Considering it takes a full round action AND costs a grit point (an extremely limited and valuable resource) AND requires you to hit the target with your attack roll, I don't think Targeting (as written) is broken at all.
Feel free to agree or disagree with me here and list your reasons for it. We can keep count of how many are for what side. :)
Discuss.
I don't think its broken if we look at a gunslinger in a vacuum, how it will pan out with party members ready to take advantage of the effects is a different matter.
I think the legs shot is the one most likely to cause an issue. Arms and head could go either way but lean more to the side of balance in my mind. Torso feels underpowered. As for wings I think flying creatures with actual wings are already at a disadvantage to magical fliers, it's probably balanced but I'd love to see a wizard or something knocked out of the air (the image amuses me).
The legs one feels broken to me because it seems to be the best option for tripping something, still deals damage, sets up attacks of opportunity, and can be performed at range.
It may all turn out to be balanced but my initial reaction is the legs one is a little broken.
Well, what really bothers me is the lack of a saving throw. Well, I don't think a lvl 7 gunslinger should be able to drop a CR 20 red dragon by just aiming at it's wings. Such a large and powerful creature can take much more damage without falling.
I think the CD should be 10 + 1/2 gunslinger lvl + dex modifier for most abilities. It's the way it works with other abilities from other classes.
Also, even if hitting the dragon on the fleshy part of its wing might not do much damage, if you can hit it in the shoulder of the wing, then you most certainly would cause it great pain. Also, please do note the number of times a gunslinger will use this effect, compared to the number of times you will throw enemies at players that have a difference of more than even 5 levels. :P
Hitting it's wings doesn't mean it's going to hit the ground though. Depending on the firearm used, the dragon may not even be within touch attack ranged and can still use it's breath weapon or even charge and chomp!
I agree with you, the dragon has lots os possibilities in it's hands (or claws), but that's not my point here. The dragon shouldn't be knocked over by an attack that would barely scratch it's hide.
To make my point clear, imagine the same gunslinger aiming at the Tarrasque's legs. Would the king of monsters just fall prone?
i have to agree wiith Tariel. This was one of my main arguments against targeting in round 1. I like targeting but I still think there needs to be something about hitting a creatures wings. A saving throw would be perfect. I've seen too much art, too many movies and read too many books where the dragons wings are much more messed up than just a bullet hole to get it to touch down.
|
Hitting it's wings doesn't mean it's going to hit the ground though. Depending on the firearm used, the dragon may not even be within touch attack ranged and can still use it's breath weapon or even charge and chomp!I agree with you, the dragon has lots os possibilities in it's hands (or claws), but that's not my point here. The dragon shouldn't be knocked over by an attack that would barely scratch it's hide.
To make my point clear, imagine the same gunslinger aiming at the Tarrasque's legs. Would the king of monsters just fall prone?
+1
To add a thing - the ability, regardless balance, is cool, but one could wonder why gunslingers only can aim to specific parts of the body...
|
I agree with you, the dragon has lots os possibilities in it's hands (or claws), but that's not my point here. The dragon shouldn't be knocked over by an attack that would barely scratch it's hide.
"Begins to fall" is not the same thing as "hits the ground." On the Dragon's turn it can regain altitude, assuming it was high enough off the ground that it didn't hit. It would also be good to know if the falling provoked AoO's.
To make my point clear, imagine the same gunslinger aiming at the Tarrasque's legs. Would the king of monsters just fall prone?
Legs is kind of a problem. At the very least, it should deal half damage. It might be necessary to make a check, probably attack roll +2-4 against CMD.
It's just kind of funny because TreantMonk's Monk guide suggests that the only way to make a Monk decent is set him up so he forces AoO's on enemies from the better party members. Now imagine your PC isn't a craptacular Monk but still deals a good bit of damage and forces a bunch of AoO's on some poor schmuck.
There was another thread that complained that head was a win button because you could just make a CR20 Dragon confused forever. I'll remind them that:
If a confused creature is attacked, it attacks the creature that last attacked it until that creature is dead or out of sight.
