Overdark,
Leave your feelings out of it for a moment, obviously you have a great deal of personal attachment to your opinion on this issue, but maybe its possible if so many people disagree you need to go back to the drawing board on your assement of this. Do as they ask, run the play tests, do your homework and come back with real proof. You need to actually run the encounters and not just sight builds. Lashing out will not convince anyone of anything other than to devalue your opinions. Its a playtest for a reason. You need to play it out in order to support your criticism. What these people are saying is they have played it and they arent getting the results your claiming...and so far you havent provided any evidience you have done the same due dilligence to support such strong opinions.
|
Also, not to sound rude, but you cannot, repeat, cannot use The Deadliest Warrior as an argument, simply because they are founded in pseudo-science and don't use realistic testing much of the time. As an example, please look at their "analysis" of SWAT weaponry.
Edit*: Just for grins, I went and watched the video on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LBWyXHEMNU
You know what I saw? A flintlock pistol putting noticeable dents in armor. And a knight getting shot with a pistol multiple times... and being wounded by it. So, even using the flawed views of The Deadliest Warrior, the pistol is still, in a sense, damaging the knight.
|
Go watch pirate vs. knight to see what low-tech guns do to armor.
Except "Deadliest Warrior" isn't a manual to good D&D designing.
That is, until they start comparing longsword damage to a dragon hide then see if a 10ft fireball can really be avoided without suffering even a slight burn while being in the center of the burst. Or when they see if, you know, adamantium claws can tear an armor like butter. Or, if the double sword can be wielded without killing yourself. Or, if a net can be cut and escaped in 6 seconds. Or...
|
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.
I don't care what you learned from a TV show, this is simple physics. Even if the ball can't pass through plate, just like a bullet vs modern armor, the force is not lost into some magical wormhole. The force caused by the accelerated mass of the musket ball is imparted to the armor which imparts it to the person wearing it.
Now look, guns hitting touch AC doesn't really make any logical sense in the real world. A mace does essentially the same thing as a musket ball. It is a game conceit made up to differentiate guns from bows. Is it odd? Yes. Is it overpowered? No.
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.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.
Sir Isaac Newton disagrees with you. So does the history of warfare. If you're shot on your breastplate, then either the breastplate is penetrated and you're hit with a bullet, or it holds and you're hit with a breastplate. Even with the padding underneath the plate/chain, this can bruise you severely or even break some ribs.
Sometimes, the bullet just ricochets on the armor, and you leave relatively unscathed, but that's what misses represent.
Touch attack + sneak attack= Gun toting rogue. It's a weapon attack so sneak attack would apply.
Also a lead bullet would flatten on a steel plate. Lead is very soft. The impact would still hurt.
|
|
Yes this makes sense for mundane, but magic should trump all of this. That's why it's called "magic". Once you start trumping magic with science you have no more magic. Luckily, it's easy to fix: magic>mundane *always*.
So swords should always bounce off Mage Armor? Evasion should never work against Fireballs? Mundane things and abilities trump magic all the time.
|
|
Yes this makes sense for mundane, but magic should trump all of this. That's why it's called "magic". Once you start trumping magic with science you have no more magic. Luckily, it's easy to fix: magic>mundane *always*.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...
Tell that to the citizens of Alkenstar :P
Tell that to the citizens of Alkenstar :PYes this makes sense for mundane, but magic should trump all of this. That's why it's called "magic". Once you start trumping magic with science you have no more magic. Luckily, it's easy to fix: magic>mundane *always*.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...
the only use science because where they are magic doesn't work, so only in the mana wastes would science/mundane trump magic
|
|
the only use science because where they are magic doesn't work, so only in the mana wastes would science/mundane trump magicTell that to the citizens of Alkenstar :P
That depends entirely upon one's view of magic. I happen to think that magic, at least in the game sense, is a tool. I mean, you can study it, learn it, and use it on command. Some people have a knack for it, yes, but the same could be said for any profession. Looking at it in that sense, Science could indeed "trump" Magic in many areas, as well as vice-versa.
Since, at this point, it's purely an argument of opinions on the power of magic, the relative power of guns is basically pointless. It's like comparing Guns to Fancy Looking Guns that are still Guns. Just because you use different ammo (read, spells/day) doesn't mean one necessarily trumps the other.
|
This is like the Warlock discussion all over again.
I addressed my concern in the other thread.
The warlock was fine, as only the warlock had the never ending blasts which did damage basically equal to what a ranged attacker could do when you really looked at it.
In this case, it isn't the gunslinger is overpowered, it is that guns may be more powerful than existing weapons, and will be widely available to all classes.
