|
Guns are in the game, and no amount of complaining (well-justified or not) won't change that. As a GM you can ban them by decree, but clearly the gun is going into Pathfinder and it's there to stay.
The problem is (on the meta sense), that as we know from our own history, guns will eventually dominate the world. Really, the only thing preventing it from happening in Golarion is the absurd costs of the guns and ammo. Why they cost so much is clearly a point of game balance since there's nothing within the manufacture of the gun that should be that expensive--unless there's only one gunsmith in the world.
Even assuming gunsmiths are rare now, if history is any example, once the gun is accepted as a powerful weapon (which it is) that's easier to use than a bow (which it is) and takes less training (which it does) then the profession of gunsmith should become amazingly profitable. And, once people realize that, they'll hire more gunsmiths and start manufacturing more guns-which will reduce the price (and that's really the only meta-game balancer). So, soon we'll have gunsmiths plying their trade as readily as blacksmiths were, and everyone who wants a gun should be able to get one.
And while it did take centuries for guns to become popular and prevalent in our world, let's not forget that this is Golarion, a fictional world where magic and spells like Fabricate exist. So, instead of gunsmiths laboring away, you can now create as many guns and as much ammo as you'd like through magical means. Or, you can supplement your smiths with Fabricators. Either way, guns become relatively cheap and easy to make.
Now, instead of outfitting your troops with bows (where you have to hire them away from their crops, train them, support them while training and then go fight) you simply buy the guns, hire a mob and have them fire en masse in volleys. What's the proof that this would happen? History.
Why do guns go against Touch AC? Simply because firearms could penetrate breastplates, let alone any other (lesser) type of armor. What's the proof? History. The reason armor died out was because it was heavy, bulky, expensive, difficult to make, and...ineffective.
So, back to the game, if armor is ineffective, you're left with just your agility to "dodge" bullets, and while it may not be realistic to think you can dodge bullets it's a necessary fudge because while Guns Vs Flat Footed would be more realistic it'd be unbalancing.
But, what we're also ignoring or overlooking is that guns don't exist in a vacuum, and they didn't in history. With the introduction of guns, we should see the evolution of cannons and grenades as well.
And, once you introduce those (if they were realistic) you'd see another significant blow against armor, fortifications and even creatures like dragons-why hire adventurers to kill it when you can just let it fly over your cannons and blow it out of the sky?
Why worry about mages and fireballs when you can have your peasant (or goblin) army toss grenades? Want the monster in the cave dead? Don't fight it, grenade it.
Again, if we assume that the price of the firearms is the limiting factor, as it was in real life in the beginning, what happens when those prices drop (as happened in real life) and guns, cannons and grenades are no more expensive than a well-made sword?
And yes, there are risks with firearms, but what despot/king/general really cares if a few of his men get killed-it's war, and as long as the balance of power is in his favor, then the risk is worth it. Same for the individual-why waste time, money and effort training (and still risk dying with your medieval weapon in your hand) when you can pick up a gun?
Even in Golarion, where there's magic, it certainly takes less time, effort and training to keep reloading and firing than it does to cast your spells, rest 8 hours, and then cast again and magic hasn't changed in the millennia that it's been around. A fireball cast by a mage 400 years ago is the same as one cast today. But, a firearm from 400 years ago certainly isn't the same as a modern one-guns evolve, magic doesn't.
And this is outside the actual Gunslinger class, which should, by all rights, be even deadlier than it is since it's not a 3 Musketeer-like creation where it fires once then charges with a rapier (and little to no armor), it's more akin to a Wild West style gunslinger-and at that point it may as well have dual pearl-handled .45 caliber revolvers and Winchester rifles.
Really, the biggest issue with firearms isn't whether you can get one class balanced through manipulation of the mechanics, it's the problem that if you unleash guns then you have to artificially limit/restrict how powerful they are, how available they are, and you have to keep them from evolving (like they did in real life) or else you end up with a game world that looks like real history, where the gun dominated the world.
And that's what bugs me the most about putting guns into fantasy-either you have to hobble them completely in order to make sense mechanically, or you need to make them realistic and let them take over the entire game. Since this won't be Pathfinder Modern, we can assume the former will take place, but if that's the case, then-outside of the "thrill" to have a Gunslinger among goblins-what's the point? Are there really that many players who wouldn't buy a new combat book if it didn't introduce guns?
