|
What if becoming a gunslinger, or taking a level of gunslinger, was the only way to learn how to craft a gun/gun powder.
What if better guns/powder/ammunition only became available to gunslingers as they leveled (preventing to many dips) and use of guns was something only gunslingers knew how to do safely (exploding guns aren't hard to imagine without proper knowledge of how to maintain them.
Rather than making it about the feats and features primarily, why not orient it more as a technical class, who have mastered crafting a powerful weapon. You could have branches off for different types of gun specializations, etc...
But this way you can control the power of the weapon by level and limit it's effect on the greater world.
Thoughts?
|
|
More into the weeds of what kind of ideas am talking about, this being top of the head kind of stuff.
1st level gunslinger gets a musket. Single fire, standard action to reload, short effective range (maybe as short at 30 feet). Non-gunslingers need a full round to reload with a 25% explode chance, which makes perfect sense.
2nd Level you learn to use a musket without provoking AoO
3rd Level you can either learn how build a musket you can reload with one hand (so you can dual wield them) or build a better musket with longer range that you can reload as a free action. These guns are even harder to use and have a 50% explode chance if used untrained (25% for gunslingers below this level).
4th learn how to make special ammunition to overcome the DR stuff
5th you can either now learn to dual wield the muskets you made, or learn how to load them as a free action.
6th You can now reload so fast you can make have multiple attacks. No one else can make multiple attacks with a firearm.
And on from there. As you see at each level the gunslinger becomes more effective, the gun becomes more effective, but no one else can take advantage of these things without being a gunslinger.
You would have to take a 6 level dip into gunslinger just to be able use more than one attack a round.
Just because modern weapons we use are revolvers, doesn't mean that is what they have. You can have functional revolvers by gaining skill as a gunslinger(think Roland reloading as he shoots) and avoid the problem of others having access to guns.
They can have access, they will just be single fire things that could blow up in their hands.
Thoughts?I, personally, am very much opposed to any concept that a mundane item can be only used more effectively by taking levels in a PrC/Class.
I was opposed to the Lasher (3.0) class for the same reasons.
I assume this means you are opposed to the monk unarmed strike mechanic as well?
|
|
I assume this means you are opposed to the monk unarmed strike mechanic as well?Thoughts?I, personally, am very much opposed to any concept that a mundane item can be only used more effectively by taking levels in a PrC/Class.
I was opposed to the Lasher (3.0) class for the same reasons.
That and guns aren't mundane items. In this world they are as rare an expensive as magic items.
When you consider how dangerous early firearms were, I think this is a very reasonable compromise.
What if becoming a gunslinger, or taking a level of gunslinger, was the only way to learn how to craft a gun/gun powder.
What if better guns/powder/ammunition only became available to gunslingers as they leveled (preventing to many dips) and use of guns was something only gunslingers knew how to do safely (exploding guns aren't hard to imagine without proper knowledge of how to maintain them.
Rather than making it about the feats and features primarily, why not orient it more as a technical class, who have mastered crafting a powerful weapon. You could have branches off for different types of gun specializations, etc...
But this way you can control the power of the weapon by level and limit it's effect on the greater world.
Thoughts?
Maybe to making guns. Is blocking NPCs from manufacturing guns the best idea?
Not to making gunpowder. Under proper direction, goblins could do the mining, grinding, and mixing. Possibly skeletons could do it too.Would only Gunslingers know how to clean guns, including breaking them down and reassembling them?
|
|
What if becoming a gunslinger, or taking a level of gunslinger, was the only way to learn how to craft a gun/gun powder.
What if better guns/powder/ammunition only became available to gunslingers as they leveled (preventing to many dips) and use of guns was something only gunslingers knew how to do safely (exploding guns aren't hard to imagine without proper knowledge of how to maintain them.
Rather than making it about the feats and features primarily, why not orient it more as a technical class, who have mastered crafting a powerful weapon. You could have branches off for different types of gun specializations, etc...
But this way you can control the power of the weapon by level and limit it's effect on the greater world.
Thoughts?
Maybe to making guns. Is blocking NPCs from manufacturing guns the best idea?
