Stick to the format Paizo!


Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Ranged weapons in the core rulebook are not one-handed or two-handed weapons. They are ranged weapons that require either one hand or two hands to use.

Look at the weapon tables. There's light, one-handed, two-handed, and ranged. Ranged weapon descriptions further clarify whether the weapon takes one or two hands to use appropriately, but they are still not classified as one or two-handed weapons. That's the domain of melee weapons.

Or do you want bucklers to impose their penalties to firearms?

Please stick to the original format Paizo! If you change the way things work for guns you end up with weird threads such as this one where chaos and confusion reign due to mixed terminology.

If you release new tables like the ones shown in the playtest document, it's going to generate BIG problems. Mark my words.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I'm surprised no one has bothered to comment on this HUGE change to the established format that Paizo is (unknowingly?) making.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm surprised no one has bothered to comment on this HUGE change to the established format that Paizo is (unknowingly?) making.

ummm yes...

crossbows are two handed weapons (although light can be fired one-handed with a penalty).

Longbow is two-handed, try using one with only one hand. (-4 melee improvised).

What is the question you are asking?


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
lastblacknight wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
I'm surprised no one has bothered to comment on this HUGE change to the established format that Paizo is (unknowingly?) making.

ummm yes...

crossbows are two handed weapons (although light can be fired one-handed with a penalty).

Longbow is two-handed, try using one with only one hand. (-4 melee improvised).

What is the question you are asking?

Except they're not. They are ranged weapons that describe how they are used (requiring one or two hands to operate).

That is different from being a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon, which are defined gaming terms with rules behind them--rules that don't apply to ranged weapons.

Look at every single weapons table from 3.0 to Pathfinder. Light, one- and two-handed weapons were always distinct, separate categories from ranged weapons.

For example, bucklers don't apply penalties to ranged weapons, but they do apply them to light, one-, or two-handed weapons.

Suddenly with this new change in format, firearms will be taking buckler penalties whereas bows and crossbows did not.

That is only one minor effect of the change. Firearms will be subject to all sorts of other rules due to their status as one- and two-handed weapons.

I'm concerned about the lack of consistency. If Paizo breaks the established format half way through their own product line, its going to generate a LOT of confusion.


I'd say a new book about combat is probably a good place to start establishing a new format for a weapons chart.

Before it was just bows and crossbows. Now with an entire line of new equipment that needs to address the one-two handed concern for ranged weapons, it's probably about time to just make the Ranged section into one and two handed delineation.

It makes more sense to have the new format. I approve.

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
Ranged weapons in the core rulebook are not one-handed or two-handed weapons. They are ranged weapons that require either one hand or two hands to use.

As I hope I made clear in the other thread, I could accept this as an intentional change, either because the designers want a Small musket to be a one-handed weapon for a Medium character, or because they're introducing new game terms "one-handed firearm" and "two-handed firearm" that they will explain fully in the text - for instance, to standardise loading.

However I am unconvinced that it was intentional.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Since TWF is being put into the picture more often with firearms that ANY other ranged weapon, there needs to be distinguishing to find what the actual penalties are. It's not that huge of a deal.


I haven't really looked at the gunslinger much and I haven't looked at the new rules for guns at all. Out of curiosity, are the guns usable as melee weapons for butt attacks (that really doesn't sound right...)? If so, that could be a reason why they need to have the one-handed, two-handed, or light listings. I don't recall any such rules for bows and crossbows. If there are no such rules in the playtest document maybe there will be in the actual book.

Senior Designer

Ravingdork wrote:

Ranged weapons in the core rulebook are not one-handed or two-handed weapons. They are ranged weapons that require either one hand or two hands to use.

Look at the weapon tables. There's light, one-handed, two-handed, and ranged. Ranged weapon descriptions further clarify whether the weapon takes one or two hands to use appropriately, but they are still not classified as one or two-handed weapons. That's the domain of melee weapons.

Or do you want bucklers to impose their penalties to firearms?

Please stick to the original format Paizo! If you change the way things work for guns you end up with weird threads such as this one where chaos and confusion reign due to mixed terminology.