I think the class may ultimately prove to be "balanced", because the mechanics will be tweaked until it is on par with other classes.
But, my real issue is that the core concept--firearms in fantasy--isn't (or shouldn't be) balanced. The reason fantasy does best without firearms is because if you put in "realistic" firearms complete with their (relatively rapid) development and their ability to change (literally) the entire world then you would have to allow them to Change the World (as they did in our own history).
I like guns. I'm a big-time Warhammer fantasy fan since 1st edition, and I like GURPS. I just think guns = touch attack makes no sense. Irrespective of "balance," I just don't buy it. So if that's the final version... well, I hope Ultimate Combat has something else in it's that's very good. :)
As for guns themselves... looks like I'll just roll my own.
But, my real issue is that the core concept--firearms in fantasy--isn't (or shouldn't be) balanced. The reason fantasy does best without firearms is because if you put in "realistic" firearms complete with their (relatively rapid) development and their ability to change (literally) the entire world then you would have to allow them to Change the World (as they did in our own history).
In our own history, firearms competed against swords, bows and crossbows. In Golarion, they compete against magic, magic that's often quite cheap and ultimately much more powerful compared to guns.
Even more importantly, people in Golarion don't work exactly as people in real life do. IRL, firearms ended the era of knights because no matter how well-trained and equipped a knight was, he was always one salvo away from turning into an overpriced stainless steel colander with dead meat inside. In Golarion, not so much - PF mechanics make it so that a sufficiently trained warrior takes hours to take out if all you can pit against him are guys with muskets or blunderbusses. And while they're shooting him like it's going out of style, he can murder them at a pace that would make Zawisza the Black gasp in disbelief. But don't mind the fighty guy - a spellcaster of sufficient level can render himself actually immune to first level mooks with firearms, and can end them squad after squad.
Firearms can and will change Golarion if they ever become cheap enough to be mass-produced, but faced against magic, they don't have enough impact to change the world as drastically as they changed ours.
|
1. Most monsters are still of such a size that if they get in melee they are likely to gain cover from your friends. Since you aren't likely to move (as you want to get a full attack instead of just a standard) improved precise shot will get you clear of the penalties to hit from cover (a +4 to the monster's AC in this case) which could kill your last several attacks.
2. 50k per weapon is for the +5 weapons (which I specifically called out in the write up before the math for the attacks) -- without those +5 weapons all the attack bonuses I presented are reduced by 5 and you lose 5 points of damage per attack, in addition to having to contend with DR. I didn't skimp in my mechanics because the rogue needs those bonuses to really see him through.
3. I accounted for that: Rogue talent 1 (combat feat) Rogue talent 2 (weapon focus) and a feat taken as an advanced talent -- you have no more left to gain feats from.
4. Several things are wrong with this scenario:
1. You are not guaranteed an action in the surprise round
2. You do not get a full attack in the surprise round.
3. You can still be beaten on initiative in the surprise round.
4. You are relying on the surprise round? Really?5. Each talent may only be taken once, even advanced talents, as I already specifically pointed out that we had taken a feat as an advanced talent already, no you may not take another one.
6. Really Ciretose if you are going to argue that guns are 'broken' you really really should read the rules involved:
Rules wrote:When firing upon a target within a firearm?s first range increment, the attack resolves against the target?s touch AC, but is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally (including taking the normal cumulative ?2 penalty for each full-range increment). Unlike other projectile weapons, most firearms have a maximum range of five range increments
Relying on initiative to get you your full attack with sneak attack is iffy at best (one monster does have uncanny dodge at this level too).
1. Sniper?s Eye is better for sneak attack purposes and a rogue talent.
2. The +5 enhancements aren't needed on the gun specifically because you are going against touch attacks and you do so much damage in a single attack vs touch ac. If you are going to put +5 on, I would make it a +1 with the +4 enhancement to reduce misfire chances by 2 and then maybe make the guns pepperboxes (in which case I don't need rapid reload. I may still do this with pistols to eliminate the misfire chances entirely.3. Then why did you list 10 feats, have three filled by rogue talents, and say I was capped out. (8 at 16 normally, 9 if human, + 8 Rogue talents). You also forgot I will need exotic weapon proficiency in the firearm, which I will trade off for the improved precise shot I don't need.
