that dragon with a poor touch AC has load of natural attacksWhile this is true, I can't think of any reason why said gunslinger won't have a Far-Reaching Sight by this point in the adventure. Not unless the GM is a total jerk about making the party encounter things they would never be equipped or able to defeat.
Also, when was the last time the adversaries in a game engaged your character outside of any ranged weapon's first range increment? Because I can tell you right now I've never been in such a situation.
The far-reaching sight is an assumption, though a good one. But if it's as you say, and nobody goes outside the first increment, he wouldn't need one, would he?
That said, I have had fought ouside first increment before, and so has my archer player in the Age of Worms game we just finished. Plus, bows have larger increments, so it's actually quite plausible to require said sight. In the end, though, I'm not convinced it matters. Here's what I mean.
There is all sorts of precedence for frequent attacks that target touch AC, and none of that turned out to be out of balance. Just look at 3.5 Warlock, or the Alchemist. Heck, the Alchemist is a great example because he hits touch AC at range with an area effect that he augments with extra effects. Okay, it's not all day, but look at how much better that sounds than a gun. I just think actually doing the math and doing lots of playtesting will show us for sure if it's the guns that rule, or the gunslinger himself.
Troll? Who are you Charlie Sheen. Get bent. I just gave you some numbers (at 15th level even) but I guess that wasn't good enough for you. And how do you figure a revolver matches a light crossbow, try rifle versus light crossbow. And one on one versus a crossbow fighter the gunslinger wins every time (he just hits more often, WAY more often)Overdark, I am calling you out.
Your behavior so far has been the textbook definition of troll.
You state your point over and over again, you dismiss all counter-arguments, and all without providing any numbers at all to back up your claim.
How the class looks on paper is important, but it's not everything. It's not even the primary thing.
You think the class is broken? You think Advanced Firearms are overpowered? Stat it up.
Show us. Prove your point instead of being arrogantly, aggressively dismissive.
Don't do it at 20th level - the game comes apart there. Don't use Mighty Composite Longbow - that's been proved to be in the top 5 highest DPRs, so it's a bad choice.
Do a Human Gunslinger (revolver + buckler) and a Human Fighter (light crossbow), both at either 10th or 15th level. Have them fight each other, and have them fight monsters with escalating CRs (level -3, -2, -1, level, level +1).
Stat it up and run the numbers or stop trolling.
Instead of just saying a gunslinger beats a crossbow fighter, why don't you start up a new thread and playtest it. You know, the whole point of the playtest. You're the only person who believes it without evidence. Personally, I can see where you're coming from - hell you may even be right - but if you don't crunch the numbers properly, you don't have a case.
|
Overdark, I am calling you out.Troll? Who are you Charlie Sheen. Get bent. I just gave you some numbers (at 15th level even) but I guess that wasn't good enough for you. And how do you figure a revolver matches a light crossbow, try rifle versus light crossbow. And one on one versus a crossbow fighter the gunslinger wins every time (he just hits more often, WAY more often)
Really? I disagree. Fighter doesn't have to put "no-fail" enchant on his gun and gets Weapon Training.
Disagree? Think the Armor bonus will be higher? Want to prove me wrong? STAT IT UP. Full blocks. Both of them. Run the numbers.
Show us instead of throwing out random examples using cobbled-together stats.
|
|
Ok number it is, and we'll use Harsk instead since thats a little more like apples and apples.
Harsk (ranger 15) DEX 23 (+6) +4 flaming burst heavy crossbow +26/+19/+16 (1d10+4 plus 1d6 fire/17-20/x2)
Gunslinger 15 DEX 23 with +4 flaming burst rifle +26/+19/+16 (1d10+10 plus 1d6 fire/19-20/x4)
seems good so far right?
Harsk shoots at the dragon needs an 11 to hit. deals 13 damage.
Gunslinger shoots at the dragon needs a 2 to hit. deals 19 damage.
Still fair?
If they shoot at each other it's about the same (again equal gear and feats) Harsk AC 30, touch 19
Harsk needs only a four to hit now, but the gunslinger still hits 10% more often (still only misses on a 1).
|
This thread... oh man, this thread...
I remember one time I got into an argument with my DM about Leadership. He thought the feat itself was fine, but that it was overpowered because I said I got a Cohort AND Followers... like I was going to use the Followers in combat or anything... I just wanted them to crew my ship...
Also, I'm pretty sure an Arcane Trickster built around damage could easily outdo a Gunslinger in the touch attack department.
At 12th level, he's pumping out 12d6 Scorching Ray (Total for 3 rays) plus 15d6 Sneak Attack damage on top of that for... what, 27d6? That's 94.5 average damage... on touch attacks. Plus you could Maximize it, Quicken it, etc... I'm pretty sure a straight Gunslinger won't be hitting that at that level. And considering that Arcane Trickster is viewed fairly poorly, that doesn't say much for Gunslinger XD
|
|
This thread... oh man, this thread...
I remember one time I got into an argument with my DM about Leadership. He thought the feat itself was fine, but that it was overpowered because I said I got a Cohort AND Followers... like I was going to use the Followers in combat or anything... I just wanted them to crew my ship...
Also, I'm pretty sure an Arcane Trickster built around damage could easily outdo a Gunslinger in the touch attack department.