If you gave everyone scaling blasts, that would be silly and unbalancing. Now if you have a feat that gives you a 1d6 eldrich blast...not so much, since that is poor economy of action to shoot a blast less effective than an arrow.
So why give everyone access to a touch attack weapon at the same level of effectiveness as the class that can use it.
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?
Well the fact that you conveniently left out Hasrk's "SPELL CASTING" Abilities for one that makes up a lot of difference and brings up his damage and to hit. Also the fact that a RANGER can have a Pet to help him in DPR will wear better armor. Has more feats to spend on his ranged attacks. Which pretty much evens out.
Hey everyone,
I just want to ask to keep the conversation civil. I think good and even heated argument can help the playtest process, and I don't want to lock this thread. Some of this conversation is getting a little too heated and personal.
In short, cool it down to friendly disagreements and useful points, or I will shut down this thread.
Remember we are all on the same team here and love the same things.
|
|
Touch attack + sneak attack= Gun toting rogue. It's a weapon attack so sneak attack would apply.
Also a lead bullet would flatten on a steel plate. Lead is very soft. The impact would still hurt.
Exactly the problem.
You pointed out the rogue.
Gun toting Fighter adds weapon specialization to deadly and has a high damage touch attack.
Ranger with favored enemy bonuses and spell buffs.
Etc, etc...
The issue isn't the gunslinger being overpowered, it is that everyone else can use guns, and the gun mechanic as a touch attack doesn't play well with other classes features and bonuses.
This is like the Warlock discussion all over again.Except Warlocks were CLEARLY overpowered.
[/sarcasm]
+1
I would be interested in a comparison of a fighter using guns vs a fighter using say a composite longbow. Both being optimized of course. Is it really that unbalanced? I don't really want to speculate since I don't care to put the time into making the characters and doing the math (plus I'm not up to date on gun feats and such).
However if people are worried about guns breaking other classes they need to use the class using two superior weapons to prove it. The only issue I 'might' see is a rogue, and in that case the rogue has to spend a lot of feats to get there.
|
|
This is like the Warlock discussion all over again.Except Warlocks were CLEARLY overpowered.
[/sarcasm]
+1
I would be interested in a comparison of a fighter using guns vs a fighter using say a composite longbow. Both being optimized of course. Is it really that unbalanced? I don't really want to speculate since I don't care to put the time into making the characters and doing the math (plus I'm not up to date on gun feats and such).
However if people are worried about guns breaking other classes they need to use the class using two superior weapons to prove it. The only issue I 'might' see is a rogue, and in that case the rogue has to spend a lot of feats to get there.
And this is the crux of the issues. It isn't the gunslinger, it's the guns.
The gunslinger isn't overpowered at all, except when you allow everyone else to have guns that function just as well for them as they do for the gunslinger.
Then the issue is, are guns more powerful than existing weapons. And if so, you have now opened a gateway to power creep.
It never is the new thing that is overpowered, it is how the new thing interacts with the old things.
If you can shoot the dragon as a touch attack, then the dragon is in range to get an attack of opportunity and a full round of attacks himself. This annihilates the whole reason to make ranged attacks over melee. Thus, a gunslinger becomes equivalent to melee fighter who hits far more often, but for much less damage and provides an attack of opportunity for his enemy.
The gunslinger is playable, but not optimal.
If you can shoot the dragon as a touch attack, then the dragon is in range to get an attack of opportunity and a full round of attacks himself. This annihilates the whole reason to make ranged attacks over melee. Thus, a gunslinger becomes equivalent to melee fighter who hits far more often, but for much less damage and provides an attack of opportunity for his enemy.
The gunslinger is playable, but not optimal.
The majority of this discussion has been made using the advanced firearms, which negates this particular downfall.
|
|
If you can shoot the dragon as a touch attack, then the dragon is in range to get an attack of opportunity and a full round of attacks himself. This annihilates the whole reason to make ranged attacks over melee. Thus, a gunslinger becomes equivalent to melee fighter who hits far more often, but for much less damage and provides an attack of opportunity for his enemy.
The gunslinger is playable, but not optimal.
Actually no. Even a great wyrm only has 15 ft reach.
And a 5 touch AC (as opposed to 41 normally).
Not to mention taking a feat negating the AoO.
And you are right about the damage...unless it isn't a gunslinger anymore and it's a fighter/rogue/ranger/inquisitor etc...who gets additional damage bonuses now only going against touch (5) instead of AC (41)
|
|
The gunslinger isn't overpowered at all, except when you allow everyone else to have guns that function just as well for them as they do for the gunslinger.