4. First, I already said I misunderstood the rule up-thread and already said it changes the equation so it is far less an issue than I thought. I am more or less continuing this with you because your being kind of rude about the whole thing. But, while we are here, so here we go.
It is the first round of combat as well
"A character who has not yet acted during a combat is flat-footed, unable to react normally to the situation."
So if there is a surprise round I can move into position, if not it depends on if I act first in initiative as to if the enemy is still flatfooted.
5. Yes, I used 3 of them for the 10 needed (less if I go the pepperbox route) meaning I have at least one left, or two if I'm human. I would probably use it on quick draw.
6. You are right, my mistake, more damage. Sweet.
I would like to see your sorcerer that does more than 336 damage.
Again, now that I realize you can't do a full round when you come out of invisible I'm less concerned. I still don't like that it functionally makes crossbows obsolete, but it isn't as broken as I feared.
|
|
But, my real issue is that the core concept--firearms in fantasy--isn't (or shouldn't be) balanced. The reason fantasy does best without firearms is because if you put in "realistic" firearms complete with their (relatively rapid) development and their ability to change (literally) the entire world then you would have to allow them to Change the World (as they did in our own history).In our own history, firearms competed against swords, bows and crossbows. In Golarion, they compete against magic, magic that's often quite cheap and ultimately much more powerful compared to guns.
Even more importantly, people in Golarion don't work exactly as people in real life do. IRL, firearms ended the era of knights because no matter how well-trained and equipped a knight was, he was always one salvo away from turning into an overpriced stainless steel colander with dead meat inside. In Golarion, not so much - PF mechanics make it so that a sufficiently trained warrior takes hours to take out if all you can pit against him are guys with muskets or blunderbusses. And while they're shooting him like it's going out of style, he can murder them at a pace that would make Zawisza the Black gasp in disbelief. But don't mind the fighty guy - a spellcaster of sufficient level can render himself actually immune to first level mooks with firearms, and can end them squad after squad.
Firearms can and will change Golarion if they ever become cheap enough to be mass-produced, but faced against magic, they don't have enough impact to change the world as drastically as they changed ours.
Actually in real life crossbows ended the knight. But they were expensive. Longbows did it at Agincourt, but it was hard to train anyone to properly use a longbow who didn't grow up doing it.
I would prefer guns be as they really were. Suboptimal. They didn't work if it was humid, required someone to protect you while you took forever to reload, and could blow up in your face.
I would prefer if the gunslinger were the only one who could use them to full effectiveness, and everyone else could only use them as one-shot parlor tricks.
But I'm not the Dev.
I can see a magic enhancement for armor coming. As a +1 enhancement your armor is bullet proof. Guns can not target touch AC with this armor.
Actually in real life crossbows ended the knight. But they were expensive. Longbows did it at Agincourt, but it was hard to train anyone to properly use a longbow who didn't grow up doing it.
Many things ended the knight. Longbows, crossbows and hand cannons alike paled in comparison to what ten peasants with flails did to a knight when they could gang up on him. The shift in combat paradigm was a slow, evolutionary process with many factors contributing. The overall deciding factor was the changing economy which made it possible for all the new technologies to see widespread use.
I would prefer guns be as they really were. Suboptimal. They didn't work if it was humid, required someone to protect you while you took forever to reload, and could blow up in your face.
Firearms are quite suboptimal in PF. They do blow up in your face, they are slower to load than crossbows for anyone but the Gunslinger, and they lag behind composite bows when it comes to damage. Their only advantage is that they rarely miss at five paces.
stuff I'm replying to, and a comment on crossbows.
I see the crossbow thing.
Sniper's eye is nice -- I like feats better -- besides if you want to actually stat him out then do so you didn't so I did.
Without the +5 guns you are only +5/6 on your last attacks -- that hurts even against AC 11 and lowers your DPR more than you want.
I agree that 336 damage is nice -- but only nice -- and if you only have the start of the first round to do it in and you are relying on initiative you aren't going to get it about 1/2 the time.
Touch AC only works for the first 20 feet -- if you are looking at enhancements then I would go with the misfire reducers, and distance to extend your range increments.
However realize by not taking the +5 you are losing out on over 40 points of damage (the miss percentages in the last attacks cost you another 4~6 points over the base 40 points you lose for not being +5) -- which is a nice chuck of the damage you are going for -- especially when +5 is more reliable than sneak attack.