Not to making gunpowder. Under proper direction, goblins could do the mining, grinding, and mixing. Possibly skeletons could do it too.
Would only Gunslingers know how to clean guns, including breaking them down and reassembling them?
Only Druids speak Druid. Only Alchemists can make alchemical bombs. Only arcane casters can make fireballs.
A goblin gunslinger can make a low powered gun. It would be a class skill, no different than favored enemies or monks using wisdom for armor.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I assume this means you are opposed to the monk unarmed strike mechanic as well?
Yes, but since Superior Unarmed Strike (ToB p34 ish) pretty much makes my objection void. I don't care.
That and guns aren't mundane items.
Pathfinder definition of mundane doesn't discuss rarity. Are guns non magical? Yes Therefor they are mundane.
|
|
I assume this means you are opposed to the monk unarmed strike mechanic as well?Yes, but since Superior Unarmed Strike (ToB p34 ish) pretty much makes my objection void. I don't care.
That and guns aren't mundane items.Pathfinder definition of mundane doesn't discuss rarity. Are guns non magical? Yes Therefor they are mundane.
So weapon specialization (fighter only) is a problem?
Bard's playing bardic music (a guitar is a mundane item) is a problem?
The guns would exist, but they could blow up in your hands if you don't know how to properly use them, and reloading quickly is a skill.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So weapon specialization (fighter only) is a problem?
Bard's playing bardic music (a guitar is a mundane item) is a problem?
The guns would exist, but they could blow up in your hands if you don't know how to properly use them, and reloading quickly is a skill.
WS/BM are not similar to this. If WS was only useable with one weapon (a specific weapon) it would be a problem. BM isn't about the guitar, it is about the class feature (you can BM with just your voice and no mundane item.)
The problem I have is that guns are a mundane item and as a result everyone should be able to effectively use them for their intended purpose as long as they are proficient.
With the guns and gunslinger class, the only way to effectively use guns is to have many levels in gunslinger enough to have signature lightning reload and a +X Steadfast Musket.
|
|
So weapon specialization (fighter only) is a problem?
Bard's playing bardic music (a guitar is a mundane item) is a problem?
The guns would exist, but they could blow up in your hands if you don't know how to properly use them, and reloading quickly is a skill.
WS/BM are not similar to this. If WS was only useable with one weapon (a specific weapon) it would be a problem. BM isn't about the guitar, it is about the class feature (you can BM with just your voice and no mundane item.)
The problem I have is that guns are a mundane item and as a result everyone should be able to effectively use them for their intended purpose as long as they are proficient.
With the guns and gunslinger class, the only way to effectively use guns is to have many levels in gunslinger enough to have signature lightning reload and a +X Steadfast Musket.
The proficiency comes with the class.
Guns are rare, difficult to make, and dangerous. It isn't like a sword, it is a mechanical device that requires train.
The guitar is a perfect example. Anyone can play a guitar, only a bard can do so well enough to mesmerize foes.
I'm against it. Any weapon is just a tool, you shouldn't need to take a class just to be able to pick up a better gun, just like you don't need to take a specific class to pick up a better sword. You don't even need to be a wizard to make magical items anymore, which in my opinion is a good thing, and guns as written for Pathfinder are not magical. Anyone who takes enough ranks in craft should be able to make one, just like they could make any other non-magical weapon or tool.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The proficiency comes with the class.
Guns are rare, difficult to make, and dangerous. It isn't like a sword, it is a mechanical device that requires train.
The guitar is a perfect example. Anyone can play a guitar, only a bard can do so well enough to mesmerize foes.
I've got no problem with EWP Firewarms coming with the class. But a Straight fighter taking EWP and some other feats should be able to use a firearm just as well as a gunslinger. Gunslinger should be about other stuff, not the gun. I'll be very unhappy if Gunslinger is released and can be any bit better than a fighter at simply shooting and damaging (including reload.)
Guns and swords both require training.
Your bard thing, again, isn't the same. A bard can use any instrument (including singing) to mesmerize. If the bard could only use a guitar to mesmerize, I'd be upset when the Sorcerer couldn't use a guitar to mesmerize.
|
|
The proficiency comes with the class.