At 12th level, he's pumping out 12d6 Scorching Ray (Total for 3 rays) plus 15d6 Sneak Attack damage on top of that for... what, 27d6? That's 94.5 average damage... on touch attacks. Plus you could Maximize it, Quicken it, etc... I'm pretty sure a straight Gunslinger won't be hitting that at that level. And considering that Arcane Trickster is viewed fairly poorly, that doesn't say much for Gunslinger XD
Arcane casters don't get a full BAB, like a ginslinger does. Full base attack and touch attaks just isn't right.
|
|
Instead of just saying a gunslinger beats a crossbow fighter, why don't you start up a new thread and playtest it. You know, the whole point of the playtest. You're the only person who believes it without evidence. Personally, I can see where you're coming from - hell you may even be right - but if you don't crunch the numbers properly, you don't have a case.Troll? Who are you Charlie Sheen. Get bent. I just gave you some numbers (at 15th level even) but I guess that wasn't good enough for you. And how do you figure a revolver matches a light crossbow, try rifle versus light crossbow. And one on one versus a crossbow fighter the gunslinger wins every time (he just hits more often, WAY more often)Overdark, I am calling you out.
Your behavior so far has been the textbook definition of troll.
You state your point over and over again, you dismiss all counter-arguments, and all without providing any numbers at all to back up your claim.
How the class looks on paper is important, but it's not everything. It's not even the primary thing.
You think the class is broken? You think Advanced Firearms are overpowered? Stat it up.
Show us. Prove your point instead of being arrogantly, aggressively dismissive.
Don't do it at 20th level - the game comes apart there. Don't use Mighty Composite Longbow - that's been proved to be in the top 5 highest DPRs, so it's a bad choice.
Do a Human Gunslinger (revolver + buckler) and a Human Fighter (light crossbow), both at either 10th or 15th level. Have them fight each other, and have them fight monsters with escalating CRs (level -3, -2, -1, level, level +1).
Stat it up and run the numbers or stop trolling.
Umm, I DID start up a new thread, we're on it.
|
|
Arcane casters don't get a full BAB, like a ginslinger does. Full base attack and touch attaks just isn't right.This thread... oh man, this thread...
I remember one time I got into an argument with my DM about Leadership. He thought the feat itself was fine, but that it was overpowered because I said I got a Cohort AND Followers... like I was going to use the Followers in combat or anything... I just wanted them to crew my ship...
Also, I'm pretty sure an Arcane Trickster built around damage could easily outdo a Gunslinger in the touch attack department.
At 12th level, he's pumping out 12d6 Scorching Ray (Total for 3 rays) plus 15d6 Sneak Attack damage on top of that for... what, 27d6? That's 94.5 average damage... on touch attacks. Plus you could Maximize it, Quicken it, etc... I'm pretty sure a straight Gunslinger won't be hitting that at that level. And considering that Arcane Trickster is viewed fairly poorly, that doesn't say much for Gunslinger XD
And full BAB does... what for Touch Attacks? Hate to break it to ya, but That +15 Full BAB at level 15 doesn't mean anything when you need to hit a touch AC of 7.
Really, I feel like the full BAB for a Gunslinger is there to give him more attacks. The Accuracy really isn't needed, especially at high levels. It gives him feat access earlier, and gives him more attacks. That's really ALL it means.
|
|
Arcane casters don't get a full BAB, like a ginslinger does. Full base attack and touch attaks just isn't right.This thread... oh man, this thread...
I remember one time I got into an argument with my DM about Leadership. He thought the feat itself was fine, but that it was overpowered because I said I got a Cohort AND Followers... like I was going to use the Followers in combat or anything... I just wanted them to crew my ship...
Also, I'm pretty sure an Arcane Trickster built around damage could easily outdo a Gunslinger in the touch attack department.
At 12th level, he's pumping out 12d6 Scorching Ray (Total for 3 rays) plus 15d6 Sneak Attack damage on top of that for... what, 27d6? That's 94.5 average damage... on touch attacks. Plus you could Maximize it, Quicken it, etc... I'm pretty sure a straight Gunslinger won't be hitting that at that level. And considering that Arcane Trickster is viewed fairly poorly, that doesn't say much for Gunslinger XD
And full BAB does... what for Touch Attacks? Hate to break it to ya, but That +15 Full BAB at level 15 doesn't mean anything when you need to hit a touch AC of 7.
Really, I feel like the full BAB for a Gunslinger is there to give him more attacks. The Accuracy really isn't needed, especially at high levels. It gives him feat access earlier, and gives him more attacks. That's really ALL it means.
Also arcane casters don't get d10 Hit Dice, so yeah thay can dish it out, but they can't take it in return. Unlike the gunslinger who has loads of HP like a fighter.
Ok number it is, and we'll use Harsk instead since thats a little more like apples and apples.
Harsk (ranger 15) DEX 23 (+6) +4 flaming burst heavy crossbow +26/+19/+16 (1d10+4 plus 1d6 fire/17-20/x2)Gunslinger 15 DEX 23 with +4 flaming burst rifle +26/+19/+16 (1d10+10 plus 1d6 fire/19-20/x4)
seems good so far right?
Harsk shoots at the dragon needs an 11 to hit. deals 13 damage.
Gunslinger shoots at the dragon needs a 2 to hit. deals 19 damage.Still fair?