Also several of the touch ACs were in the high teens or twenties against such monsters your extra hits are much less likely to connect without that +5 (even your first shots have a chance to miss then)
To be clear without the +5 weapons you are looking at:
+15/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5
or with haste:
+16/+16/+16/+16/+11/+11/+6/+6
The average AC for that level is a bit of a lie -- either the touch AC was high (high teens to mid twenties) or extremely low (below 10) without much middle ground, so either you'll hit always (which a fighter would do anyways) or you'll be iffy on your secondary attacks.
A human rogue would have:
bonus feat, first level, third, fifth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fifteenth level feats.
9 feats, I listed 10 one of which is directly available as a seperate rogue talent, so you are correct you do have a rogue talent, feat, or advanced talent available extra than what I suggested.
Perhaps gunsmithing then so you can have your gun fixed or ammunition on a regular basis?
|
|
I still don't like that it functionally makes crossbows obsolete, but it isn't as broken as I feared.Guns DID make crossbows (more or less) obsolete.
Not until they had co-existed for hundreds of years with crossbows being considered far superior for the majority of the time.
People confuse modern firearms with early firearms. The actually didn't effectively pierce armor until they were able to both make gunpowder with enough explosive power and metal that could contain it. They were far less likely to penetrate armor than longbows or crossbows during the medieval period.
If you don't believe me, look it up.
|
|
stuff I'm replying to, and a comment on crossbows.I see the crossbow thing.
Sniper's eye is nice -- I like feats better -- besides if you want to actually stat him out then do so you didn't so I did.
Without the +5 guns you are only +5/6 on your last attacks -- that hurts even against AC 11 and lowers your DPR more than you want.
I agree that 336 damage is nice -- but only nice -- and if you only have the start of the first round to do it in and you are relying on initiative you aren't going to get it about 1/2 the time.
Touch AC only works for the first 20 feet -- if you are looking at enhancements then I would go with the misfire reducers, and distance to extend your range increments.
However realize by not taking the +5 you are losing out on over 40 points of damage (the miss percentages in the last attacks cost you another 4~6 points over the base 40 points you lose for not being +5) -- which is a nice chuck of the damage you are going for -- especially when +5 is more reliable than sneak attack.
Also several of the touch ACs were in the high teens or twenties against such monsters your extra hits are much less likely to connect without that +5 (even your first shots have a chance to miss then)
To be clear without the +5 weapons you are looking at:
+15/+15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5
or with haste:
+16/+16/+16/+16/+11/+11/+6/+6
The average AC for that level is a bit of a lie -- either the touch AC was high (high teens to mid twenties) or extremely low (below 10) without much middle ground, so either you'll hit always (which a fighter would do anyways) or you'll be iffy on your secondary attacks.
A human rogue would have:
bonus feat, first level, third, fifth, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fifteenth level feats.9 feats, I listed 10 one of which is directly available as a seperate rogue talent, so you are correct you do have a rogue talent, feat, or advanced talent available extra than what I suggested.
Perhaps...
I think we largely agree at this point. I was wrong about the invisability thing, and so that changed everything.
I think if they make some of the feats not yet published gunslinger exclusive it could be ok, but I always worry about things that open doors to cheese builds like I posted and make existing items obsolete.
Guns are in the game, and no amount of complaining (well-justified or not) won't change that. As a GM you can ban them by decree, but clearly the gun is going into Pathfinder and it's there to stay...I read your entire post and I agree with your ultimate conclusion.
The reason that I quoted the first paragraph of your post is because it demonstrates the attitude that is seemingly status quo with the Paizo staff since it is already canon that firearms DO exist in Golorian.
No matter how much candy-coating is put on the notion of firearms in Pathfinder, there will be people who will never accept their existance in their game. These people will be less likely to buy supplements that feature guns, gunslingers or other advancements (cannons, grenades, machine guns, landmines, kobold suicide vests, etc...) of this "optional" subset of rules.
More troubling - it is possible that players will refuse to play in campaigns with each other based on the inclusion/exclusion of firearms (or drama that ensues during such debates). What is the wisdom of forcing the player-base into opposing camps and forcing them to choose?
The only alternate that I have heard that makes any sense is by a previous poster who suggested that firearms be featured in a seperate ruleset and in a later era of Golorian than the original "mainline" Pathfinder world. Hell, Paizo might sell way more books that way and be able to spin off an entirely new product line off it while mending any divide before it worsens.