Guns are rare, difficult to make, and dangerous. It isn't like a sword, it is a mechanical device that requires train.
The guitar is a perfect example. Anyone can play a guitar, only a bard can do so well enough to mesmerize foes.
I've got no problem with EWP Firewarms coming with the class. But a Straight fighter taking EWP and some other feats should be able to use a firearm just as well as a gunslinger. Gunslinger should be about other stuff, not the gun. I'll be very unhappy if Gunslinger is released and can be any bit better than a fighter at simply shooting and damaging (including reload.)
Guns and swords both require training.
Your bard thing, again, isn't the same. A bard can use any instrument (including singing) to mesmerize. If the bard could only use a guitar to mesmerize, I'd be upset when the Sorcerer couldn't use a guitar to mesmerize.
The class is gunslinger. Of course it should use guns better than a fighter.
That doesn't mean it would be "better". It couldn't use swords (or anything other than guns) better than a fighter. I would argue for armor limitations similar to a ranger for the mobility of reloading, etc...
A gunslinger isn't a fighter anymore than John Wayne is King Arthur.
http://www.google.com/images?q=colonial+williamsburg+gunsmith+pictures& rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7RNWI_en&um =1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=chxXTYPEBYL7lweAruHxBw&sa=X& oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQsAQwAA&biw =1003&bih=548
This guy is not a gunslinger, he's a Gunsmith.
Reinacters, movie people, and even some hunters come to him to get era correct guns.
|
|
http://www.google.com/images?q=colonial+williamsburg+gunsmith+pictures& rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7RNWI_en&um =1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=chxXTYPEBYL7lweAruHxBw&sa=X& oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQsAQwAA&biw =1003&bih=548
This guy is not a gunslinger, he's a Gunsmith.
Reinacters, movie people, and even some hunters come to him to get era correct guns.
He also lives in a world where guns are the primary weapon of choice and there is no magic.
What is your point?
A Gunsmith can make and test guns, but might not do very well in the heat of battle. He can probably also show someone how to fire a gun, just not very effectively.
If a Kender steals someones gun, they could still maim themselves, even if they are not a gunslinger.
|
|
The class is gunslinger. Of course it should use guns better than a fighter.Well we are polar opposites. The whole concept that you can't build a fighter who is better with any single weapon than any other class is a problem.
Actually it wouldn't be so bad if the gunslinger were better with guns than the fighter if the fighter wielding a gun as his primary weapon weren't sub par.
The problem isn't that the gunslinger can use guns better than a fighter, it's that you need to be a gunslinger in order for guns to be effective primary weapons.
The gunslinger is currently too much about making guns viable as primary weapons. If it were using feats (and I do mean feats plural since the fighter can afford more than any other class) to do this that a fighter could take, then fine, let the gunslinger have them as free feats plus a few better tricks for class features. But it's using class features so this weapon is only viable with this one class.
How can a class called "The Gunslinger" be too focused on guns being viable?
Why should a class called "Fighter" be better with guns than a class called "Gunslinger"?
We are on polar opposites I guess.
I wouldn't give the gunslinger martial weapon proficiency. I would make them a light armor max (need the movement to reload), and I wouldn't give them weapon specialization.
They would be gunslingers, not fighters. Take away their guns, and they are in trouble.
Gunslingers aren't fighters. Clint Eastwood isn't going to whip out a sword.
Fighters don't need guns. The fix isn't to make guns viable for every class. Then you would have the game flooded with guns, which is what most of us don't want.
The fix is to make guns viable ONLY for a small group trained to use and maintain them. If you want to multiclass gunslinger and fighter, you can do that. But you won't be as good with guns as a straight gunslinger or as effective with other weapons as a "Fighter"
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
small group trained to use and maintain them. If you want to multiclass gunslinger and fighter, you can do that. But you won't be as good with guns as a straight gunslinger or...
Yes, trained, as in EWP Firearms.
You can't multi class Gunslinger and Fighter, as they are both Fighter classes.
nice idea. I had a similar one with making gunslinger an alternative for alchemists.
