Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Crossbow mastery
Rangers can get it as a combat feat, does that overpower them vs a fighter?
Ok, I didn't know about Crossbow Mastery. You included feats I don't consider part of the reloading (WF/PBS/RS) but that is fine.
As for making Rangers overpowered, when I built an Archer I will use Fighter not Ranger for mechanical benefit. I'd use a Ranger for the AC and skills (so more of a flavor) benefit, but It would still be mostly Fighter levels.
You are exagerating the issue. Stop being a wet blanket.
Stick it. The guy is doing it WRONG. He's unsafe. He's pointing the thing at his face when he's ramming the ball on a capped and charged pistol. The hammers on those things don't have safeties built into a lot of modern automatics.
People like him get people maimed or killed.
And proving the bigger point. These guns are hard to use safely, let alone quickly.
Noooo...
It's not really all that hard to put the cap on the thing AFTER you load the powder charge and ball.
It's also not all that hard to do it quickly.
|
Jeez get over YOURSELF. See I can be more convicing when I type in all caps.
In caps or not, Brian is right. Trying to cunningly point over the way it's written because you don't have any other argument that "it's fine, you're exagerating" doesn't make it less true. Seriously, what doesn't strike you in safety concerns about a weapon that can blow your brain in a second when you read "He's pointing the thing at his face when he's ramming the ball on a capped and charged pistol", which is obviously the case in this video ?
But well, it would be best not to object on this point anymore and get back to the subject, maybe ?
A gunslinger is a specialization of fighter.
As such, he/she is better at using guns than a non-specialized fighter.
A gunslinger is poorer at all other weapons.
My comment about the Monk, fighter, and mummy was to point out that all class abilities may become important in combat.
The fact of the matter is that you really can't load a gun like that without pointing it at someone or some thing. It's a gun it's never safe ever. What the person is doing in the video is trying to show you what it takes to load the gun, he is not running a safety video.
As some one who has taken those types of classes, and had years of black powder experiance, I can tell the differance.
You can load it without putting the cap on until the final stage, leaving the hammer un-cocked, and you can load it without pointing it at someone.
The fact that you're disputing this belies your claim of "years" of experience.
Brian and you are wrong, and your both derailing the topic. Stop being a wet blanket and feel free to get on topic.
Lay off the name calling. It's against the rules, and especially inappropriate for someone representing Paizo in the PFS as a Venture-Captain. Do you insult your players and GMs and call them names when they disagree with you?
If it bothers you so much, stop replying to me. The video was cited as proof towards the OP that it's "slow" or unsafe to load one of these pistols, and used to support an argument I disagree with. I'm debunking it. It's on-topic.
How about making guns more viable by making upgrade modules?
They could be made by anyone with the proper Craft skill, but the Gunslinger could get them for free, like alchemist discoveries.
That way, anyone with enough gold can get a good gun, but not only does the GS get free upgrades he made himself from a bunch of scraps, but he's also just plain old better at using guns.
I can see gunfighters calling for a duel if they see a nongunfighter with a better weapon. An intelligent gun might even change owner of it's own choice. If I had a fighter and had picked up a holy sword, I wouldn't fight a paladin over it.
Note that anyone can try to use thieves tools. They might not ever open a locked door with it, but that's how it goes.
|
|
How about making guns more viable by making upgrade modules?
They could be made by anyone with the proper Craft skill, but the Gunslinger could get them for free, like alchemist discoveries.
Elghinn Lightbringer is already writing an Alpha Gunslinger based on this idea and Ashiel's Gunslinger, beyond others that were all put on the table and discussed by the community. These will be called Innovations. You should check the forum for when the pdf gets out, or Ashiel's topic on the last pages, though the discussion about Elghinn's Community Alpha Gunslinger ended and will continue in a new consecrated topic as soon as the pdf is available. ;)
|
And proving the bigger point. These guns are hard to use safely, let alone quickly.Noooo...
It's not really all that hard to put the cap on the thing AFTER you load the powder charge and ball.
It's also not all that hard to do it quickly.
Quickly relative to what? A sword? A bow? A crossbow? A heavy crossbow?
As I said above, it takes 5 feats to be able to load a heavy crossbow as a free action. Is it more or less difficult that a heavy crossbow, not to mention dangerous.
|
|
And proving the bigger point. These guns are hard to use safely, let alone quickly.Noooo...
