot. Less damage possible, certainly, but a higher average damage per shot even without taking into account the better to hit and the musket's misfire chance.
To be blunt, screw history. For one this is a fantasy setting and most importantly its a game. We shouldn't have to be a slave to history to represent gun mechanics into the game. It's better to be inspired by them to make them fun, reliable and mechanically viable. The gunslinger seems to follow this route. The name of the class, it's main resource, Grit, and the tricks it can pull off is very inspired by spaghetti westerns and the like. It's hardly historical. Why not have guns play on and continue that theme and add repeaters, shotguns and six-shooters?
Or why not go more fantasy and have the guns be alchemically treated to be durable to withstand the punishment of the bullets as they fire, which are metal balls alchemically coated to explode when the hammer creates a spark, propelling it down the barrel at alarming speeds. That way you just pop the bullet in the barrel to reload, simple as that. No need for powder, a finicky wick and the gun is alchemically treated to withstand the explosion, making it reliable.
my two coppers.
As has been said so many times before, guns in D&D should be as realistic as bows are.
That is to say, not.
Ok, I'll concede this point. Matched up purely against each other, the archers would take the advantage. This is not, however, how a battle would be fought. A closer-to-reality account is below, taking into account full armies.
1. Both commanders are of average intelligence. I will note where a more intelligent commander might make a different decision.
2. The army using powder arms is attacking a fortified position. A base of some kind.
The powder-bearing army sets up on the field about 500 yards away from the encampment, just outside of the range of bows. A messenger is sent to the encampment, with a demand of surrender. It's merely a formality, of course. The powder commander doesn't believe for a second that the other commander will actually surrender...
After the request is denied, the powder commander gives the order. All at once, the cannons report. Dozens of the defenders die in the first cannonade. The defenders scramble to make use of any siege weaponry that they have that survived the blast. Perhaps a cannon or two goes down. The cannons report again, and even more die. At this point, the fortification isn't looking so hot, and the defenders are demoralized.
By the third report, the defenders know the reload time of the cannons. A smarter attacking commander might have staggered the firing of the cannons, to keep the defenders pinned. After the third report, the defending commander orders an infantry charge, followed by archers, to attempt to bring down the soldiers manning the field guns. The attackers rush to meet the charge head-on. As the defenders near the attackers, some of the attackers drop into a firing line and unload a volley into the approaching line. Any that survive meet the swords and shields of the melee infantry defending the gunners, as well as the spells cast by whatever casters are available. The cannons continue to fire, attacking the archers and what's left of the fortification.
The defenders, by now mostly routed and demoralized, will likely withdraw. If the most extreme odds take over, and things go poorly for the attackers during the charge, they withdraw to the cannon-line. If they are followed, the cannons report directly into their line, buck shot slaughtering most if not all of the defenders in a gory show that is enough to end the battle entirely. If the defenders withdraw back to the fortifications, the cannons are instead loaded with heavy ball, and the bombarding begins anew, until the white flag is flown.
Shock and awe wins the battle, along with the brutal and messy killing power of the powder weapons.
@soullos: Why not include laser guns and lightsabers and spaceships while we're at it?! To be short, the fantasy RPG may be a poor model for history, at BEST, it still models our own history to SOME extent. The firearms as they are in the playtest are accurate to the firearms that were popular in the early 1700s.
As has been said so many times before, guns in D&D should be as realistic as bows are.
That is to say, not.
Realism and making the guns work better are not mutually exclusive.
The guns as they are suck, and making a class built on them is an exercise in frustration. They don't do much damage (one crit bump above a bow), have a low rate of fire, require an additional feat, are hellishly expensive, can't get STR boosts to their damage, and malfunction. The touch attack in short range is the only real benefit, and I don't like it because it isn't "realistic" in the D&D sense (if the armor stands up to a holy avenger, it should stand up to a ball of lead). And the range is ridiculously short compared to the bow.
The "forget realism" approach would up their rate of fire or remove all the hindrances and make it a bow. But there's a simple solution, and it's up the damage.
It is both realistic and balanced (amazing!) if, instead of just using a bow and being able to zap off rapid shots all day, you have a feat tax and misfire and can only fire them every other round even if you have rapid reload AND they do a handy amount of damage when you tag someone with them (2d6 or even 3d6 pistol, 3d6 or even 4d6 rifle). They're still rare (spending extra feats isn't for the level 1 warrior goons infesting the area), but you can get the same damage per round in general, and it is an interesting choice because it IS different from a bow - rather than two shots for d8+2 each (or whatever) a round, you get one shot for 3d6. Easier to hit up close, harder to hit far away. This is an interesting choice; smaller more frequent damage at range or a bigger one shot punch up close; it's like deciding on magic missile vs burning hands or whatnot.