This would go around the problem that (mundane) guns are already a part of the setting. Keep the mundane ones as "bad" as they are and make a class that enhances magically the guns to be the only ones that are really viable (much like bombs to alchemists fire).
Your idea with choosing between two things per lvl sounds like a ranger a bit.
But all in all I think it's a good idea to get only 1 character who can use guns. Would also solve the problem with guns cost. Where is class is rare, guns are worth less.
I originally wanted guns to be double exotic, but I will just go with whatever comes out in the book.
I generally agree with most of what you post ciretose but I think the ability to use and make guns should be open to everyone. My party knocked out a few gunslingers a while ago and have been very fond of the items so far.
I do think making the gunslinger the only class really viable with a gun as a main weapon works fine. The fact that you can target touch AC with guns makes them a useful backup weapon for characters that aren't heavily invested in ranged combat or are willing to make a single attack that is likely to hit over multiple attacks that have a good chance of missing.
From a mechanical standpoint from what i've read on these boards so far guns are considered a sub par weapon choice by most posters for three maybe four main reasons. So here are the issues as I see them cost, hard to take full advantage of full attack actions, and fiddly things like not working with deadly aim at close range, chance of exploding and needing to be repaired, and also range. I think all of these things are alright as drawbacks for secondary users and that gunslingers should overcome them with class mechanics.
Cost - well the weapons themselves while initially expensive are enchanted just like any other weapon and so it really is a onetime penalty. The ammunition on the other hand is pretty expensive so maybe the gunslinger should be able to create gun powder and bullets at a reduced cost. I think the rules already cover making special ammunition alright (correct me if I am wrong) but gunpowder itself is quite expensive and in greater need of addressing.
Full Attack Action - the weapons are very slow to reload and really impedes on action economy. If you allow gunslingers the ability to reload as a free action at level 6 like you said gunslingers can overcome this issue when it becomes most important the introduction of Iterative attacks from BAB (I like this idea.) Another option would be to introduce a string of feats that allow all fire arms to eventually be free action reloads, the gunslinger could get these as bonus feats similar to a rangers weapon style.
Fiddly Things - deadly aim accounts for a large amount of damage from dedicated ranged weapon users. The gunslingers gun training helps in this regard since it allows DEX to increase damage, as an added bonus DEX already increase the chance to hit with a gun making gunslingers less MAD then bow users. Maybe guns should have a specific rule allowing them to be used in conjunction with deadly aim even when making touch attacks or allow gunslingers to do this and no one else.
Exploding weapons can be annoying but if we get rid of this drawback and include some of the other suggested changes guns start to become better than bows and bows are already the best ranged option to focus in. I know people aren't fond of feat taxes, and some people have suggested getting rid of the touch AC ability of guns but then your just getting a slightly different crossbow. The unique mechanics are my favourite part of guns and I think the best argument for including them as an option at all. You posted earlier about having gunslingers having a reduced chance of their weapons exploding I think this is also a good idea. Gunslingers can already unjam their weapons by using grit but grit has better things to be spent on.
Range - guns have a very short range compared to bows or cross bows making them less accurate over long distances, on the other hands guns have a high critical multiplier and good base damage. If we allow for guns to reload as a free action through a feat tax or class mechanics this is another good drawback to keep these weapons balanced.
These are my opinions on the subject I would like gunslingers to be the primary gun users but i don't want them to be exclusive like the name of the thread reads. I think making guns a niche weapon without heavy investment be it through feats or picking a class dedicated to their use is the ideal solution. The rules as written come pretty close, some additional feats and a few changes to the gunslinger would make things perfect in my mind.
Guns are rare, difficult to make, and dangerous. It isn't like a sword, it is a mechanical device that requires train.
I cannot even begin to properly lol at the idea that swords are non-dangerous and require no training whatsoever, as opposed to firearms.
Guns are rare, difficult to make, and dangerous. It isn't like a sword, it is a mechanical device that requires train.I cannot even begin to properly lol at the idea that swords are non-dangerous and require no training whatsoever, as opposed to firearms.