It's not really all that hard to put the cap on the thing AFTER you load the powder charge and ball.
It's also not all that hard to do it quickly.
Quickly relative to what? A sword? A bow? A crossbow? A heavy crossbow?
As I said above, it takes 5 feats to be able to load a heavy crossbow as a free action. Is it more or less difficult that a heavy crossbow, not to mention dangerous.
Quicker than a heavy crossbow, slower than a light crossbow. Since the game mechanics don't have much room for that, and as you said it takes 2 feats to load a light crossbow as a free action and 5 feats to reload a heavy crossbow as a free action, then firearms should fall in at about 3-4 feats.
As for danger, depends on the technology of the firearm. Matchlocks are significantly more dangerous due to the fact that you have to hold a lit match while handling powder. Flintlocks or percussion cap firearms are not that much more dangerous than a heavy crossbow.
Considering medieval times and this being entry level, it would seem matchlock would be the standard, right?
Good post, by the way.
No my years of experiance let's me know that how it's done and what he's trying to do. The fact is that you decided that you whould just treadcrap over the other poster and not even acknowledge that the video had any sort of value at all.
In my opinion, it doesn't. I'm not required to recognize value in something I believe has none. *MY* years of experience let me know that this video demonstrates how NOT to load a muzzleloader and seriously question *YOUR* years of experience, since you continue to argue for the "value" of unsafe practices.
You could have come on and said, "Well I still disagree and but I have to say that I think that the I think that the way the person is doing the demo is unsafe." But instead you decided to brow beat another poster and disvalue anything he said.
Brow-beating? No. "Disvalue"? Sure. Because I don't believe the argument about that particular point with that video as support had any value.
So no, it doesn't "bother" me to reply to you because the video has some value. It does have value, it gives is place historically , it explains how the gun is loaded, the caliber, method of loading it.
Incorrectly and unsafely. We've been over this.
And when it come to gun safety, how many people do you think historically actually followed that rule "Never point it towards your face". I know that gun leasons were not handed out once you got your gun. That's a modern thinking. I know I have seen woodcuts and painting of people loading guns pointed in thier general direction of thier head since the regency era.
Do you have a point? You're actually arguing that, in your opinion, firearms safety historically WASN'T taught, so it's alright for the cosplaying mountain man to demonstrate how to shoot himself in the face, and you use artistic depictions to back it up?
Ultimately, even if you're right, that firearms safety is a recent development in the history of firearms, who cares? My argument is that one CAN safely and correctly load a pistol such as this. A powder charge can be poured and the patch/ball can be rammed without pointing it in your own face, and while not pointing it in the general direction of others. The hammer can be cocked and the percussion cap can then be loaded AFTER charging the pistol. If you truly did have the "years of black powder experience" that you claim, you'd know this to be true.
The only thing about this gun that the video demonstrates is how NOT to do it.
My other argument was that one can load the pistol far faster than the video demonstrates, and I already acknowledged (before anyone else said anything about my comments) that I understood that the process was slowed down for instruction.
This "gun safety" issue is something that has mostly come about from gun clubs, and reenactors. and i'm glad that they do it because it has value and protection. But there is no reason to blast someone for that video.
You can stop with the weaseling.
I don't agree or disagree with how this video makes any point of view on how the game rules work, so make that what you will. I was asking you to stop doing a sort of activity. That's not name calling.
You called myself and another poster a "wet-blanket". That's name-calling.
Additionally, you didn't "ask" me to do anything. You demanded that I and another person stop talking about something that you didn't like, claiming it wasn't on-topic, and then called us names.
I'd also like to point out that YOU are the one derailing the thread, sir. I posted, nobody responded. You could have just kept yourself out of it, but you decided that you had to chastise me, causing any perceived thread derailment. If you were actually concerned about keeping things "on-topic", you'd not have responded, and you'd just walk away now. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.
I'm done with you and your disingenuous behavior.
On the first page of this topic, I posted a link to some pictures of a gunsmith. I think one or more of them showed him teaching a reenacter how to fire it. I could do a search on cleaning a musket.
http://www.claytonemery.com/musketclean.html
Chainmail can be substituted for steel wool if the links are fine enough. Black dragon spit can be used as a solvent.