It's probably worth noting that even when you allow everyone else to have guns that function just as well for them as they do for the gunslinger, the gunslinger is still not overpowered.
Of course, I've beat the "guns should work better for gunslingers than they do for everyone else" drum enough elsewhere.
|
|
The gunslinger isn't overpowered at all, except when you allow everyone else to have guns that function just as well for them as they do for the gunslinger.
It's probably worth noting that even when you allow everyone else to have guns that function just as well for them as they do for the gunslinger, the gunslinger is still not overpowered.
Of course, I've beat the "guns should work better for gunslingers than they do for everyone else" drum enough elsewhere.
True.
I think as is the gunslinger is...ok. I've put up other threads regarding the fixes I want and I think many of them will make it into the final version.
But I think adding guns to the world in the current form is a problem. A problem easily resolved by making usability of these special features gunslinger exclusive.
I don't mind if a single class goes at touch ac at high levels as their "thing". I do mind if all classes can.
The gunslinger isn't overpowered at all, except when you allow everyone else to have guns that function just as well for them as they do for the gunslinger.
It's probably worth noting that even when you allow everyone else to have guns that function just as well for them as they do for the gunslinger, the gunslinger is still not overpowered.
Of course, I've beat the "guns should work better for gunslingers than they do for everyone else" drum enough elsewhere.
True.
I think as is the gunslinger is...ok. I've put up other threads regarding the fixes I want and I think many of them will make it into the final version.
But I think adding guns to the world in the current form is a problem. A problem easily resolved by making usability of these special features gunslinger exclusive.
I don't mind if a single class goes at touch ac at high levels as their "thing". I do mind if all classes can.
I seriously don't think guns pose a problem the way they work now. They are expensive, they are bothersome to reload, and they impose a high feat tax on anyone wanting to use them efficiently. All this so you can attack against touch AC in the first range increment. If you're going to be that close to the enemy, why not just get yourself a brilliant energy melee weapon?
Advanced firearms and magical enhancements skew this more in favor of firearms, but advanced firearms aren't standard in most game settings, and if you need particular magical enhancements to make a weapon viable, I wouldn't call it a gamebreaker.
|
|
The gunslinger isn't overpowered at all, except when you allow everyone else to have guns that function just as well for them as they do for the gunslinger.
It's probably worth noting that even when you allow everyone else to have guns that function just as well for them as they do for the gunslinger, the gunslinger is still not overpowered.
Of course, I've beat the "guns should work better for gunslingers than they do for everyone else" drum enough elsewhere.
True.
I think as is the gunslinger is...ok. I've put up other threads regarding the fixes I want and I think many of them will make it into the final version.
But I think adding guns to the world in the current form is a problem. A problem easily resolved by making usability of these special features gunslinger exclusive.
I don't mind if a single class goes at touch ac at high levels as their "thing". I do mind if all classes can.
I think I agree with that statement. The whole... thing you said. I've never pictured another class using guns, just because I feel like the Gunslinger should be the only one using them. Maybe the other classes could use them in a limited capacity, but the Gunslinger should be the best, and it isn't, though I don't think it would be hard to make it so.
|
|
I seriously don't think guns pose a problem the way they work now. They are expensive, they are bothersome to reload, and they impose a high feat tax on anyone wanting to use them efficiently. All this so you can attack against touch AC in the first range increment. If you're going to be that close to the enemy, why not just get yourself a brilliant energy melee weapon?Advanced firearms and magical enhancements skew this more in favor of firearms, but advanced firearms aren't standard in most game settings, and if you need particular magical enhancements to make a weapon viable, I wouldn't call it a gamebreaker.
Because Brilliant Energy is a +4 enhancement ( that makes your weapon useless against undead and constructs.
The cheapest brilliant weapon I can get is 50,000 dollars, and that is only a +1.
Meanwhile I can have +5 gun for roughly the same price.
Because Brilliant Energy is a +4 enhancement ( that makes your weapon useless against undead and constructs.The cheapest brilliant weapon I can get is 50,000 dollars, and that is only a +1.
Meanwhile I can have +5 gun for roughly the same price.
Whereas the +1 brilliant energy weapon isn't going to blow up more often than it criticals, doesn't require move actions to reload, doesn't cost 11+ gp per shot, and isn't nearly as feat intensive.