Especially since one major reason guns supplanted swords and bows in our history is that guns were incredibly easy to pick up, while a swordsman or archer required extensive training and dedication to be any good.
Consider the trebuchet, and how much more complex it is than a sword.
Just the trigger mechanism of a gun is that complex.
Those of you who were in the army, was it easy breaking down guns, cleaning them, and reassembling them? Well that maintenance is what prevents them from misfiring and blowing up, right?
Note that I tried to address the cost of gunpowder, and 2 people objected to cheaper, flawed, gunpowder. Maybe if the flawed powder would have increased flaw instead of normal misfires. Like the goblin powder would have the effect of a thunderstone without damaging the gun if it blows.
Consider the trebuchet, and how much more complex it is than a sword.
Just the trigger mechanism of a gun is that complex.
Thoes of yopu who were in the army, was it easy breaking down guns, cleaning them, and reassembling them? Well that maintenance is what prevents them from misfiring and blowing up, right?Note that I tried to address the cost of gunpowder, and 2 people objected to cheeper, flawed, gunpowder. Maybe if the flawed powder would have increased flaw instead of normal misfires. Like the goblin powder would have the effect of a thunderstone without damaging the gun if it blows.
Ok, but fighting with a sword isn't just swinging it around like a stick and hoping you'll hit someone. I mean come on, it's a bit more complex then "put point end into other person"
Consider the trebuchet, and how much more complex it is than a sword.
Just the trigger mechanism of a gun is that complex.
Those of you who were in the army, was it easy breaking down guns, cleaning them, and reassembling them? Well that maintenance is what prevents them from misfiring and blowing up, right?
Note that I tried to address the cost of gunpowder, and 2 people objected to cheaper, flawed, gunpowder. Maybe if the flawed powder would have increased flaw instead of normal misfires. Like the goblin powder would have the effect of a thunderstone without damaging the gun if it blows.
I haven't been in the army, and I don't claim to be some kind of expert, but disassembling, cleaning, and reassembling the relatively complex(compared to a flintlock) Beretta 92 wasn't incredibly difficult to learn. It certainly took much less time to learn that than it took my friend to just get his first belt upgrade in whatever martial art he's taking, which has to be simpler than learning proper technique with a sword.
You know what, I was unable to learn to fire a gun.
I kept accidentally ejecting the bullets.
I gave the family guns to my brother who was in the navy and was actually trained. That was a Beretta, not a musket. I'm glad I never tried to fire a musket.
I imagine using any weapon in combat is many times worse then practicing.
You may have to accept some game balancing restrictions for guns in the game, or just demand that your gaming group doesn't go that way. In any case, the book has lots of things for Fighters, Barbarians, Monks, Cavaliers, and other martial classes.
Firearms are simple to use and simple to maintain, especially military weapons. A musket is not disassembled like an M-16 or AK-47/74 for cleaning, but is does require some attention to key parts to operate correctly. A musket is not a primative weapon like the handgunne or even a matchlock. By the time the musket arrived it was an extremely well crafted device capable of hitting targets out to 800 or so yards, with the minnie ball and percussion cap type ignition. Firearms replaced swords and bows due to ease of use and the quickness one could train a peasant to take the place of a fallen soldier.
You know what, I was unable to learn to fire a gun.
I kept accidentally ejecting the bullets.
Really? I find that hard to believe, you seem to be intelligent and you have a family member who has been trained, maybe you had a bad instructor or no instructor at all? Now being able to fire accurately is a different story, I know I'm not as accurate as my sister who is in the military and practices much more than I do, but with a day or maybe two of instruction I'm confident anybody can at least learn to fire a gun.
Anyways, none of that matters for the game anyways. What bothers me, and others, about the firearms in the game is that anyone should be able to use one at least as well as they could use a bow, if the DM allows their use and they take the required exotic proficiency feat.
Maybe they're rare in Golarion, so are insanely overpriced for their value in the Campaign setting, or maybe only gunslingers can use them in your(not specific, a general you) home campaign, so they are the only ones who you let access useful guns, that's fine, great even. You know what you want for your home campaign, and Paizo knows what they want for Golarion, and both of you get what you want.