If they shoot at each other it's about the same (again equal gear and feats) Harsk AC 30, touch 19
Harsk needs only a four to hit now, but the gunslinger still hits 10% more often (still only misses on a 1).
What about feats? Rangers get their Combat Style feats and Gunslingers get their bonus feats too. How do they come into play? What if it was a fighter instead? How would the fighter specific feats/class abilities differ him from the gunslinger? What if he was an archer instead of a crossbowman?
Your point was that no matter the build, gunslingers are better. I don't buy that.
|
|
I think everyone but the OP is in total agreement that all things being equal, the Gunslinger is underpowered.
Which can only mean that in the OP's campaign, all things are not equal. Perhaps someone tried to play a Gunslinger in his campaign and optimized more than his fellow players? Perhaps the OP sat down with the Gunslinger and found it /easier/ to make optimized choices than some other classes (who could be optimized more with better research)?
In any case, I think that /dealing damage/ is the least overpowered thing that could ever happen in a pathfinder game. I would be far more concerned about someone with +38 Intimidate at level 7 changing the opinions of all my NPC's at the drop of a hat! :P
Actually, interesting side note. The DM I mentioned above once played a VoP Monk with high Charisma and Intimidate (rolled well for stats, so he was actually a capable combatant as well). He thought he should just be walking around intimidating everyone, but got mad at me when one of my guys thought so highly of himself he refused to be intimidated. >_> That's how I handle sky-high intimidation. Doesn't work on everyone :P
|
|
Ok number it is, and we'll use Harsk instead since thats a little more like apples and apples.
Harsk (ranger 15) DEX 23 (+6) +4 flaming burst heavy crossbow +26/+19/+16 (1d10+4 plus 1d6 fire/17-20/x2)Gunslinger 15 DEX 23 with +4 flaming burst rifle +26/+19/+16 (1d10+10 plus 1d6 fire/19-20/x4)
seems good so far right?
Harsk shoots at the dragon needs an 11 to hit. deals 13 damage.
Gunslinger shoots at the dragon needs a 2 to hit. deals 19 damage.Still fair?
If they shoot at each other it's about the same (again equal gear and feats) Harsk AC 30, touch 19
Harsk needs only a four to hit now, but the gunslinger still hits 10% more often (still only misses on a 1).
What about feats? Rangers get their Combat Style feats and Gunslingers get their bonus feats too. How do they come into play? What if it was a fighter instead? How would the fighter specific feats/class abilities differ him from the gunslinger? What if he was an archer instead of a crossbowman?
Your point was that no matter the build, gunslingers are better. I don't buy that.
No my point is that guns are unbalanced, not that gunslingers are better. The gunslinger isn't the problem, it's the guns that are the problem. And don't start with 'guns are expensive' the price of guns is inflated due to their rarity, which would disappear when they work the way they do. It's much better to give a 1st level warrior a rifle instead of a crossbow (which is pretty much true, IN THE REAL WORLD). But when you introduce this into a game, it's just unbalancing, since anyone in their right mind that wanted to be a ranged warrior would just get a gun.
|
|
Also arcane casters don't get d10 Hit Dice, so yeah thay can dish it out, but they can't take it in return. Unlike the gunslinger who has loads of HP like a fighter.
Ah, so the 2 extra HP per level (3 if it's your favored class) really makes you less squishy? The arcane trickster gets access to a variety of spell defenses that easily make up for the lower HP, like Stoneskin, Greater Invisibility, Fly, and let's not forget the few defenses that can really screw with touch attacks, Mirror Image and Blur.
Now, I'm not going to turn this into a "casters are better than non-casters" thread, as I actually don't believe that at all. What I AM saying is that Gunslinger isn't nearly as macho as he's made out to be. Yeah, he's cooler now than in the 1st iteration, but Touch Attacks alone do not a great damage dealer make. You need to have a stronger method of increasing the damage, which is something that Rangers, Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins are packing. The Dexterity bonus to damage was a good start, but adding an ability score to damage has always been the means of increasing it. Considering that it's basically all you add, it's a little underwhelming.
|
|
Ok so then we're in TOTAL agreement that guns are completely overpowered.Pretty much but isn't that the point of firearms? Because you want MORE firepower and to be able to do MORE damage, that's why they were invented. Crossbows and guns never fought a war on opposing sides, you know why? Because those are called massacres not wars.
At the very least firearms should be a regular ranged attack and only ignore armor and shield bonuses not magical enhancement bonuses. Mundane platemail should be easier for a firearm to pierce then a bow, but not +1, magic should still work. A simple change that keeps firearms from overpowering other range weapons.
As far as the "blowing up in your face" goes does that really matter after 3rd level? Sure a bow never blows up but you still miss 5% of the time no matter what. I don't think a potential 2 points of damage balances for touch attacks against +5 plate.
But since this is for a game, at the end of the day, for fairness, everything should pretty much balance out. And in case no one saw 'Deadliest Warrior' muskets can't shoot through a breastplate even at close range. So even in the 'real world' guns don't work that way against armor.
|
|
Also arcane casters don't get d10 Hit Dice, so yeah thay can dish it out, but they can't take it in return. Unlike the gunslinger who has loads of HP like a fighter.Ah, so the 2 extra HP per level (3 if it's your favored class) really makes you less squishy? The arcane trickster gets access to a variety of spell defenses that easily make up for the lower HP, like Stoneskin, Greater Invisibility, Fly, and let's not forget the few defenses that can really screw with touch attacks, Mirror Image and Blur.