If you release new tables like the ones shown in the playtest document, it's going to generate BIG problems. Mark my words.

Guns work different. It's not only the truth, it is the goal. They work differently when it comes to proficiency, they work differently when it comes to size, they work differently when it comes to attacks.

There is no such thing as a light firearm, a small rifle is still a two-handed weapon in the hands of a Medium creature (though they do get the penalty for using a weapon not of inappropriate size.

Even with bows, if you reduce the size, they don't become one-handed or light weapons.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:

Ranged weapons in the core rulebook are not one-handed or two-handed weapons. They are ranged weapons that require either one hand or two hands to use.

Look at the weapon tables. There's light, one-handed, two-handed, and ranged. Ranged weapon descriptions further clarify whether the weapon takes one or two hands to use appropriately, but they are still not classified as one or two-handed weapons. That's the domain of melee weapons.

Or do you want bucklers to impose their penalties to firearms?

1. What's the distinction here? And 2. yes, Bucklers like any kind of weight on the shooting arm SHOULD impose a penalty.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I haven't really looked at the gunslinger much and I haven't looked at the new rules for guns at all. Out of curiosity, are the guns usable as melee weapons for butt attacks (that really doesn't sound right...)?

yes, but it requires spending Grit to do so. (Pistol Whip deed). Otherwise without that deed, it's under the attacking with improvised weapon rules.

In Arcanis guns were treated as either heavy or light maces depending on the size, if you wanted to club someone with them. (Doing that would make the Deed useless of course.)


Yeah! Cuz I wanna 2hand my pistol to add moar STR!!


LazarX wrote:
Bob_Loblaw wrote:
I haven't really looked at the gunslinger much and I haven't looked at the new rules for guns at all. Out of curiosity, are the guns usable as melee weapons for butt attacks (that really doesn't sound right...)?

yes, but it requires spending Grit to do so. (Pistol Whip deed). Otherwise without that deed, it's under the attacking with improvised weapon rules.

In Arcanis guns were treated as either heavy or light maces depending on the size, if you wanted to club someone with them. (Doing that would make the Deed useless of course.)

You could always take catch off guard to not spend grit on pistol whips and then you could full attack with the butt of your musket that way.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Ranged weapons in the core rulebook are not one-handed or two-handed weapons. They are ranged weapons that require either one hand or two hands to use.

Look at the weapon tables. There's light, one-handed, two-handed, and ranged. Ranged weapon descriptions further clarify whether the weapon takes one or two hands to use appropriately, but they are still not classified as one or two-handed weapons. That's the domain of melee weapons.

Or do you want bucklers to impose their penalties to firearms?

Please stick to the original format Paizo! If you change the way things work for guns you end up with weird threads such as this one where chaos and confusion reign due to mixed terminology.

If you release new tables like the ones shown in the playtest document, it's going to generate BIG problems. Mark my words.

Guns work different. It's not only the truth, it is the goal. They work differently when it comes to proficiency, they work differently when it comes to size, they work differently when it comes to attacks.

There is no such thing as a light firearm, a small rifle is still a two-handed weapon in the hands of a Medium creature (though they do get the penalty for using a weapon not of inappropriate size.

Even with bows, if you reduce the size, they don't become one-handed or light weapons.

I fear your design goal will lead to much confusion due to all the exceptions and changes being made for guns. You developers did something similar with the Summoner and eidolon and now we have a new "eidolon is broken" thread every other day that stems out of someone's misunderstanding of the rules.

For a good, easily understood game, you want it to not only be fun, but consistent in design as well.

Why does Paizo insist on every new book's material not just being different, but a dramatic departure from the core rule set? Are they afraid its the only way they can generate interest in their product? If so, I think they underestimate their fan base.

Silver Crusade

Quote:
There is no such thing as a light firearm, a small rifle is still a two-handed weapon in the hands of a Medium creature (though they do get the penalty for using a weapon not of inappropriate size.