Creating a weapon that nobody in any campaign can use as effectively without being a gunslinger even after spending feats to do so, that's not fine. If you do that everyone who wants to run a swashbuckling game, or have more widespread firearms, has to house rule useful firearms into existence so that players will have an incentive to spend the feat to use a firearm, and not just stick with the superior bow or the not-incredibly-inferior-for-the-price crossbow.
|
|
Guns are rare, difficult to make, and dangerous. It isn't like a sword, it is a mechanical device that requires train.I cannot even begin to properly lol at the idea that swords are non-dangerous and require no training whatsoever, as opposed to firearms.
One contains explosives, and will explode when used if not properly maintained.
One is a big knife.
|
|
Firearms are simple to use and simple to maintain, especially military weapons. A musket is not disassembled like an M-16 or AK-47/74 for cleaning, but is does require some attention to key parts to operate correctly. A musket is not a primative weapon like the handgunne or even a matchlock. By the time the musket arrived it was an extremely well crafted device capable of hitting targets out to 800 or so yards, with the minnie ball and percussion cap type ignition. Firearms replaced swords and bows due to ease of use and the quickness one could train a peasant to take the place of a fallen soldier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus
We are talking about the first introduction of firearms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket
And your range is WAY off. Smooth bore aren't accurate, which was the whole point of rifling, which requires mechanization.
You don't clean them between shots, or if they got clogged, or if it was too humid...
Guns existed long before they were practical. That is the time period we are looking at.
|
|
I haven't been in the army, and I don't claim to be some kind of expert, but disassembling, cleaning, and reassembling the relatively complex(compared to a flintlock) Beretta 92 wasn't incredibly difficult to learn. It certainly took much less time to learn that than it took my friend to just get his first belt upgrade in whatever martial art he's taking, which has to be simpler than learning proper technique with a sword.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzRia1WYFOA
You are confusing modern guns with the guns we are talking about.
This is someone speed loading one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ&feature=related
You have to clean between each shot because it doesn't eject like modern weapons.
If you think the above is simpler than using a sword, we fundamentally disagree.
Guns are rare, difficult to make, and dangerous. It isn't like a sword, it is a mechanical device that requires train.I cannot even begin to properly lol at the idea that swords are non-dangerous and require no training whatsoever, as opposed to firearms.One contains explosives, and will explode when used if not properly maintained.
One is a big knife.
I have now begun to properly lol.
Swords: literally just a big knife.
Yeah, ok.
|
|
You know what, I was unable to learn to fire a gun.
I kept accidentally ejecting the bullets.Really? I find that hard to believe, you seem to be intelligent and you have a family member who has been trained, maybe you had a bad instructor or no instructor at all? Now being able to fire accurately is a different story, I know I'm not as accurate as my sister who is in the military and practices much more than I do, but with a day or maybe two of instruction I'm confident anybody can at least learn to fire a gun.
Anyways, none of that matters for the game anyways. What bothers me, and others, about the firearms in the game is that anyone should be able to use one at least as well as they could use a bow, if the DM allows their use and they take the required exotic proficiency feat.
Maybe they're rare in Golarion, so are insanely overpriced for their value in the Campaign setting, or maybe only gunslingers can use them in your(not specific, a general you) home campaign, so they are the only ones who you let access useful guns, that's fine, great even. You know what you want for your home campaign, and Paizo knows what they want for Golarion, and both of you get what you want.
Creating a weapon that nobody in any campaign can use as effectively without being a gunslinger even after spending feats to do so, that's not fine. If you do that everyone who wants to run a swashbuckling game, or have more widespread firearms, has to house rule useful firearms into existence so that players will have an incentive to spend the feat to use a firearm, and not just stick with the superior bow or the not-incredibly-inferior-for-the-price crossbow.
The feats don't exist yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEEfgwWfhb0
That is a black powder pistol.
If you want to have a single fire pistol on your belt, which would be how you would actually use it, that would be fine. But there is a reason these things co-existed with regular knights for a long time. They aren't that effective.
|
|
Guns are rare, difficult to make, and dangerous. It isn't like a sword, it is a mechanical device that requires train.I cannot even begin to properly lol at the idea that swords are non-dangerous and require no training whatsoever, as opposed to firearms.One contains explosives, and will explode when used if not properly maintained.