Head is not overpowered.
i have to agree wiith Tariel. This was one of my main arguments against targeting in round 1. I like targeting but I still think there needs to be something about hitting a creatures wings. A saving throw would be perfect. I've seen too much art, too many movies and read too many books where the dragons wings are much more messed up than just a bullet hole to get it to touch down.
Keep in mind that the ability is a full-round action and cost 1 grit per shot, regardless of a hit.
Having said that, the ones that deal damage in addition to having an effect should be treated as rider effect by the rules. If the damage does not bypass DR, the effect does not trigger.
Another option would be to allow the targeting of an Arm or Leg to deal damage AND act as CMB rolls against the target's CMD with a +4 bonus. Success functions as a Disarm or Trip. Mechnaically it keeps the effects in line with the rest of the game that way.
A level 7 gunslinger can knock the tarrasque prone or shoot the wings of a great gold wyrm to make it fall, without giving either a saving throw.
That is not okay in my book. If targeting is implemented as it is the gunslinger will never see use in my campaigns. Ever.
Head may not be over powered in the hands of a player. But as an npc ability it can be pretty mean. Players dont like being told what they are doing for the round with no save. It already came up in one encounter the dm threw a gunslinger at us. Had shot would have single handedly caused the death of my alchemist if the dm hadnt realized the implications of "no save" and backed off.
Realize also that spells that require a save throw or harm the target count as attacking. So would bombs, basically if it would cause you to lose invisibility then it is an attack.
And confused creatures attack those that attacked them last.
|
|
A level 7 gunslinger can knock the tarrasque prone or shoot the wings of a great gold wyrm to make it fall, without giving either a saving throw.
That is not okay in my book. If targeting is implemented as it is the gunslinger will never see use in my campaigns. Ever.
Again, causing something to fall is not the same thing as hitting the ground. Any dragon with brains will not be hitting the ground and instead just regain the altitude on their next turn.
Head may not be over powered in the hands of a player. But as an npc ability it can be pretty mean. Players dont like being told what they are doing for the round with no save. It already came up in one encounter the dm threw a gunslinger at us. Had shot would have single handedly caused the death of my alchemist if the dm hadnt realized the implications of "no save" and backed off.
As Abe said and I mentioned above, confused is only a problem if they never attack you afterwards. And then only for a single round.
This is a mole hill. That over there is a mountain. Please, note the difference.
Also, I find it silly that targeting only works when using a gun.
I'd prefer to see this implemented as a new rule for all ranged weapons instead, accessible via feats or something.
Finally it is again a full round action to use -- where as the archer fighter can trip at a distance against multiple targets, or someone with the critical feats can use them against multiple targets in the same round the gunslinger will only hit one target with this per round.
Also, I find it silly that targeting only works when using a gun.
I'd prefer to see this implemented as a new rule for all ranged weapons instead, accessible via feats or something.
how are other ranged classes going to use it by spending grit the dont have?
how are other ranged classes going to use it by spending grit the dont have?Also, I find it silly that targeting only works when using a gun.
I'd prefer to see this implemented as a new rule for all ranged weapons instead, accessible via feats or something.
The mechanic does not support this, but the question is: do you feel the image of a, say, crossbow wielder targeting a specific body part as possible, or impossible?
"called shots" have always been cantankerous and problematic in games. Take robot tech for example, the called shot was used to say down a fighter by attacking it's wings instead of its main body, shooting out tires, destroying the mechs head to knock out sensor array.
But then Invid Invasion/REF source books came out and the "head" was the pilots actual head on a cyclone mech, and the targeting the 'eye' on most invid mech destroyed the whole mech, who WOULDN'T be doing this?
The game that once had specialized attack options for a special reason was now one shot wonder damage and the game broke down hence why i havent played it since 1994 (but i kind of miss it).
That being said, i think shooting a xbow and nailing someones sleeve to a wall or knocking the potion out of their hand or whatever would be quite cool. We do alot of this in game anyway, the GM just assigns a DC or AC to accomplish what we want and we roll. I think thats where called shots should stay.
My group uses dirty trick to do this as well.
|
Considering it takes a full round action AND costs a grit point (an extremely limited and valuable resource) AND requires you to hit the target with your attack roll, I don't think Targeting (as written) is broken at all.