If you have one L1 fighter with a 14 STR, 16 DEX, spends $$ on a masterwork STR +2 composite longbow (cheaper than a gun), and their two feats on point blank shot and rapid shot, versus an identical one that buys a pistol, spends their two feats on exotic weapon prof and rapid reload, that's apples to apples. Then have them shoot full speed at an orc (AC 13 touch 10), you get:
Bow: 2 attacks at +4 for 1d8+3 (x3) each = 9.75 points of damage a round. (would be 8.45 as a shortbow)
Pistol (as per UC): 1 attack at +4 for 1d8 (x4) each = 4.05 points of damage a round at short range (only 20'), much less (2.925 and descending) at longer range. And it's more expensive and misfires.
Pistol (bump damage to 2d6): 6.3 damage per round short range, 4.55 past 20'. (On a crit it's hellacious though)
Pistol (bump damage to 3d6): 9.45 damage per round within 20', 6.825 outside. Only now do we approach the bow damage threshold. And the crit damage really is too big (40 points!).
And that's a good place to stop. Sustained damage is still less than a longbow. But it's more concentratable (if you just want to fire once and melee, for example, or you pop off two pistols in round one). And it gives room for a class like gunslinger to make it better if you superspecialize in it.
I'm absolutely going to 2d6 (pistol) and 3d6 (musket) in my game in an attempt to make the guns at all feasible.
A completely different scenario than first posited.
Wait, where did the cannons come in? This was about a group of musketeers against a group of archers in a large scale battle. If you completely change the scenario then of course it's going to work out differently, especially since the musketeers seem to now have a large number of cannons with incredible accuracy within range of the archers and get the initiative because apparently the archers are too stupid to make any sort of preparations for treachery.
Look, the original argument you had was that guns, as written in the setting, were superior to bows, as written in the setting, in a large scale battle. I feel I've pointed out at least 3-4 reasons why they are not. They have a much lower range, a lower rate of fire, a 10% misfire chance, and cost much, much more than bows do. You are perfectly free to disagree with any and all of these points, but making ever changing hypothetical situations doesn't prove anything or help the playtest in any way.
@soullos: Why not include laser guns and lightsabers and spaceships while we're at it?! To be short, the fantasy RPG may be a poor model for history, at BEST, it still models our own history to SOME extent. The firearms as they are in the playtest are accurate to the firearms that were popular in the early 1700s.
Well, lets not jump the gun (pun not intended or was it? ;) ) about spaceships and lasers. What you said is essentially what I said before, a fantasy game is hardly historical, but it is inspired by it by a great deal. It has a poetic license if you will. But, more often than not, most fantasy rpgs that include guns include muskets and flintlocks with poor mechanics to follow. They're complicated, exotic, unreliable, and slow. It's just not worth the effort. This is especially so in the context of Pathfinder. Why use a gun over a bow or even a crossbow? Why do guns have to be an accurate representation as they were in the 1700s? And considering the themes/inspiration of the gunslinger, why not add an arsenal of guns from that time period?
Bottom line is, guns (whether historical or otherwise), should be reliable, mechanically feasible and fun.
A completely different scenario than first posited.Wait, where did the cannons come in? This was about a group of musketeers against a group of archers in a large scale battle. If you completely change the scenario then of course it's going to work out differently, especially since the musketeers seem to now have a large number of cannons with incredible accuracy within range of the archers and get the initiative because apparently the archers are too stupid to make any sort of preparations for treachery.
Look, the original argument you had was that guns, as written in the setting, were superior to bows, as written in the setting, in a large scale battle. I feel I've pointed out at least 3-4 reasons why they are not. They have a much lower range, a lower rate of fire, a 10% misfire chance, and cost much, much more than bows do. You are perfectly free to disagree with any and all of these points, but making ever changing hypothetical situations doesn't prove anything or help the playtest in any way.
The original argument was that the military application of guns was where their strength lay. I then proposed a hypothetical situation that was flawed, and have conceded that in that situation, the more conventional weapons were superior. I then proposed a new, more accurate representation of a battle.
Cannon were hardly accurate. At 800 yards, a ball could be wide of its mark by almost 100 yards. However, aimed in the direction of a large group of archers, or at a fort, they can still be expected to deal some damage.
The reason cannon were added was simple: A nation using powder weapons would most definitely have cannon, probably before muskets. The reason the defenders didn't attack immediately was because the cannon were out of range of the archers, and barely within effective range of the ballistae. They didn't leave their fortifications because, well, why would they? They were in a fortified, defensible spot. At least, until the cannonade tore that to shreds...
A completely different scenario than first posited.Wait, where did the cannons come in? This was about a group of musketeers against a group of archers in a large scale battle. If you completely change the scenario then of course it's going to work out differently, especially since the musketeers seem to now have a large number of cannons with incredible accuracy within range of the archers and get the initiative because apparently the archers are too stupid to make any sort of preparations for treachery.
Look, the original argument you had was that guns, as written in the setting, were superior to bows, as written in the setting, in a large scale battle. I feel I've pointed out at least 3-4 reasons why they are not. They have a much lower range, a lower rate of fire, a 10% misfire chance, and cost much, much more than bows do. You are perfectly free to disagree with any and all of these points, but making ever changing hypothetical situations doesn't prove anything or help the playtest in any way.