I seriously don't think guns pose a problem the way they work now. They are expensive, they are bothersome to reload, and they impose a high feat tax on anyone wanting to use them efficiently. All this so you can attack against touch AC in the first range increment. If you're going to be that close to the enemy, why not just get yourself a brilliant energy melee weapon?Advanced firearms and magical enhancements skew this more in favor of firearms, but advanced firearms aren't standard in most game settings, and if you need particular magical enhancements to make a weapon viable, I wouldn't call it a gamebreaker.
Because Brilliant Energy is a +4 enhancement ( that makes your weapon useless against undead and constructs.
The cheapest brilliant weapon I can get is 50,000 dollars, and that is only a +1.
Meanwhile I can have +5 gun for roughly the same price.
Damage-wise, a +1 BE falchion will outperform a +5 musket in the hands of a competent warrior, and you won't have to sink in several feats to take advantage of a full attack routine and avoid AoOs while doing damage.
|
|
Whereas the +1 brilliant energy weapon isn't going to blow up more often than it criticals, doesn't require move actions to reload, doesn't cost 11+ gp per shot, and isn't nearly as feat intensive.
Because Brilliant Energy is a +4 enhancement ( that makes your weapon useless against undead and constructs.The cheapest brilliant weapon I can get is 50,000 dollars, and that is only a +1.
Meanwhile I can have +5 gun for roughly the same price.
And it costs 48,000 more than a regular +1 weapon.
And it would be as feat intensive if it were ranged.
Quick draw and I can have how many ready to draw as a free action for the same price if one misfires?
Handy haversack anyone?
|
|
Damage-wise, a +1 BE falchion will outperform a +5 musket in the hands of a competent warrior, and you won't have to sink in several feats to take advantage of a full attack routine and avoid AoOs while doing damage.
I seriously don't think guns pose a problem the way they work now. They are expensive, they are bothersome to reload, and they impose a high feat tax on anyone wanting to use them efficiently. All this so you can attack against touch AC in the first range increment. If you're going to be that close to the enemy, why not just get yourself a brilliant energy melee weapon?Advanced firearms and magical enhancements skew this more in favor of firearms, but advanced firearms aren't standard in most game settings, and if you need particular magical enhancements to make a weapon viable, I wouldn't call it a gamebreaker.
Because Brilliant Energy is a +4 enhancement ( that makes your weapon useless against undead and constructs.
The cheapest brilliant weapon I can get is 50,000 dollars, and that is only a +1.
Meanwhile I can have +5 gun for roughly the same price.
And a competent warrior can't focus on muskets rather than swords so they add weapon specialization to the gun, in addition to the the added damage from it having a higher enhancement? Or sneak attack damage for rogues? Or favored enemy, smite, etc...
And there is no AoO if you are attacking at range and decide not to take a feat to negate the AoO.
|
|
Except at best you have two enchanted decently and everything after that hits less, does less damage and is subject to the normally ignored DRx/magic.Quick draw and I can have how many ready to draw as a free action for the same price if one misfires?
Handy haversack anyone?
Or I dual wield, not worrying about minuses to hit since it's only against touch attacks, and now I'm shooting two +3 pistols at 20 ft against touch ac, and still have over 10K in savings.
And I can hit undead and constructs.
The feature is comparable to a +4 enhancement. I'm fine with that for the gunslinger as he doesn't really have much else going to increasing damage.
But throw that on the other classes that give damage boosts and it gets real interesting real quick.
While I don't usually DM games, I think guns are overpowered as written.
I think a touch attack that ignores armor is the proper historical way to represent weaponfire and a good way to determine who is hit by fired ammunition, but I think that damage and critical hits should be determined by a second attack roll against a flat-footed AC, made using the weapon's strength. Revolver 12? Rifle 16? Shotgun 20? If this fails to hit, then the weapon only deals minimum damage (1 + STR bonus).
The weapon's Strength could also be helpful in using it to break items or smash through doors.
This is more of a technical point, early firearms ran off gun powder not the smokeless powder we use now. early stuff was unpredictable and dangerous. Mostly due to how it was made and how the powder was ignited.
There is a reason fireworks are kept sealed and dry. But I digress.
Has anyone thought of coming up with a larger powder charge to get more damage per bullet?
The idea is that if you want more range or damage you would up the amount of powder, thus increasing cost but a damage boost.
Any rules on enchanting or using spells on the bullet like arrows and bolts?
Perhaps increasing the powder charge could increase the strength of the weapon for that attack, but at a greater risk of explosion.
In my model above,
A 10th level gunslinger with 16 Dexterity and a (Str 16 firearm)
vs a Tyrannosaurus.
|
|
Has anyone thought of coming up with a larger powder charge to get more damage per bullet?