Feel free to agree or disagree with me here and list your reasons for it. We can keep count of how many are for what side. :)
Discuss.
You also have to spend money for the bullets. And you want to use your money for the good bullets so you don't raise your misfire. A more than once per 20 roles average is where i'd like to stay.
Balanced = yes.Should it maybe changed to an allotment of wisdom modifier per day....well maybe, but I guess that would take away from the "alt" fighter class.
Maybe as an archtype, swap out bravery +1 to Target Xper day. So Bravery +1 changes to Targeting 1/day?
And there maybe you can use it for regular fighter that is the xbow focous.
Who knows, i'm not a doctor....or am i?
I agree with you, the dragon has lots os possibilities in it's hands (or claws), but that's not my point here. The dragon shouldn't be knocked over by an attack that would barely scratch it's hide."Begins to fall" is not the same thing as "hits the ground." On the Dragon's turn it can regain altitude, assuming it was high enough off the ground that it didn't hit. It would also be good to know if the falling provoked AoO's.
Well, the problem, in my humble opinion, is not the dragon hitting the ground. The problem is: one shot can make anything "begin to fall", without a saving throw. A CR 20 dragon, or any similar monster, can take much more damage and stay flying.
I like the targeting ability, I just think it should have a saving throw to make situations like this extremely rare. Knocking the Tarrasque prone or halting a great wyrm flight should be nigh-impossible for any character, not an almost-certain shot, as it is written.
( Also, sorry for any misspelling or bad grammar :) )
Another option would be to allow the targeting of an Arm or Leg to deal damage AND act as CMB rolls against the target's CMD with a +4 bonus. Success functions as a Disarm or Trip. Mechnaically it keeps the effects in line with the rest of the game that way.
I think this is a fairly elegant solution. Kind of like the shield bull rush feats.
That being said, I still don't think there is a problem.
Practically every other ability in the game allows a save or Cmb check. I don't think the game benifits from this exception
That's not true. A great many abilities only ever allow for attack rolls (even touch attack rolls) to have an effect. Despite all the hee-hawing in this thread, this really isn't anything new.
Well, the problem, in my humble opinion, is not the dragon hitting the ground. The problem is: one shot can make anything "begin to fall", without a saving throw. A CR 20 dragon, or any similar monster, can take much more damage and stay flying.
So it's not about balance at all then, but about your inability to imagine the event in such a way as to make sense? Doesn't sound like a problem with the gunslinger or the rules, but with you.
Well, the problem, in my humble opinion, is not the dragon hitting the ground. The problem is: one shot can make anything "begin to fall", without a saving throw. A CR 20 dragon, or any similar monster, can take much more damage and stay flying.So it's not about balance at all then, but about your inability to imagine the event in such a way as to make sense? Doesn't sound like a problem with the gunslinger or the rules, but with you.
As per the fly rules, you'll start to fall anyway if you get hit while flying with wings. I'm sure any sane DM would go back to the fly rules on this one and allow a DC 10 save that any wyrmling dragon could make
Cross-posting from another thread, 'cause it's pertinent.
Turn it around in your campaign and have a gunslinger attacking your party and see if your fighter is ok with being disarmed with a ranged touch attack despite having the highest CMD in the game. Or your Paladin is ok with being confused despite a ridiculously high will save. Or your rogue is tripped without a reflex save.
Oh my players would get a kick out of this! The gunslinger would waste his entire round doing a trick shot, than the party would butcher him!
Gunslinger disarms fighter of his bow as a full-round action. Fighter picks up bow as a move action and shoots gunslinger in the head as a standard action. Gunslinger dies.
Gunslinger confuses party cleric as a full round action. Party cleric rolls a 15 on his percentile die, moves behind fighter for cover from future shots, and blasts gunslinger as a standard action. Gunslinger dies.
Gunslinger disarms party wizard of his staff as a full round action and laughs because he no longer has his arcane focus. Wizard laughs right back "I only tell people my power is in my staff to mislead them!" A moment later, he blasts the gunslinger as a standard action after moving behind cover of his own.