One is a big knife.
I have now begun to properly lol.
Swords: literally just a big knife.
Yeah, ok.
In DnD terms, it takes 6 seconds to swing a sword once, until you are 6th level.
Comparing the two, which is more difficult to do without provoking? Which is harder to "reload". Which is more likely to do damage to you if you don't clean it between uses?
Guns are rare, difficult to make, and dangerous. It isn't like a sword, it is a mechanical device that requires train.I cannot even begin to properly lol at the idea that swords are non-dangerous and require no training whatsoever, as opposed to firearms.One contains explosives, and will explode when used if not properly maintained.
One is a big knife.
I have now begun to properly lol.
Swords: literally just a big knife.
Yeah, ok.
In DnD terms, it takes 6 seconds to swing a sword once, until you are 6th level.
Comparing the two, which is more difficult to do without provoking? Which is harder to "reload". Which is more likely to do damage to you if you don't clean it between uses?
Which takes months or years of study and exercise to be able to swing effectively, which can be given to illiterate peasants and loaded and fired properly within a week or so of training?
|
|
Which takes months or years of study and exercise to be able to swing effectively, which can be given to illiterate peasants and loaded and fired properly within a week or so of training?
You are thinking of the crossbow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossbow#Medieval_EuropeRead up on your military history. The best trained forces of the time were pikemen. Knights were effective as much for equipment as training, as both armor and horses required generational level wealth to acquire and maintain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reisl%C3%A4ufer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knight#Origins_of_medieval_knighthood
And firearms were initially part of mixed infantry, intended to counter calvary forces, like knights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio#Professionalism
Peasents couldn't use guns. For one thing, they scared them, which was half the point of early guns, since they sucked as far as lethality. For another thing, they were far to complicated and expensive to give to an untrained, non-professional soldier. Not to mention when they were later used on horseback, meaning you had to train horses not to throw riders when they heard explosions behind them. The smoke and explosion from early firearms were as effective as the bullets in getting the enemy off the battlefield.
The master swordsman was more an Eastern Concept. You don't have the kind of mobility in armor that your swordmanship is the primary factor in success.
Knights were generally mounted Calvary, and as the Monguls showed, men on horses don't have to be highly trained to be highly effective against most people.
You do not clean a musket between shots, bud. That is them ramming the round and shot down the barrel.
Here is a link for three shots from a musket in 46 seconds and it did not explode on the user.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
I do not disagree that a flintlock musket is not a perfect or even prefered weapon in many situations, but to act like you have a bomb in the hands of anyone who has been shown the basics of use is a bit silly. So the idea of shooting a lightning bolt out a twisted stick you bought at the magic-mart is okay, but it is completely unthinkable that someone could make a simple, three component bit of chemistry like blackpowder?
You are also correct about the smoothbore muskets range being far less than that of the rifled musket, which is why I mentioned the minnie ball. However, I should have specified the rifling in the 800 yard range. 100, give or take a few, yards would be far more likely for a ball type of shot. The horse pistol made the lance obsolete and I see no reason why a person wanting to reflect this in their Cavalier patterned off a Polish Hussar should not be able to do so.
The question here is why do you dislike the idea of characters using an instrument which gains none of the over the top benefits that they can get out of a bow or even sling?
I also see no reason why a bard shouldn't be able to use a firearm as his performance tool. The idea of a trick shooting bard using perform oratory or something sounds about right and sounds pretty entertaining, too. I'd rather see the fella shooting things than a guy in tights with a lute any day, lol.
|
|
You do not clean a musket between shots, bud. That is them ramming the round and shot down the barrel.
Here is a link for three shots from a musket in 46 seconds and it did not explode on the user.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJMbxZ1k9NQ
I do not disagree that a flintlock musket is not a perfect or even prefered weapon in many situations, but to act like you have a bomb in the hands of anyone who has been shown the basics of use is a bit silly. So the idea of shooting a lightning bolt out a twisted stick you bought at the magic-mart is okay, but it is completely unthinkable that someone could make a simple, three component bit of chemistry like blackpowder?