Now, I'm not going to turn this into a "casters are better than non-casters" thread, as I actually don't believe that at all. What I AM saying is that Gunslinger isn't nearly as macho as he's made out to be. Yeah, he's cooler now than in the 1st iteration, but Touch Attacks alone do not a great damage dealer make. You need to have a stronger method of increasing the damage, which is something that Rangers, Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins are packing. The Dexterity bonus to damage was a good start, but adding an ability score to damage has always been the means of increasing it. Considering that it's basically all you add, it's a little underwhelming.
You don't need to up the damage per hit so much when you only miss on a 1.
So guns are over powered if you houserule away the price. /awesome/.
Look- they've said it repeatedly through the thread (not that i expect you to listen to me any better than you do to them) but:
1) Advanced firearms are DM call only. They are not the base line- they are designed for campaigns that are a little further into the future than the "base" D&D game. If your DM is going to use them he's probably *also* included other weapons that are more powerful than the base as well as better armors to take them into account.
In short: the advanced fire arms aren't designed for normal use.
2) Magic Missile always hits. Always. Period. It is 100% better than any other attack because.. of that. Guns, (nearly) always hit as well.
They have something in common: the damage for both *sucks*. It sucks like a gaping chest wound. The only thing MM has going for it over the gunslinger is that its cheaper to use. (i.e. free).
Hitting *everything* all the time is irrelevant if you *can't do enough damage* to hurt the freaking critter in question.
When you factor in the to-hit ratio for any of the standard combat classes- the fact that the Gunslinger hits more often is irrelevant compared to the fact that the classes who *hit less often* hit like a freight train when they do rather than like an ant bite.
When the gunslinger auto-hits like a freight train then it will begin to be over powered but as long as it continues to shoot bb's at badguys while everyone else is using proverbial rocket launchers then however often the gunslinger hits is *irrelevant*.
-S
|
|
You don't need to up the damage per hit so much when you only miss on a 1.
Also arcane casters don't get d10 Hit Dice, so yeah thay can dish it out, but they can't take it in return. Unlike the gunslinger who has loads of HP like a fighter.Ah, so the 2 extra HP per level (3 if it's your favored class) really makes you less squishy? The arcane trickster gets access to a variety of spell defenses that easily make up for the lower HP, like Stoneskin, Greater Invisibility, Fly, and let's not forget the few defenses that can really screw with touch attacks, Mirror Image and Blur.
Now, I'm not going to turn this into a "casters are better than non-casters" thread, as I actually don't believe that at all. What I AM saying is that Gunslinger isn't nearly as macho as he's made out to be. Yeah, he's cooler now than in the 1st iteration, but Touch Attacks alone do not a great damage dealer make. You need to have a stronger method of increasing the damage, which is something that Rangers, Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins are packing. The Dexterity bonus to damage was a good start, but adding an ability score to damage has always been the means of increasing it. Considering that it's basically all you add, it's a little underwhelming.
Exactly.
|
|
So guns are over powered if you houserule away the price. /awesome/.
Look- they've said it repeatedly through the thread (not that i expect you to listen to me any better than you do to them) but:
1) Advanced firearms are DM call only. They are not the base line- they are designed for campaigns that are a little further into the future than the "base" D&D game. If your DM is going to use them he's probably *also* included other weapons that are more powerful than the base as well as better armors to take them into account.
In short: the advanced fire arms aren't designed for normal use.2) Magic Missile always hits. Always. Period. It is 100% better than any other attack because.. of that. Guns, (nearly) always hit as well.
They have something in common: the damage for both *sucks*. It sucks like a gaping chest wound. The only thing MM has going for it over the gunslinger is that its cheaper to use. (i.e. free).
Hitting *everything* all the time is irrelevant if you *can't do enough damage* to hurt the freaking critter in question.When you factor in the to-hit ratio for any of the standard combat classes- the fact that the Gunslinger hits more often is irrelevant compared to the fact that the classes who *hit less often* hit like a freight train when they do rather than like an ant bite.
When the gunslinger auto-hits like a freight train then it will begin to be over powered but as long as it continues to shoot bb's at badguys while everyone else is using proverbial rocket launchers then however often the gunslinger hits is *irrelevant*.
-S
So if gunslingers and guns are so 'optional' why even have them in the book?
And where do you see that advanced firearms are a GM call only, since the only thing I see is that Golarion uses the 'Emerging Firearms' rules and thus Advanced Firearms are rare and wondrous items. Like just about everything that PC's use in their daily lives.
|
|
While I don't agree with the Gunslinger being overpowered, I do agree that having it hit touch AC is a bit much. I mean, at that point, why even build armour?That was exactly the question asked and answered in Earth history. Presumably in the fantasy worlds that the Gunslinger operates in, the class hasn't yet become common enough for armor to have met it's destined obselescence.
Although the final end of the armored knight, as I recall came not in the hands of firearms, but pikemen, when the world realised it was far cheaper to take down a knight than to equip one. Firearms however did serve to put the final nail in the coffin.