Seriously. This ability has some use, but in the scenario you describe it is extremely weak (even with the auto success) due to the nature of action economy. God forbid a single gunslinger try doing this to an ENTIRE party. He will get raped.
If I turn off the lights in my room, I'm not blind. It's just now dark in my room.
You're half right. It IS dark in the room, as you say, but you ARE INDEED blind (short of being a dwarf).
The whole point, from the beginning, is that it is unbalanced for a full BAB character to have something more powerful than a non-full BAB class would be able to get at the same level.
Now you're being a little more clear in your intent.
That's more a problem with Perception rules than anything else.
I agree. I only use those rules in the heat of combat where everyone is distracted and some things are easily missed. Use it all the time and suddenly you can't see down the hall of your own home in bright light.
Anything that makes a CR infinity higher than you automatically fall out of the sky is too good. Give the ability a save.
Anything with CR infinity will have other defenses besides touch AC. Assuming the gunslinger somehow still managed to land the hit and the CR infinity creature crashes to the ground, what do you think will happen? It will EAT the gunslinger. It's a self-correcting problem in that it only happens once. Why? Because the gunslinger is now dead and prospecting gunslingers aren't stupid enough to take shots at the CR infinity creature flying above them (cause they saw what happened to the last guy).
There's also a lot of talk about gunslinger stunlock. What stunlock? The confusion effect doesn't lock anyone down hardly ever. Stunlock are called stunlocks because they are reliable and totally screw up the enemy. Targeting neither screws up the enemy nor is it reliable.
I will see about doing some actual playtests in order to better prove my many points and disprove Ciretose's points.
This may seem like a strange suggestion, but why not go for a sort of middle ground?
I'm talking about a sort of Touch CMD. You get an attack that targets CMD, but removes the Dexterity modifier, or the Strength modifier, depending on your opinion.
Cross-posting from another thread, 'cause it's pertinent.
Was Cross Posted from this tread, for context.
Turn it around in your campaign and have a gunslinger attacking your party and see if your fighter is ok with being disarmed with a ranged touch attack despite having the highest CMD in the game. Or your Paladin is ok with being confused despite a ridiculously high will save. Or your rogue is tripped without a reflex save.
................................................................
Also, in this tread,
I've come across 2 additional changes I would like to see.
1. Stunning Shot should have a save. Being automatic allows for the possibility of infinite stun lock loops which are pure action denial (literally, stunned means you cannot take an action).
2. Gunslinger save DCs should use Wis instead of Dex as the abilities that grant saves are tied to Grit which is Wis based and Dex is a borderline super-stat (AC, reflex save, initiative, several skills, and ranged attacks).
Stunning shot will have a save in the final version.
Saving throws will be based on Wis...including the one for stunning shot.
Bravery will be replaced. I think you will like the replacement, but we are still discussing its final form.
Don't expect to get medium armor with the final gunslinger.
So they are aware of the problem, and fixing it.
Oh my players would get a kick out of this! The gunslinger would waste his entire round doing a trick shot, than the party would butcher him!
Gunslinger disarms fighter of his bow as a full-round action. Fighter picks up bow as a move action and shoots gunslinger in the head as a standard action. Gunslinger dies.
Gunslinger confuses party cleric as a full round action. Party cleric rolls a 15 on his percentile die, moves behind fighter for cover from future shots, and blasts gunslinger as a standard action. Gunslinger dies.
Gunslinger disarms party wizard of his staff as a full round action and laughs because he no longer has his arcane focus. Wizard laughs right back "I only tell people my power is in my staff to mislead them!" A moment later, he blasts the gunslinger as a standard action after moving behind cover of his own.
Seriously. This ability has some use, but in the scenario you describe it is extremely weak (even with the auto success) due to the nature of action economy. God forbid a single gunslinger try doing this to an ENTIRE party. He will get raped.
Yeah the tarresque sucks to if you give the players the "Sword of kills tarresques in one hit and always hits"
Think if your level 20 (along with your party of four) your DM sends 3 level 20's, a level 18, and a level 3 gunslinger.
Round one, they protect gunslingers, gunslinger trips your fighter (cause his level three awesomeness beats you) everyone takes AOO and your fighter falls.