This will need to be explicitely evoked in the final version to avoid any misunderstanding about weapon size and proficiency, which would lead to characters dual-wielding/reloading Small muskets just because the core rules seem to say you can do so.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Maxximilius wrote:
Quote:
There is no such thing as a light firearm, a small rifle is still a two-handed weapon in the hands of a Medium creature (though they do get the penalty for using a weapon not of inappropriate size.
This will need to be explicitely evoked in the final version to avoid any misunderstanding about weapon size and proficiency, which would lead to characters dual-wielding/reloading Small muskets just because the core rules seem to say you can do so.

See what I mean? It's started already!

People are already trying to exploit loopholes, loopholes created from game developers who are thinking something works a certain way, but not effectively communicating those very thoughts to the gaming community.

Consistency is key.


Ravingdork wrote:
Consistency is key.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind."

Silver Crusade

Quote:
People are already trying to exploit loopholes, loopholes created from game developers who are thinking something works a certain way, but not effectively communicating those very thoughts to the gaming community.

http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Lefaiv26. jpg

The end is near, LET ME DOUBLE WIELD AND RELOAD IT DAMMIT THIS IS SOOOO A ONE HAND LIGHT VORPAL WEPAON AND GUNSLINGERS HAVE GUNS SO GUNS !!!11

Actually, I've read about the double-wield musket in another topic. There was also another possible loophole I fail to remember...


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Consistency is key.
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind."

Consistency in rules does not equate to a limited imagination.


Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Ranged weapons in the core rulebook are not one-handed or two-handed weapons. They are ranged weapons that require either one hand or two hands to use.

Look at the weapon tables. There's light, one-handed, two-handed, and ranged. Ranged weapon descriptions further clarify whether the weapon takes one or two hands to use appropriately, but they are still not classified as one or two-handed weapons. That's the domain of melee weapons.

Or do you want bucklers to impose their penalties to firearms?

Please stick to the original format Paizo! If you change the way things work for guns you end up with weird threads such as this one where chaos and confusion reign due to mixed terminology.

If you release new tables like the ones shown in the playtest document, it's going to generate BIG problems. Mark my words.

Guns work different. It's not only the truth, it is the goal. They work differently when it comes to proficiency, they work differently when it comes to size, they work differently when it comes to attacks.

There is no such thing as a light firearm, a small rifle is still a two-handed weapon in the hands of a Medium creature (though they do get the penalty for using a weapon not of inappropriate size.

Even with bows, if you reduce the size, they don't become one-handed or light weapons.

Does this mean pistol whipping with a small musket with a medium character does 1d10 points of damage and I still can add one and a half times my strength bonus to the damage because the rules seem to say that is what happens since pistol whip is based on the users size not the gun size. I think that was not intended. This is not making much sense why is it not based off of the guns size not the character's size . I personally would have to house rule against that.

Guns and size rules are confusing. Also using larger sized guns also gets weird as well if those are still one handed. What if someone says I want my character to use a massively over sized pistol and wield it in there hands. This might actually bring a character out of this but it still is confusing. This will remind of people with over sized pistols but the recoil will make it inaccurate.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

*sighs*


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Even with bows, if you reduce the size, they don't become one-handed or light weapons.

Of course they don't. That's because they were never one- or two-handed weapons to begin with and as such those rules NEVER applied to them before. Instead they were RANGED weapons that required two hands to use.

Do you see what I'm getting at? By changing the format, you may actually be accidentally implying that weapons like bows were two-handed weapons and thus could be reduced in size and handedness, even though that is clearly not your intent.

Even if people treat guns as separate and different in the rules (because they are new) the fact that you've decided to classify them as one-handed and two-handed weapons rather than ranged weapons will still cause much unneeded confusion (some of which has already been brought up in this very thread).

That is the kind of confusion you are causing. Look at the other posters in this very thread. The confusion is already here!


Ravingdork wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Consistency is key.
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind."
Consistency in rules does not equate to a limited imagination.

But they are being consistently inconsistent -- thereby maintaining consistency.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Consistency is key.
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind."
Consistency in rules does not equate to a limited imagination.
But they are being consistently inconsistent -- thereby maintaining consistency.

Not helping.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Personal attacks are not welcome.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 4

I agree with Ravingdork. The only instance I could see firearms specifically being listed as one or two-handed is for the purpose of bayonets, which would probably have their own melee entry like shield spikes.