Firearms didn't put the nail in any coffin, modern armor just focuses on stopping bullets instead of swords. Armor is still very much in use today. But using Golarion guns a bullet-proof vest is something that is immpossible to build, since the bullet ignores the kevlar and goes right on into your soft flesh. In modern games they solve this problem by having armor give you damage reduction instead of armor class, which is a more accurate way to simulate armor. But since Pathfinder doesn't do this, bullets instead just ignore armor/hide as if it wasn't even there at all. And that just ain't how it works.
|
|
I hate to seem rude, but how can it be an option if they aren't in the book?So if gunslingers and guns are so 'optional' why even have them in the book?
And where do you see that advanced firearms are a GM call only, since the only thing I see is that Golarion uses the 'Emerging Firearms' rules and thus Advanced Firearms are rare and wondrous items. Like just about everything that PC's use in their daily lives.
You're not being rude, just underinformed. Golarion has had guns since the first Campaign Setting book in 2008.
1) Do not put words into my mouth. I said advanced firearms- not guns and gunslingers.
2)Page 3 of the Gunslinger Round 2 UC document, right hand side sidebar.
"The world of Golarion uses the rules for emerging guns, which are also the default category of gun rarity detailed in this document".
Aka, the default is emerging guns not advanced or whatnot.
It then goes on to detail how to handle guns in other settings- such as reducing the cost and whatnot to reflect how common they could become.. in other settings.
It also says advanced firearms *may* exist, not do shall and should and will follow closely upon. May exist means.. its up to the DM. Not some random "the DM can rule 0 anything out" but a direct reference to the DM having the choice on whether or not to use advanced guns in an "emerging guns" type campaign.
-S
|
|
1) Do not put words into my mouth. I said advanced firearms- not guns and gunslingers.
2)Page 3 of the Gunslinger Round 2 UC document, right hand side sidebar.
"The world of Golarion uses the rules for emerging guns, which are also the default category of gun rarity detailed in this document".Aka, the default is emerging guns not advanced or whatnot.
It then goes on to detail how to handle guns in other settings- such as reducing the cost and whatnot to reflect how common they could become.. in other settings.
It also says advanced firearms *may* exist, not do shall and should and will follow closely upon. May exist means.. its up to the DM. Not some random "the DM can rule 0 anything out" but a direct reference to the DM having the choice on whether or not to use advanced guns in an "emerging guns" type campaign.-S
I quoted that sidebar, rare and wondrous. Like an Elven Curve Blade. And your GM fiat excuse is lame. The GM can declare ANYTHING optional. See rule number one.
My point is that it's in the book. Just like everything else. Just because the vorpal sword is in the book, doesn't mean that you or anyone in your group is ever going to find/use one, but it still needs to be balanced within the game. Guns aren't. PERIOD. Advanced firearms or no advanced firearms.
|
1) Do not put words into my mouth. I said advanced firearms- not guns and gunslingers.
2)Page 3 of the Gunslinger Round 2 UC document, right hand side sidebar.
"The world of Golarion uses the rules for emerging guns, which are also the default category of gun rarity detailed in this document".Aka, the default is emerging guns not advanced or whatnot.
It then goes on to detail how to handle guns in other settings- such as reducing the cost and whatnot to reflect how common they could become.. in other settings.
It also says advanced firearms *may* exist, not do shall and should and will follow closely upon. May exist means.. its up to the DM. Not some random "the DM can rule 0 anything out" but a direct reference to the DM having the choice on whether or not to use advanced guns in an "emerging guns" type campaign.-S
I quoted that sidebar, rare and wondrous. Like an Elven Curve Blade. And your GM fiat excuse is lame. The GM can declare ANYTHING optional. See rule number one.
My point is that it's in the book. Just like everything else. Just because the vorpal sword is in the book, doesn't mean that you or anyone in your group is ever going to find/use one, but it still needs to be balanced within the game. Guns aren't. PERIOD. Advanced firearms or no advanced firearms.
Except that vorpal sword is part of so-called "core" rulebook, and guns are part of an "optional" rulebook, that is.
Actually- it says that Golarion is an "emerging guns" campaign and that the DM /may/ (not must) allow for the greater fire arm types. May meaning, its not the norm- it is his choice.
I agree that "well the DM can rule 0 anything" is lame. I even gave reference to it in my post. But in this case, the rules *directly* give the DM the choice.
You have also yet to prove anything about their power. *auto hit low damage is underpowered*. Otherwise- as was mentioned before- giving someone a wand of magic missiles would rid the world of dragons. It should, right? If low damage but hitting often means you rule the world then.. mages rock! anyone with a wand of MM and the UMD skill rocks!.. not hardly.
Shooting alot of bb's that always hit but don't hurt just doesn't meet up to "over powered". Hitting less often but actually injuring the enemy (such as a barbarian, ranger, fighter, etc.) is far more effective.
"Power" isn't a matter of how often you hit- its how often you Effectively hit. In the case of the GS they went with "hit alot for very little".
As you said. PERIOD.
-S
Bwahahahahahaha!
And your GM fiat excuse is lame. The GM can declare ANYTHING optional. See rule number one.
False premise, sorry.
This is not a case of rule 0. Is a case of DM shifting up or down the bar of availability of the weapons in base of the campaing, following the rules as written. Is the DM doing "ordinary" job: he is creating the setting. Is not a DM call.