I want you to keep arguing because if this thread gets locked, folks like me who don't want guns to become magically inert in the hands of non-gunslingers, win. :)
|
|
Disingenuous :
1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
3. Usage Problem Unaware or uninformed; naive.
I could describe why the term wasn't badly used to describe your apparent behavior, specificically concerning the fact that the guy reloading the gun is doing it wrong and that you don't want to admit it - even if reloading a weapon with the cap on, all the while pointing the barrel to his own face was a common behavior on previous centuries.
But I guess that assuming you couldn't do it yourself with the previous quote would maybe appear... disingenuous.So when people will stop insulting each other's intelligence and understand that even if the video of old-redneck-from-the-mountains is of some use by showing WAS (but not ISN'T) what to do when reloading old guns, maybe we'll just agree that firearms are really gunslinger exclusive, but hey, crossbows suck too right now, so why not.
I guess other class variants will be included around the idea of firearm wielders... alchemist already got several unofficial ones.
|
|
On the first page of this topic, I posted a link to some pictures of a gunsmith. I think one or more of them showed him teaching a reenacter how to fire it. I could do a search on cleaning a musket.
http://www.claytonemery.com/musketclean.html
Chainmail can be substituted for steel wool if the links are fine enough. Black dragon spit can be used as a solvent.
I want you to keep arguing because if this thread gets locked, folks like me who don't want guns to become magically inert in the hands of non-gunslingers, win. :)
No one is saying magically inert.
What I am saying it that normal people in medieval times would have no idea how load and use the type of guns available to them without specific training, and even then those guns would be dangerous to use by someone without expertise.
I personally think a single level of gunslinger is not to much to ask if you want to SAFELY use firearms.
Anyone can use them, only gunslingers can do so with no risk of failure.
What I am saying it that normal people in medieval times would have no idea how load and use the type of guns available to them without specific training, and even then those guns would be dangerous to use by someone without expertise.
I see what you're saying, but it's not an accurate portrayal. Guns are EASY, which is why they became popular.
Loading them is a simple process that a mere few hours of training is enough to get the average peasant familiar enough to reasonably safely load and fire reasonably quickly.
I personally think a single level of gunslinger is not to much to ask if you want to SAFELY use firearms.
Anyone can use them, only gunslingers can do so with no risk of failure.
Then the same should be for other weapons as well. Anyone can use them, but they run the risk of hurting themselves if they don't have the appropriate level dip.
Do any other weapons in the game require a class level-dip in order to obtain proficiency? Did the game introduce (or reintroduce) provisions to injure yourself by not being proficient with a weapon?
This point however I would have to give to ciretose. The firearms rules as presented include misfire chance with the possibility of the weapon exploding. From a game design point of view, having a class feature of the gunslinger lower that misfire chance or cancel out that possibility of the weapon exploding is a viable option and a good idea.
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to make this a feat, and give that feat to the gunslinger as a class ability (say, at Level 1)?
It's still kind of wonky, because you can't really use "training" as an excuse for why the gun is more reliable.
|
|
This point however I would have to give to ciretose. The firearms rules as presented include misfire chance with the possibility of the weapon exploding. From a game design point of view, having a class feature of the gunslinger lower that misfire chance or cancel out that possibility of the weapon exploding is a viable option and a good idea.Wouldn't it be more appropriate to make this a feat, and give that feat to the gunslinger as a class ability (say, at Level 1)?
It's still kind of wonky, because you can't really use "training" as an excuse for why the gun is more reliable.
Like I showed above, it's 5 feats to use a heavy crossbow effectively, and that has no chance of blowing up on you.
My suggestion was at first level gunslingers lose the misfire chance and at 6th level they gain the ability to reload as a free action.
Personally, I would prefer these two things to be the domain of the gunslinger, as they are almost supernatural ability, particularly reload as a free action when you are discussing medieval firearms, which would be matchlock.
At minimum it should be as many feats as a heavy crossbow. And if is not gunslinger exclusive, I would argue it should be at least more since one feat in the chain should be for the "no misfire" chance.
I'm also a fan of having gunslingers get access to gunslinger exclusive skills like exploding dice, but that isn't on the table according the the Devs.
My mom tried to teach me how to fire a gun. She was a reading teacher.
You have to find someone who is at my level of training.
Now have someone like my Mon try to get them to use a crossbow.
Noone has let me anywhere near a crossbow, which is a good thing. :)
No specific training is required to use a crossbow.
Anyone can train an animal, or with a +5, a non-animal. Your character can raise and train a dragon if they put enough points into handle animal. Neither of you gain the benefits of an animal companion.