You are also correct about the smoothbore muskets range being far less than that of the rifled musket, which is why I mentioned the minnie ball. However, I should have specified the rifling in the 800 yard range. 100, give or take a few, yards would be far more likely for a ball type of shot. The horse pistol made the lance obsolete and I see no reason why a person wanting to reflect this in their Cavalier patterned off a Polish Hussar should not be able to do so.
The question here is why do you dislike the idea of characters using an instrument which gains none of the over the top benefits that they can get out of a bow or even sling?
The question is how much we want to integrate guns into the existing world, and how we want to do it.
At this point guns more or less exist in one place, as a closely held secret.
As to specifics, the horse pistol did not make the lance obsolete. Repeating firearms such as revolvers did.
They also made obsolete armor, and eventually horses.
In the early days of firearms, as I linked above, pikemen were the bane of the knight. Later firearms were integrated with pike and sword, because of the limitations of early firearms, specifically re-load time, misfires (humidity was a major issue, and don't even talk about rain), range and reliability.
The Polish Hussar isn't a contemporary of the knight for a reason. The change in tactics made the old was obsolete. And those changes came as a result of technology, specifically the ability to machine manufacture replaceable parts, and rifle bores of guns. Which was the start of the industrial revolution, which isn't a world with men running around (slowly) in armor and castles that are slow to build but quick to be destroyed by gunpowder.
If you want firearms in a medieval world, there have to be heavy limits. We would all agree machine guns would be wrong. Now we are just debating where the line is.
If everyone can have and effectively use a revolver, the game is fundamentally different. If reloading quickly is a supernatural kind ability of the gunslinger class, you can have the archetype without flooding the world.
Your fighter can still have a single fire pistol, but it is exactly that. It is a matter of flavor vs mechanics.
If you want someone that can do both, that is why multi-classing exists.
|
Proficiency aside, gun exclusivity would suck. It means pirates can’t use muskets unless they sub GS, Swashbucklers the same. Doing this would make GS the new 3E ranger (Take 1 level just to get all the Two Weapon stuff and hang the rest of the levels). I think it’s enough that everyone outside of GS has to burn a feat to be able to use Firearms without penalty.
|
Full Attack Action - the weapons are very slow to reload and really impedes on action economy. If you allow gunslingers the ability to reload as a free action at level 6 like you said gunslingers can overcome this issue when it becomes most important the introduction of Iterative attacks from BAB (I like this idea.) Another option would be to introduce a string of feats that allow all fire arms to eventually be free action reloads, the gunslinger could get these as bonus feats similar to a rangers weapon style.
I support the Gunslinger gaining the ability to reload as a quicker action, all the way down to a free action, using a weapon that's physically designed for it.
No matter how I try, I can't visualise anyone pouring powder down a muzzle-loading musket, spitting musket balls after it, and tamping down the mix with a ramrod, as a free action.
Ideally, they should be buying or (better still) customising themselves a better weapon as they level, so they have a multi-chambered revolver, repeater rifle, or pump-action shotgun by the time they become eligible for multiple shots/round.
What if becoming a gunslinger, or taking a level of gunslinger, was the only way to learn how to craft a gun/gun powder.
What if better guns/powder/ammunition only became available to gunslingers as they leveled (preventing to many dips) and use of guns was something only gunslingers knew how to do safely (exploding guns aren't hard to imagine without proper knowledge of how to maintain them.
Rather than making it about the feats and features primarily, why not orient it more as a technical class, who have mastered crafting a powerful weapon. You could have branches off for different types of gun specializations, etc...
But this way you can control the power of the weapon by level and limit it's effect on the greater world.
Thoughts?
I like your idea.
I'm hoping that Ultimate Combat will include rules for playing with worlds at different levels of technology with regard to guns, and that the "default" will still be that they don't exist. I'd like to see three:
- Guns don't exist.
- Guns are extremely rare and can only be made/used effectively by gunslingers.
- Guns aren't rare, just a little expensive for the average farmer, so he still uses a bow.