I don't like the Touch AC part of guns.
We are talking about world where armor is magical, bullets aren't going to beat that. I just can't see a person firing a flint lock pistol at someone in +5 Admantite Full Plate and hitting as though he wasn't wearing armor at all. That lead ball would pancake on the breast plate. Even studded leather would slow the penetration possibly deflecting it if it was magical behaving like bullet proof vest.
I think guns should hit normally and apply armor negation. Gun statistics should have penetration rating and that's the value you add as bonus to if a target has armor/shield bonus equal to or exceeding that value. If the armor value is less than the penetration then use the targets AC as bonus to hit instead. Can't get bonus to bypass armor when a target isn't wearing armor for example.
Once you take magic into account that's like science where we create ballistic armors capable of stopping bullets or decreasing the chance that kill you. Which is what armor is meant to do. Negating armor entirely by using touch isn't a good idea in my opinion.
I'm not arguing how well guns work or don't just that it makes more sense in my mind to target normal AC applying a penetration rule like above. That way magical armors can still work.
|
|
Like I said above I think firearms should NOT IGNORE enhancement bonuses to armor, ever. I'm fine with blowing through plate at short range but not +1 plate. Magic should always trump mundane in a fantasy world, that's the whole reason why magic exists. Otherwise why have magical anything? What is the rational behind firearms ignoring magical armor anyway?I don't like the Touch AC part of guns.
We are talking about world where armor is magical, bullets aren't going to beat that. I just can't see a person firing a flint lock pistol at someone in +5 Admantite Full Plate and hitting as though he wasn't wearing armor at all. That lead ball would pancake on the breast plate. Even studded leather would slow the penetration possibly deflecting it if it was magical behaving like bullet proof vest.
I think guns should hit normally and apply armor negation. Gun statistics should have penetration rating and that's the value you add as bonus to if a target has armor/shield bonus equal to or exceeding that value. If the armor value is less than the penetration then use the targets AC as bonus to hit instead. Can't get bonus to bypass armor when a target isn't wearing armor for example.
Once you take magic into account that's like science where we create ballistic armors capable of stopping bullets or decreasing the chance that kill you. Which is what armor is meant to do. Negating armor entirely by using touch isn't a good idea in my opinion.
I'm not arguing how well guns work or don't just that it makes more sense in my mind to target normal AC applying a penetration rule like above. That way magical armors can still work.
Muskets & flintlock pistols don't blow through any type of armor (maybe leather) let alone plate. Or hide, I challenge anyone to go shoot a rhino with a musket and see what happens. Hint: It's not gonna ignore his natural armor bonus.
|
Overdark, you miss important points.
1) In the default setting, even if we assume that an advanced firearm is attainable, it is probably not so for most of an AP-style campaign. In that case, Gunslingers will still only miss on a 1 but when they do, they'll have to spend a round doing little to no damage so that they can clear the jam.
2) DPR takes into account the chance to hit. A Fighter that does twice the damage of the Gunslinger but hits only half the time, does the same amount of damage. And does so with arrows and weapons that cost a fraction of what bullets and guns do, never misfire, and never randomly break when shooting.
This is ridiculous. This is knee jerk, armchair "development" and poor analysis.
Look at actual playtest data. Compare Roland's arena to the one I did for the Magus. Compare optimized damage for a Ranger, a Fighter, an Inquisitor, and a Paladin vs the Gunslinger. You'll find that the Gunslinger's average damage is subpar.
If you respond to my post I'll respond back but otherwise, I'm done here. This is purely nonsensical.
Ok number it is, and we'll use Harsk instead since thats a little more like apples and apples.
Harsk (ranger 15) DEX 23 (+6) +4 flaming burst heavy crossbow +26/+19/+16 (1d10+4 plus 1d6 fire/17-20/x2)Gunslinger 15 DEX 23 with +4 flaming burst rifle +26/+19/+16 (1d10+10 plus 1d6 fire/19-20/x4)
seems good so far right?
Harsk shoots at the dragon needs an 11 to hit. deals 13 damage.
Gunslinger shoots at the dragon needs a 2 to hit. deals 19 damage.Still fair?
If they shoot at each other it's about the same (again equal gear and feats) Harsk AC 30, touch 19
Harsk needs only a four to hit now, but the gunslinger still hits 10% more often (still only misses on a 1).
Seriously? A Ranger with a heavy crossbow? That's what you consider a fair basis for comparison?
A Heavy Crossbow is a sucky weapon that can't maintain a consistent fire rate. A Ranger sucks with crossbows, as they require more feats to reach an acceptable level of performance than he can muster.
But, even taking that into account, Harsk uses a Swift Action to cast Instant Enemy on the dragon, adding +8 to hit and damage against him. Now he needs a 3 to hit and deals 21 damage on average, easily matching the Gunslinger.
An APG Crossbowman easily matches and outmatches the Gunslinger's damage per shot thanks to Deadshot, (Greater) Weapon Specialization and Crossbow Training. He also outmatches the Gunslinger's attack bonus, thanks to Greater Weapon Focus and, again, Crossbow Training. He can also crit more often and, thanks to Fighter-only Critical Mastery, hang more devastating effects on each crit. (Also, he should be using a Light Crossbow rather than Heavy so he can full-attack each round)
An APG Archer is even better off, having all the things the Crossbowman has, and a damage bonus from his Str and Composite Longbow on top of that. He crits about as often as the Gunslinger, but again, with more special effects from Critical Mastery.