I have no objection to non-gunslingers having a greater miss and mishap chance. Like learning to use a crossbow, learning to use or maintain a gun is something that happens in downtime.
My mom tried to teach me how to fire a gun. She was a reading teacher.
You have to find someone who is at my level of training.
Now have someone like my Mon try to get them to use a crossbow.
Noone has let me anywhere near a crossbow, which is a good thing. :)No specific training is required to use a crossbow.
Nor guns. Guns come with an instruction booklet. Crossbows come with an instruction booklet. Both are equally straightforward.
Anyone can train an animal, or with a +5, a non-animal. Your character can raise and train a dragon if they put enough points into handle animal. Neither of you gain the benefits of an animal companion.
Aren't those benefits supernatural or extraordinary in origin? Guns aren't magical.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no rule stating that you can't have a pet trained [random_animal] and treat it like a party-affiliated NPC, utilizing it for attacks, etc.
I have no objection to non-gunslingers having a greater miss and mishap chance. Like learning to use a crossbow, learning to use or maintain a gun is something that happens in downtime.
And it should be represented by feats, not by a level dip.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My suggestion was at first level gunslingers lose the misfire chance and at 6th level they gain the ability to reload as a free action.
This for Gunslinger alone makes sense. Everyone can use them, but I can see the Gunslinger being able to make the firearm work for him without the misfire chance. And yes, they should be able to get the ability to reload as a free action.
Doing this would be a colossal tragedy and all around defect in the game. Making a weapon something only one class could use is wrong on so many levels. I'd be forced to house rule the misfire chance and reload free action is granted to all characters at 6th level regardless of what class levels you take.
|
|
Any class proficient could use it, only gunslingers could do it better. You don't say the longsword is bad because wizards can't wield it without cutting their own heads, or that crossbows are horrible (they are, bad example but still) because they need some feats than only a crossbowman would have to be used efficiently ?
Even if guns are different and this exemple an hyperbole, I don't find surprising that a class could use a weapon better than others. Though, I guess it should be possible to everyone to get by feats what the gunslinger gets naturally : reload guns fast enough.
Any class proficient could use it, only gunslingers could do it better. You don't say the longsword is bad because wizards can't wield it without cutting their own heads
People don't say this because it doesn't happen.
Though, I guess it should be possible to everyone to get by feats what the gunslinger gets naturally : reload guns fast enough.
And giving those feats free to the gunslinger as it progresses would be just fine.
|
|
Nor guns. Guns come with an instruction booklet. Crossbows come with an instruction booklet. Both are equally straightforward.My mom tried to teach me how to fire a gun. She was a reading teacher.
You have to find someone who is at my level of training.
Now have someone like my Mon try to get them to use a crossbow.
Noone has let me anywhere near a crossbow, which is a good thing. :)No specific training is required to use a crossbow.
Modern Guns. We are talking about these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket
You just posted a scathing criticism of someone at least moderately well trained in how to use them. He is, I assume, literate and educated in a modern school system. He has used the weapon enough to feel comfortable demonstrating it on youtube. And yet you were saying he was lucky not to shoot himself in the face.
A crossbow is load and crank.
A front-loaded matchlock firearm is a bit more complex and a lot more dangerous when you mess up.
|
|
Anyone can train an animal, or with a +5, a non-animal. Your character can raise and train a dragon if they put enough points into handle animal. Neither of you gain the benefits of an animal companion.Aren't those benefits supernatural or extraordinary in origin? Guns aren't magical.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's no rule stating that you can't have a pet trained [random_animal] and treat it like a party-affiliated NPC, utilizing it for attacks, etc.
I have no objection to non-gunslingers having a greater miss and mishap chance. Like learning to use a crossbow, learning to use or maintain a gun is something that happens in downtime.And it should be represented by feats, not by a level dip.
Guns aren't supernatural or extraordinary. Being able to use a matchlock firearm with no chance of misfire may be. And being able to load and fire one more than once in 6 seconds is pretty extraordinary.
And who is teaching them how to use and maintain that very rare gun?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Though, I guess it should be possible to everyone to get by feats what the gunslinger gets naturally : reload guns fast enough.And giving those feats free to the gunslinger as it progresses would be just fine.
That would be fine, give Gunslinger feats to grant it free action reload (done but requires Gunslinger levels so invalid in my book.)
Anything Gunslingers get (related to shooting the weapon) should be available to Wizards even if they have enough of the feats to make it happen.