The original argument was that the military application of guns was where their strength lay. I then proposed a hypothetical situation that was flawed, and have conceded that in that situation, the more conventional weapons were superior. I then proposed a new, more accurate representation of a battle.
Cannon were hardly accurate. At 800 yards, a ball could be wide of its mark by almost 100 yards. However, aimed in the direction of a large group of archers, or at a fort, they can still be expected to deal some damage.
The reason cannon were added was simple: A nation using powder weapons would most definitely have cannon, probably before muskets. The reason the defenders didn't attack immediately was because the cannon were out of range of the archers, and barely within effective range of the ballistae. They didn't leave their fortifications because, well, why would they? They were in a fortified, defensible spot. At least, until the cannonade tore...
Yes, but the more variables we enter the more muddied the scenario gets. For a (completely ridiculous) example, the musketeers have cannon so the archers definitely have wizards, 5th level specialist wizards who fly under invisibility with protection from arrows on and use a fireball spell on the powder reserves by the cannon, or on the cannon themselves as they are being loaded. Archers win that battle after the wizards destroy the other side's artillery, so they're obviously better.
The more variables that are introduced the less it becomes about the original point, does a Pathfinder rules firearm have a better application on the battlefield than a Pathfinder rules bow. I'd say no, because of the same four points I've brought up. Obviously we could each think of scenarios that "prove" our points are right, but it doesn't really do anything for this playtest.
Also, even if one of us convinced the other to change their opinion, Pathfinder isn't a wargame or game of mass battles. It's a roleplaying game where the combat is resolved by groups of 3-7 or so adventurers against maybe a dozen enemies at the most, with mass battles being backdrops or sideshows to the adventurers' quests, so all our examples and opinions probably have just distracted this thread from a useful purpose. Sorry about that, to anyone who feels this side topic has been distracting.
Yes, but the more variables we enter the more muddied the scenario gets. For a (completely ridiculous) example, the musketeers have cannon so the archers definitely have wizards, 5th level specialist wizards who fly under invisibility with protection from arrows on and use a fireball spell on the powder reserves by the cannon, or on the cannon themselves as they are being loaded. Archers win that battle after the wizards destroy the other side's artillery, so they're obviously better.
The scenario I had posted included casters. Everything was based around 2nd and 3rd level NPCs. Both sides used realistic weapons. Archers and ballistae, muskets and cannon. Both sides had melee infantry and casters. Bringing PC classes in really does muddy it up.
Digression completed.
The entire argument is pointless, really. The guns as they are have already been set in stone. They're direct copies of what's been printed in the CS, and they're not about to send all those copies back to the printer.
Guns are as Paizo wants them to be: Rare. If they were better, easier to use, then more people would be able to use them. The more people were able to use them, the more popular they would be, and the more people would use them, hence defeating Paizo's wishes.
As they are, for what Paizo wishes them to be, they're balanced. Stephen ALSO stated that UC will include alternate rules for more advanced firearms, if you wish to use those in your games. So far, the ideas presented in this thread and the one mentioned above are the best workaround to the guns as they are. Making the gunslinger able to acquire/build better guns that only he can use.
*stuff*
Getting back on topic have you considered using the exploding dice optional rules to help mitigate the guns suckiness a tad? Or have used the other guns out of the campaign setting since that appears to be the model they're basing it off of(which includes revolvers, blunderbusses, and rifles)?
Reason I ask is that these things are found in the campaign setting adn since it's been stated that thsi is the model they're copying from I think it's safe to assume that whats already in their will likely end up being used.
On that note I do like the idea of a character being able to customize their weapon of choice. In fact I'm half tempted to say why not make that a feature of the class? A chosen weapon, like a bonded item or divine bond that the gunslinger can have with one chosen weapon. He pays for upgrades and has bits to it. Most importantly make the upgrades adn bonuses only work for the gunslinger.
In this way you get the class to be using his chosen weapon without making the guns themselves "too good" for the rest of the world to not be using them.
I don't want to sound naiive, but what about the druid with heat metal/chill metal? He could make the gunslinger's precious firearms his worst enemy. Plus one the gun is ruined, what does he have to be awesome?
Tark: Look at the thread mentioned above. The gunslinger and core classes one. Can't link on my phone. We've been discussing ways to make that work.
Ephrain: Wooden stock. No contact with the metal. And that spell doesn't damage the metal itself in any way, so the gun isn't ruined.
Ephrain: Wooden stock. No contact with the metal. And that spell doesn't damage the metal itself in any way, so the gun isn't ruined.Even so, the trigger, trigger guard, and barrel are made of metal so regardless a druid casting heat metal on a gun will cause the character holding the gun to drop it pretty quickly, from shock because of the sudden temperature change in the metal if nothing else.
That and, you know, if it's loaded the gunpowder probably ignites, causing an automatic shot and potential misfire.