True, they don't attack against touch AC, but they have a higher enough attack bonus that it doesn't matter much - any semi-decent fighter build I've seen only misses a level-appropriate AC on a natural 1 on at least his first attack, usually also on second and sometimes even third.
In short, you can't see the forest for the trees. You're so hung up on the touch AC thing that you can't see a plethora of factors that balance it. In PF, it's less important how often you hit than how hard you hit, and gunslinger is not the heaviest hitter around.
|
|
Just because the vorpal sword is in the book, doesn't mean that you or anyone in your group is ever going to find/use one, but it still needs to be balanced within the game. Guns aren't. PERIOD. Advanced firearms or no advanced firearms.
I admit that the comparison you then made between a gunslinger and another class, with their DPR depending on situation via an extensive playtest of the gun rules actually changed my mind. Your visceral affirmation in caps is totally and utterly indisputable.
Wait, my wand of Invisible Writings just slipped from my hand, I hope nothing disappeared...Like I said above I think firearms should NOT IGNORE enhancement bonuses to armor, ever. I'm fine with blowing through plate at short range but not +1 plate. Magic should always trump mundane in a fantasy world, that's the whole reason why magic exists. Otherwise why have magical anything? What is the rational behind firearms ignoring magical armor anyway?
This. Like, +1000.
I'm ok with guns hitting easily through armor at the price of lower damage and close range, and so hitting Touch AC doesn't seem like a bad idea. But I really don't understand how a lvl 1 junk pistol could go unhindered through a +5 Full Plate. Magical enhancement shouldn't be overcome by bullets, or there should exist something like a penetration-potential in firearms : something like -5 for a musket, which means that any target with something like 10 + 7 Natural Armor and +1 Full-plate (10) => (AC 27) would only have 2 Natural Armor and 5 from the full-plate, making it's AC 17 against pistols.It becomes harder to hit with a gun, but there could be ways to increase a gunslinger's damage to compensate. And more importantly, magical enhancements will now truly mean something for the gun AND the armors. +5 armor will effectively cancel a -5 penetration, for example.
I don't like the Touch AC part of guns.
We are talking about world where armor is magical, bullets aren't going to beat that. I just can't see a person firing a flint lock pistol at someone in +5 Admantite Full Plate and hitting as though he wasn't wearing armor at all. That lead ball would pancake on the breast plate. Even studded leather would slow the penetration possibly deflecting it if it was magical behaving like bullet proof vest.
I think guns should hit normally and apply armor negation. Gun statistics should have penetration rating and that's the value you add as bonus to if a target has armor/shield bonus equal to or exceeding that value. If the armor value is less than the penetration then use the targets AC as bonus to hit instead. Can't get bonus to bypass armor when a target isn't wearing armor for example.
Once you take magic into account that's like science where we create ballistic armors capable of stopping bullets or decreasing the chance that kill you. Which is what armor is meant to do. Negating armor entirely by using touch isn't a good idea in my opinion.
I'm not arguing how well guns work or don't just that it makes more sense in my mind to target normal AC applying a penetration rule like above. That way magical armors can still work.
Bullets don't penetrate armor, kinetic force penetrates armor. Kinetic force that still causes nasty bruises, broken bones, internal organ damage, all of which is a decrease in hitpoints.
|
|
Overdark, you miss important points.
1) In the default setting, even if we assume that an advanced firearm is attainable, it is probably not so for most of an AP-style campaign. In that case, Gunslingers will still only miss on a 1 but when they do, they'll have to spend a round doing little to no damage so that they can clear the jam.
2) DPR takes into account the chance to hit. A Fighter that does twice the damage of the Gunslinger but hits only half the time, does the same amount of damage. And does so with arrows and weapons that cost a fraction of what bullets and guns do, never misfire, and never randomly break when shooting.
This is ridiculous. This is knee jerk, armchair "development" and poor analysis.
Look at actual playtest data. Compare Roland's arena to the one I did for the Magus. Compare optimized damage for a Ranger, a Fighter, an Inquisitor, and a Paladin vs the Gunslinger. You'll find that the Gunslinger's average damage is subpar.
If you respond to my post I'll respond back but otherwise, I'm done here. This is purely nonsensical.
1) What makes you think that a mid-high level gunslinger won't aquire an advanced firearm. Absalom, Katapesh, Alkenstar are 3 places he/she could aquire the item. So one teleport and some GP later.
2) What is this fighter using? Melee attacks that subject him to return strikes. A bow/crossbow that deal about the same damage as a gun but don't hit as often?
I did compare a ranger (Harsk) to a gunslinger, and with everything being equal (feats, stats, etc.) the gunslinger hits more often. Thus, the gunslinger does more damage.
How does this not compute with you people?
|
|
The overall complaint I'm hearing is now going from mechanical to fluff. We've already (basically) shown that the Gunslinger does lower damage per hit, but hits far more accurately, than most other classes. And nobody really seems to have a problem with this. However, the argument arises about whether or not these bullets should really be penetrating armor, be it plate, leather, or dragon scales.