Only exagerating to prove my point, my friend. :D
Except your exaggeration wasn't close to the same thing, so I just rejected it out of hand. Point proof: failure.
|
|
Except your exaggeration wasn't close to the same thing, so I just rejected it out of hand. Point proof: failure.
I would probably get sad if your robotic logic hadn't helped mine to improve, fellow iron heart comrade. But misusing a weapon so much that it is close to useless and can even hurt you if you're not lucky did seem like a good representation of a comical wizard killing himself with a blade whose mastery isn't include in his training, and thus needs a feat, with D&D mechanics.
The fact english isn't my mother's tongue and that my people are famous for being bad at speaking anything else than french may explain why my argumentation sucked a bit on this one. But I virtually punch you in the face so I guess we're now friends again. 8D
Just to cross a few threads and point out things as far as PFS goes:
Note that Amateur Gunslinger is not a legal feat for Pathfinder Society play, nor can any class other than a gunslinger purchase a firearm.
So at least in PFS, guns will be a gunslinger exclusive.
Modern Guns. We are talking about these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arquebus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket
Sure. And, I'd argue, those older weapons are EASIER to use, because loading ammunition is something anyone can do without specialized equipment.
You just posted a scathing criticism of someone at least moderately well trained in how to use them. He is, I assume, literate and educated in a modern school system. He has used the weapon enough to feel comfortable demonstrating it on youtube. And yet you were saying he was lucky not to shoot himself in the face.
Because he cocked the hammer, put a percussion cap on the pistol, pointed it in the vicinity of his face, THEN poured a powder charge into the muzzle and proceeded to load the ball and ram.
You keep coming back to this video like it shows something that supports your argument. It doesn't. It does show how easy it is to load one of these firearms, but it also shows that the guy is doing it unsafely.
It doesn't support any argument whatsoever that the weapon is inherently unsafe or unreliable, nor does it support an argument that loading a weapon such as this is any more difficult than a modern firearm or crossbow.
A crossbow is load and crank.
Technically, it's crank and load.
A front-loaded matchlock firearm is a bit more complex and a lot more dangerous when you mess up.
What's more complex about it? An extra simple step or two?
Crossbow: Cock string, load bolt, aim, shoot.
Percussion Muzzleloader: Pour powder, insert patch/ball, ram, cock hammer, load percussion cap, aim, shoot.
For a flintlock, remove the "load percussion cap" step. For a matchlock, replace "load percussion cap" step with "light wick" step.
A hand crossbow would likely be quicker/easier than a pistol, but a heavy crossbow with it's crank? A pistol would be quicker and easier than that.
I'll say it again: Firearms are not difficult to use. Early firearms are really no more difficult to use than modern firearms. Arguably, since most people buy preloaded ammunition off the shelf at the store, modern firearms are harder to use if that preloaded ammunition is not available. Handloading ammunition requires special equipment. It's not hard to use the equipment once you have it, but it's certainly more complicated than simply melting some lead into a ball-shaped mold and letting it harden or pouring some powder down a barrel.
And who is teaching them how to use and maintain that very rare gun?
Who is teaching the fighter how to sword fight?
Sword fighting = more complicated than using a firearm.
|
|
And who is teaching them how to use and maintain that very rare gun?Who is teaching the fighter how to sword fight?
Sword fighting = more complicated than using a firearm.
Swordfighting WELL = more complicated than using a MODERN firearm.
They have these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KTS8PQ06Qo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dy3Oct1-AWY&feature=related
They may get these, which according to the guy in the video has 18-19 moving parts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8q4DicVBws&feature=related
This history channel special pretty much sums up the complexity and difficulty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnmIAKQYyac&feature=related
Master swordsman are master swordsmen. They are also high level fighters by DnD math, since a first level warrior has a +1 to attack, while what you would call a master swordsman would have at least a +6 since that is when you can attack twice in a round.
I'm saying with the amount of time and training needed to be a player who can attack twice with a sword, it would be an extraordinary ability to be able to reload a medieval firearm in the same amount of time.
Also, I think gunslingers needed to be limited to either light or medium armor when you look at the movement involved to pull out all the things you need to load the guns, similar to the restriction on rogues and rangers.
Just as Animal Companion is a quasi magical ability, so is rapid reloading. That only Gunslingers can do.
Some of you use the sarcasm so heavily I forget what side you are on. :)