Ravingdork wrote:
Not helping.

Not quite true -- I was simply very vague in what I was saying:

Basically my point is that all ranged weapons end up being special instance rules, thrown weapons (which have their own text over in the combat section too), bows, crossbows, the slingstaff (and sling) all have their own special rules in their write up -- there is almost nothing to be consistent with would be my point.

They've not had a "standard" layout for ranged weapons yet.

Grand Lodge

.
.
.
.
Maybe a better solution could be to standardise some weapon properties for ranged weapons (in general), listed in the same way as reach, disarm, trip, monk etc.:

  • light
  • two-handed (if neither light nor two-handed, it requires one hand to use)
  • thrown
  • load free (still requires two hands)
  • load move
  • load standard
  • load full
  • load special (if no load action stated, the weapon doesn't require loading and can be fired continuously with one hand)


Starglim wrote:

.

.
.
.
Maybe a better solution could be to standardise some weapon properties for ranged weapons (in general), listed in the same way as reach, disarm, trip, monk etc.:
  • light
  • two-handed (if neither light nor two-handed, it requires one hand to use)
  • thrown
  • load free (still requires two hands)
  • load move
  • load standard
  • load full
  • load special (if no load action stated, the weapon doesn't require loading and can be fired continuously with one hand)

You my good sir/madam is talking some good scenes, and thus I approve!

The deves should have probably have gone for something like this from the start but hindsight is +20 perception right? ;)


Overreactionary thread is overreactionary.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

So THIS is how most people feel when reading a Ravingdork thread...


TriOmegaZero wrote:
So THIS is how most people feel when reading a Ravingdork thread...

The CIA should copy all of his threads and make a book out of them and replace waterboarding with reading that book -- but that might violate the Geneva Convention worse.

(I'm only fooling with this one Raving, I don't really mean it)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

Ravingdork is right in this case. The way they list firearms in the Inner Sea book is not consistent with the Core rules, and can be a cause for concerns. All projectile weapons in the Core rules, except the sling, must be fired with two hands in "normal" mode (yes, you can fire a crossbow one handed BUT with penalties).

Thrown weapons are a different category: don't use them here for the sake of this comparison. Here, you need to look at crossbows and bows in the Core rules, how they are listed in the tables, described in the text, and then look at the Inner Sea book firearms (forget about the UC lists for a while, as they are not official).

Grand Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
rant

Wait so your complaining a product thats going to expand/alter combat introduces new rules? Did you do this with the APG too?


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Thrown weapons are a different category:

This is the only point I completely differ with you and Raving on -- the Thrown weapons are categorically not a different category -- everywhere ranged weapons are talked about thrown weapons are specifically included as "ranged weapons".

Now if you all want to complain about projectile weapons and how they are presented go right ahead and I'll sit back...

But while all projectile weapons are ranged weapons, not all ranged weapons are projectile weapons by the default that ranged weapons specifically include thrown weapons as the standard -- not the exception.

So the problem people are having is that firearms do not match the other projectile weapons in format.

The Exchange

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Ravingdork is right in this case. The way they list firearms in the Inner Sea book is not consistent with the Core rules, and can be a cause for concerns. All projectile weapons in the Core rules, except the sling, must be fired with two hands in "normal" mode (yes, you can fire a crossbow one handed BUT with penalties).

Two Words: Hand Crossbow.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
Thrown weapons are a different category: don't use them here for the sake of this comparison. Here, you need to look at crossbows and bows in the Core rules, how they are listed in the tables, described in the text, and then look at the Inner Sea book firearms (forget about the UC lists for a while, as they are not official).

Also, while these are not core (but hey, neither are firearms), chakrams are listed as ranged weapons but are very clearly thrown and not projectiles.

That said, Paizo might want to go with a format similar to the crossbows; simply list firearms under Ranged Weapons, and then put in a similar line regarding the number of hands required to fire, just like they do with crossbows.

Or another methods is since firearms are kinda a big deal, rather than have them under "one-handed weapons" or "ranged weapons", have them under "one-handed/two-handed firearms". That way you could just define what a one-handed firearm and a two-handed firearm once, and not have to worry about it afterwards, unless there is another special case within the firearms.