Really though? Who cares? The gunslinger itself may need work, but the guns themselves seem to work fine. You're limited on the number of attacks you can make with them, and their base damage isn't terribly high. Throughout the lower levels, you are restricted to difficult-to-use firearms which offer few benefits compared to other weapons. True, you hit more often, but at lower levels you NEED to be in fairly close quarters to hit touch AC.
If you're concerned with realism, that's your own problem. Guns, as a mechanic (i.e., providing ballistic touch attacks) work fine. There may be other issues involved (high maintenance costs, ammo costs, reloading times), but those are part of the package. The only way characters are going to be getting free reloading times is when they can afford to get magical advanced firearms (which, at their cost, you probably need to be at least level 8+ to get), and even then all it does is make them do a respectable amount of damage given the fact that you'll rarely miss with them.
|
|
Bullets don't penetrate armor, kinetic force penetrates armor. Kinetic force that still causes nasty bruises, broken bones, internal organ damage, all of which is a decrease in hitpoints.I don't like the Touch AC part of guns.
We are talking about world where armor is magical, bullets aren't going to beat that. I just can't see a person firing a flint lock pistol at someone in +5 Admantite Full Plate and hitting as though he wasn't wearing armor at all. That lead ball would pancake on the breast plate. Even studded leather would slow the penetration possibly deflecting it if it was magical behaving like bullet proof vest.
I think guns should hit normally and apply armor negation. Gun statistics should have penetration rating and that's the value you add as bonus to if a target has armor/shield bonus equal to or exceeding that value. If the armor value is less than the penetration then use the targets AC as bonus to hit instead. Can't get bonus to bypass armor when a target isn't wearing armor for example.
Once you take magic into account that's like science where we create ballistic armors capable of stopping bullets or decreasing the chance that kill you. Which is what armor is meant to do. Negating armor entirely by using touch isn't a good idea in my opinion.
I'm not arguing how well guns work or don't just that it makes more sense in my mind to target normal AC applying a penetration rule like above. That way magical armors can still work.
Wrong. Lead balls splatter on a breastplate leaving the puny human inside unscathed.
|
|
Bullets don't penetrate armor, kinetic force penetrates armor. Kinetic force that still causes nasty bruises, broken bones, internal organ damage, all of which is a decrease in hitpoints.
Well, said like this, it makes more sense actually. You can have a kevlar vest, you'll still feel like if a guy tried to break your bones with a huge punch if you take a bullet.
Though I don't think it should work this way with medium and heavy armors, which should keep an imagery of inebranlable strenght. I still think it lacks something to truly balance the guns. Maybe a DR of 1 for medium and 2 for heavy armor against bullets...|
|
1) What makes you think that a mid-high level gunslinger won't aquire an advanced firearm. Absalom, Katapesh, Alkenstar are 3 places he/she could aquire the item. So one teleport and some GP later.
I'm not saying that they won't. I'm saying that they're not as good as you claim for something like 2/3 of a given campaign.
2) What is this fighter using? Melee attacks that subject him to return strikes. A bow/crossbow that deal about the same damage as a gun but don't hit as often?
Pistols are likely to make a Gunslinger suffer nearly as many return attacks as melee as playtesting has shown. A Gunslinger with a musket would suffer less but have a longer reload time, reducing their effectiveness dramatically.
I did compare a ranger (Harsk) to a gunslinger, and with everything being equal (feats, stats, etc.) the gunslinger hits more often. Thus, the gunslinger does more damage.
You compared a Gunslinger against another crap Iconic. Amorangius already handled a response to this obvious strawman.
How does this not compute with you people?
Because anyone doing serious analysis thinks you are wrong. If a dozen people with well thought out responses think you're wrong, do you not suppose you should take a break from this thread and do a little more thinking?
Wrong. Lead balls splatter on a breastplate leaving the puny human inside unscathed.
That is unequivocally false.
Modern armor still uses metal plates in addition to things like kevlar and it still won't stop you from being bruised or suffering broken bones or internal hemorrhaging.
I wish to add a thing: powder and bullets in the game could be similar to the IRL ones, but not the same.
Consider them special alchemical items... maybe the strenght is higher or there is some other effect (temperature?) able to bypass armor.
I'm hoping in the final version, the option for "Guns Everywhere" takes into account to the prevalence of advanced firearms. As of right now, I can't see how firearms could advance to the level of that option while armor stays stagnant, especially in a fantasy world such as PF. Perhaps mundane armor is stronger (from more refined techniques, rare materials are now more common etc.), making advanced firearms only penetrate at short or medium range (antique firearms never penetrate in comparison) to balance out their prevalence, cheap and easy to use, and never misfire. It's also wrong to have a gun, any gun, bypass magic armor like it was paper. I'm sure that last bit will be fixed in the final product, I'm just hoping the options above "Emerging Guns" takes into consideration for options to defend against them as well.
my 2 copper.
|
|
Wrong. Lead balls splatter on a breastplate leaving the puny human inside unscathed.
That is unequivocally false.
Modern armor still uses metal plates in addition to things like kevlar and it still won't stop you from being bruised or suffering broken bones or internal hemorrhaging.
Yeah, modern high velocity jacketed BULLETS. Not muskets & flintlock pistols firing lead balls. Spanish conquistadors wore breastplates because they stop musket fire. Stop. Not reduce. Stop. Go watch pirate vs. knight to see what low-tech guns do to armor.