Rinse repeat. TPK where otherwise would just be a tough-ish fight all because of a level 3 gunslinger. Sure you could target him, but then the NPC's are laughing and cheering because you used resources and actions to kill the level 3 in their party. Imagine if they brought two or three.
Edit: @jacinto, yeah your awesome gun can disarm a storm giant who has arms the size of a house and there's nothing he can do about it, who else can do that at level three?
Again, causing something to fall is not the same thing as hitting the ground.A level 7 gunslinger can knock the tarrasque prone or shoot the wings of a great gold wyrm to make it fall, without giving either a saving throw.
That is not okay in my book. If targeting is implemented as it is the gunslinger will never see use in my campaigns. Ever.
That argument was obtuse the first time it was use and has gotten so much so that it's a bloody circle.
Level 7 actually. And if you want to get technical about size issues and whatnot, then fine. Do your giants not have nerves in their hands? Slight impact to any nerve in your body can make odd things happen.
Sorry I had the number 3 stuck in my head for some reason, And yes they have hands but those hands are tougher then concrete and the nerves aren't small like a normal human which means you only hit 1/100th of it which would not cause a jerk reaction.
Slight impact to any nerve in your body can make odd things happen.
Yes, and multiple gunshots usually result in death, but for the sake of good gameplay they don't necessarily do in this game.
Making an ability that can drop a target prone, disarm it or even stop it from flying without a chance for a saving throw regardless of the creature's power is ridiculous. No other class has an ability like that. I'd even be fine for them to drop targeting down to a standard action if they just gave it a saving throw based on Wis or Dex.
Oh yeah that's right. It's too bad ranged touch isn't the game's way of putting in armor penetration and natural armor, which is thick skin, counts as armor. Oh, wait a minute....
Oh and of course, really big nerves are harder to hit than small ones. After all with humans, you need to hit the entire nerve rather than just a portion of it. Not like nerves are designed to be sensitive or anything along the entire nerve to allow being able to have a sense of touch. Wait, that doesn't sound right.
If a doctor hits half the reflex nerve in your leg (the one that makes you kick) guess what? your leg doesn't move. Funny how that works.
Your tiny bullet isn't even hitting half the reflexive nerve joints (not to mention this still works with no save on creatures without nerves like undead). Hitting it isn't the problem, hitting enough to cause a muscle reaction is entirely different. Gunslinger can do it blindfolded (with a 50% miss chance of course)
Ugh, fine how about this. if you are immune to stun, you are immune to this. That's the best you are going to get. Why shouldn't you be able to attack specific limbs? And if you are going to answer that question, make it make sense for roleplaying and not an arbitrary mechanics "Because it says so" reason. remember, roleplaying always comes first. If you can find a roleplayed reason why this should not work, then go ahead. And saying "it doesn't balance" is not a roleplay reason. So go ahead. Give a roleplayed reason why you can not get shot in specific spots to make certain things happen. Oh and make sure your reason can not also be used to disprove something you do agree with.
Uh no, roleplay does not trump either balance or rules for comparative abilities.
Ugh, fine how about this. if you are immune to stun, you are immune to this. That's the best you are going to get. Why shouldn't you be able to attack specific limbs? And if you are going to answer that question, make it make sense for roleplaying and not an arbitrary mechanics "Because it says so" reason. remember, roleplaying always comes first. If you can find a roleplayed reason why this should not work, then go ahead. And saying "it doesn't balance" is not a roleplay reason. So go ahead. Give a roleplayed reason why you can not get shot in specific spots to make certain things happen. Oh and make sure your reason can not also be used to disprove something you do agree with.
I have a roleplaying reason, because my elven archer even at level 20 is still plinking away at his chest for some reason rather then his eye socket, two shots and my target should be blind. How do you explain why the gunslingers aim at level 7 is better then the worlds best archer?
Okay now that roleplaying is out of the way, I agree with cartigan that balance comes first. That is why they absolved trip locking even if it is a useful technique in fantasy and real life.
targeting is neat and all but needs to go away. I could see it surviving only as a bump for the crit threat, period.