Scarab Sages

Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:

Guns work different. It's not only the truth, it is the goal.

I'm wondering if you could elaborate more? What is the design goal of guns? It seems to be to waste a lot of pages writing rules that no one will use because they are in every way inferior to a bow and arrow.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

Ravingdork is right in this case. The way they list firearms in the Inner Sea book is not consistent with the Core rules, and can be a cause for concerns. All projectile weapons in the Core rules, except the sling, must be fired with two hands in "normal" mode (yes, you can fire a crossbow one handed BUT with penalties).

Not true, Hand Crossbows can be used one handed at par. Most throwing weapons, daggers, darts, shuriken are thrown with one hand. With the sling that's five core weapons at least that only require one hand to fire.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Pawns Subscriber

sigh... you're like the 5th guy who points out my hand-crossbow omission... if we have an exotic proficiency weapon (hand xbow) that appears to have all the rules that the pistol should go by, then why isn't it listed, in the inner sea weapon table, exactly like a hand xbow?

answer that please


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

sigh... you're like the 5th guy who points out my hand-crossbow omission... if we have an exotic proficiency weapon (hand xbow) that appears to have all the rules that the pistol should go by, then why isn't it listed, in the inner sea weapon table, exactly like a hand xbow?

answer that please

Again -- because there is no actual consistency when it comes to ranged weapons.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Abraham spalding wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

sigh... you're like the 5th guy who points out my hand-crossbow omission... if we have an exotic proficiency weapon (hand xbow) that appears to have all the rules that the pistol should go by, then why isn't it listed, in the inner sea weapon table, exactly like a hand xbow?

answer that please

Again -- because there is no actual consistency when it comes to ranged weapons.

There isn't anymore at least.

The least they could do is have the tables look a like and then have the exception based rules where they belong, in the item descriptions, or even in a separate "special gun rules" section. The format they are using now is causing confusion. Disagree with us as much as you like, but you can't deny the confusion that's being generated by the change in format.


Actually, I find I have no problems understanding the difference between 1 and 2-handed fire arms.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
WarColonel wrote:
Actually, I find I have no problems understanding the difference between 1 and 2-handed fire arms.

And I'm sure you are one of many. Just because you and others don't find it confusing doesn't prove that a lot of other people aren't confused.

The designers need to stay consistent in their format in order to minimize the confusion.


Ravingdork wrote:
WarColonel wrote:
Actually, I find I have no problems understanding the difference between 1 and 2-handed fire arms.

And I'm sure you are one of many. Just because you and others don't find it confusing doesn't prove that a lot of other people aren't confused.

The designers need to stay consistent in their format in order to minimize the confusion.

Well, since guns are fundamentally different from other ranged weapons, the format is pretty clear. It is the format for guns. I don't understand what the problem is. What are you finding confusing, or assuming others find confusing? How would you change the terminology to something other then 1h or 2h? The format is precise and clean.

The core book format for weaponry is the confusing part. It should list the difference between 1h, 2h, etc., instead of in their descriptions. And then you just have one little rule put in the beginning of the ranged weapon's table:
'Ranged weapons sized larger or smaller do not change from a light, 1-handed, or 2-handed weapon.' Crisis averted (after the fact).


In this case, I think the 'dork is 100% right.

It's weird to have an exception of them being one-handed/two-handed projectile weapons. No other weapons are that way.
Then, now the dev says they don't have a relative size but an objective size... Which is an exception to the weapon size rules, and takes away one of the major differences between being "a ranged weapon that takes two hands to use" and "a two-handed weapon that fires at range".

So what you're doing is basically making two exceptions that to a large degree negate each other. I think it's better to use new rules adding to the current system, than introducing exceptions that makes previously clear rules more confusing.

At the same time, the dev's open up a lot of room for finding loopholes, especially for rules-lawyery players. If the RAW says a pixie can use a colossal blunderbuss at just some to hit-penalties, which really don't matter that much when used as a touch attack, there will be those trying to do just that. While home gamers like me can house rule that away, it's bad to make a ruleset that you already know need houseruling to be balanced (even if it's just common sense house ruling), which means they have to make another exception saying you can't use extremely inappropriatly sized firearms... And so on.