The idea is that if you want more range or damage you would up the amount of powder, thus increasing cost but a damage boost.
I had an idea for allowing Gunslinger to do some tinkering on their guns for customization in my Proposed Changes thread. Larger powder charges, larger bores, etc would all be great ideas.
Iron was more common, but were talking a fantasy world, thus they can use materials better than steel, IE Mithral or Adamantine.
I had an idea for allowing Gunslinger to do some tinkering on their guns for customization in my Proposed Changes thread. Larger powder charges, larger bores, etc would all be great ideas.Alright, larger powder charges. Are you going to increase the weight of metal to allow you to fire these larger chargers? Remember, that once the gun forges could turn out reliable iron guns, the only alternate was steel guns, which does not exist in Pathfinder. Check it. Look up the Sunder chart, no steel, only iron. So you would have to dramatically increase the weight of iron to allow it to withstand greater bore pressures, we're talking tripling or greater the weight to just allow a doubling of powder.
Also, with black powder, doubling the amount of powder does not double the power of the shot. Black powder burns unevenly, (why we switched, among other reasons, to smokeless powder, a more even burn) so you might get a 1.25-1.5 increase at triple the weight and double the powder.
And as I pointed out above, you are tremendously increasing the chance of a catastrophic failure.
Page 175, Hardness and Hit Points table (7-13). It lists steel and iron as the same.A greater bore. What does this do? Increase the caliber of shot, and the required powder. See what I said above.
Do some research into Renaissance and Sailing-Era guns and cannons.
SCIENCE!
See page 175, Table7-13. It lists iron and steel as the same.
And a competent warrior can't focus on muskets rather than swords so they add weapon specialization to the gun, in addition to the the added damage from it having a higher enhancement? Or sneak attack damage for rogues? Or favored enemy, smite, etc...
Sure, you can. You're still in for the misfires, ridiculous weapon and ammo cost, pain in the butt reloading... all this so you can stand one Charge action away from the enemy and hit him against touch AC instead of normal AC.
Or you can take the composite bow, eat the higher AC like a strong, brave full BAB class you are, and deal much more damage for cheaper, from a greater distance, and without your weapon ever blowing up in your face.
The only class I can think of that really gets a great boost out of using firearms, apart from the Gunslinger of course, is the Rogue. But that's pretty fine by me, because combat-wise, Rogues are a sad joke currently.
And there is no AoO if you are attacking at range and decide not to take a feat to negate the AoO.
Yeah, right. Except if you're benefiting from the touch AC rule, you're either standing within most opponents' Charge distance, or you're using your magical telescopic sights to make one shot per round. In the latter case, you're more of a nuisance than a threat in PF combat, and the Archer fighter laughs at you while raining down arrow after arrow for much greater average DPR. In the former case, you just ate a melee attack to the face and are in for more. Sure, you can 5-foot step away... better hope the enemy doesn't have anything with Reach at hand. Or he'll just take his 5-foot step to catch up and go Full Attack on your behind.
What I'm saying is, the advantage of guns' accuracy is mostly illusive. For full BAB classes, attacking against touch AC is mostly overkill. For others, the amount of feats required to make guns work isn't always worth the extra accuracy.
And it costs 48,000 more than a regular +1 weapon.And it would be as feat intensive if it were ranged.
Quick draw and I can have how many ready to draw as a free action for the same price if one misfires?
Handy haversack anyone?
Handy Haversack specifically takes a move action regardless of anything else you have going on.
And another ranged weapon is specifically not as feat intensive and will get more damage.
Longbows can get strength added in (something the firearm can not do), are available to most of the classes, have longer range, and do not require an exotic feat to use to full effect -- wants more they can be used to full attack by anyone.
Remember a lack of proficiency increases your chances to misfire.
See page 175, Table7-13. It lists iron and steel as the same.This does nothing except to strengthen my point.
Also, what is the purpose of a class feature/mechanic that only works if you have gear made of a specific material?
I did exactly as you said, I checked it, I looked it up, and low and behold, steel was listed. I proved you wrong on that point. Therefore, steel guns do exist in pathfinder.
And as to your whole "Do some research into Renaissance and Sailing-Era guns and cannons." If you research into history or mythology, you will find very little of what pathfinder provides is accurate, so why should guns?.
Gunslinger 15 DEX 23 with +4 flaming burst rifle +26/+19/+16 (1d10+10 plus 1d6 fire/19-20/x4)Just for the experiment, I built a 15th level halfling slinger (Fighter - Weapon Master)...I call him David. (...)
Thank you. This thread needed a thorough breakdown like yours.