Often, just a few rules changes can make a butterfly effect so you end up with a CL 15 Wall of Text of exceptions; the summoner is an example of this (I like the summoner, but think that if they just skipped a few basic exceptions they could have skipped most of the other ones too, making for an easier to understand, easier to balance class).


WarColonel wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
WarColonel wrote:
Actually, I find I have no problems understanding the difference between 1 and 2-handed fire arms.

And I'm sure you are one of many. Just because you and others don't find it confusing doesn't prove that a lot of other people aren't confused.

The designers need to stay consistent in their format in order to minimize the confusion.

Well, since guns are fundamentally different from other ranged weapons, the format is pretty clear. It is the format for guns. I don't understand what the problem is. What are you finding confusing, or assuming others find confusing? How would you change the terminology to something other then 1h or 2h? The format is precise and clean.

The core book format for weaponry is the confusing part. It should list the difference between 1h, 2h, etc., instead of in their descriptions. And then you just have one little rule put in the beginning of the ranged weapon's table:
'Ranged weapons sized larger or smaller do not change from a light, 1-handed, or 2-handed weapon.' Crisis averted (after the fact).

Better to stay with a standard, slightly confusing set of rules that's been in place for 10 years than adding another, slightly confusing set of rules with their own exception so you have two of them.

If PF had changed weapons into light/1h/2h weapons when they created the core rules, I wouldn't have had any issues with that (as long as it was done well, which I'm sure they could - they ARE good rules designers). However, now is too late and the system is already in place.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
WarColonel wrote:
What are you finding confusing, or assuming others find confusing?

No assumptions are being made. There are several misunderstandings posted in this very thread, as well as links to misunderstandings being discussed in other threads. I suggest you read the thread. They are plain to see.

WarColonel wrote:
How would you change the terminology to something other then 1h or 2h? The format is precise and clean.

For starters I would list all the guns as "ranged" rather than "light," "one-" or "two-handed" on the table.

Then, on the page where they describe all the new rules for guns such as scatter (and you KNOW there will be just such a page) I would throw in a sentence saying that all guns require two hands to reload.

In the individual gun descriptions, I would add a sentence stating whether the gun can be fired one-handed or two-handed.

Basically, I would match the format of the Core rulebook's crossbows.

I'm not trying to rock the boat here. I'm just trying to help the playtest churn out easily understood, balanced material.

If you can understand it just fine as is, I'm happy for you, but that certainly is not the case throughout the whole of the roleplaying community. At least a 1/3 of posters in this thread (maybe more) seem to agree that it can lead to confusion as written. That's something that I don't think should be ignored.


Also, for those that do understand what they meant when they wrote it, it is not so much the people it will confuse, rather it is the loophole exploiters that will take advantage of it in order to have their characters doing ridiculous things they were not meant to be able to do.

After all, dual wielding a pair of muskets? Sure, if you have the strength to handle the recoil from the first one so it does not throw off the shot from the second one. But nothing will let you reload a black powder weapon one handed, or at least not without having to brace it against something, and certainly not within enough time to get off another shot before the monster comes and chews your head off because you have to watch what you are doing while reloading rather than watching the monster approaching.

Even modern-day clip-fed weapons are a pain to reload one-handed, as you need some part of your body or something in the environment to brace the gun against since you are not using your other hand.


Has it occurred to you that because guns are inherently ranged weapons that the small table listing firearms, in the grander scheme of things, will be placed onto the main weapons table under Ranged along with the other exotic ranged weapons? Additionally, many exotic weapons have rules explaining how they are different, example Spiked Chain, a reach weapon that can strike adjacent, the aforementioned hand crossbow, nets, saps, lassos and boomerangs.

Furthermore, as has been mentioned already, firearms have some functionality that applies to them if they are wielded in one hand or two (primarily reloading).

If memory serves the old 3.x weapon tables had bows listed as a two handed ranged weapon, although I am unsure of this fact

1 to 50 of 55 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Ultimate Combat Playtest / Gunslinger Discussion: Round 2 / Stick to the format Paizo! All Messageboards