Grognard.
You'll never make everyone happy when designing role playing games. Whatever you introduce to the game, some people will love it and other people will hate it. The trick isn't in avoiding this, it's in determining which group will be bigger and more likely to buy more books in the future.
Unless you plan to publish your game and setting in 16 pages softcovers that can be put in a binder, every book will contain something that some people aren't going to like. In the long run, publishing big books and taking the hate is the more reasonable publishing policy.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting was out long ago, and it did include firearms. It would make little sense for Paizo to backpedal now. Ultimately, rude as it may sound, "don't use it if you don't like it" is the most reasonable response that you'll get from any publisher when he's made up his mind about something.
|
|
So you don't like my examples and want better ones well fine...here ya go.
And I don't want to hear about how the iconics suck, the Paizo staff use them when planning the adventures they write so they must be good enough for them, so deal with it. I can make 25-point buy characters and trounce them too, thats not the point. Paizo encounters with Paizo NPCs.
Encounter 1 - vs. The Stag Lord
After battling through his minions the heroes at last come face to face with The Stag Lord himself, in his 15x20 foot room. Unlikely? Sure, but his bad attitude means that he stays here (this time at least)
Stag Lord (CR6)
AC 19 (T: 15)
Valeros (Ftr4) [trade the focus of his Focus and Specialization to Longbow]
+1 comp. longbow (+3 STR) +9 (1d8+6) [avg 10.5]
Harsk (Rgr4) [trade the focus of his Rapid Reload to pistol and Precise Shot to Exotic WP]
+1 pistol +8 (1d8+1) (and gets to shoot every round) [avg 5.5]
Now where does the Stag Lord get to hide since the longest dimension of his room is still within touch range.
Valeros hits on a 10 or better Harsk hits on a 7 or better. Harsk hits 15% more often.
Encounter 2 - vs. Vordakai
After besting the Stag Lord and numerous other threats our heroes have come at last to the lair of the ancient lich Vordakai, again not a lot of room to hide from the guy with a gun in this room either.
Vordakai (CR12)
AC 26 (T 11)
Valeros (Ftr10) +2 flaming burst comp. longbow (+4 STR) +18/+13 (1d8+10+1d6) [18] deadly aim +15/+10 (1d8+16+1d6) [14]
Harsk (Rgr10) +2 flaming burst pistol +16/+11 (1d8+2+1d6) [10] deadly aim +13/+8 (1d8+8+1d6) [16]
Valeros hits on a 8/13 (11/16); Harsk hits with a 2 or better. 30% more often than Valeros' best attack and 70% more often than his worst attack.
When they both roll 10's Valeros deals 18 damage (or 0 damage with Deadly Aim since he misses twice) Harsk deals 20 damage (or 32 damage with Deadly Aim since he still hits twice)
And a Gunslinger could shoot twice a round at this level and so can Harsk with paper cartriges. With an advanced firearm things just get better for the guy with the gun since the chance for a misfire disappears. He does 50% of the damage 70% of the time, sounds like more damage to me.
Also I just noticed, Pinpoint Targeting....(which can also be used with a gun)
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Precise Shot, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: As a standard action, make a single ranged attack. The target does not gain any armor, natural armor, or shield bonuses to its Armor Class. You do not gain the benefit of this feat if you move this round.
Which just reinforces my opinion that the touch-attacks for guns should be an exclusive class feature of the Gunslinger. Since to do the same thing with a bow you need to be a 16th level Fighter (yeah I know Rangers can get it sooner 'cause their special) with a bunch of feats, or have a Brilliant Energy weapon (minimun 50,000 gp) and even that doesn't bypass natural armor.
Where a guy with a gun can do the same thing with no feats, and no 19 DEX and accept the -4 non-prof. penalty and still reliably hit. With advnaced firearms things just get more unbalaced since the guy with an advanced firearm can get up to 6 shots a round as touch attacks (with rapid shot and haste).
And stop saying Advanced Firearms are 'optional' that word never appears in the Gunslinger document except for the Daring Act optional rule.
Emerging Guns: Firearms become more common. They are mass-produced by small guilds or lone gunsmiths, a dwarven clan, or maybe even a nation or two, but the secret is slipping out, and the occasional rare adventurer uses guns.
The baseline gunslinger rules and the prices for ammunition given in this document are for this type of campaign. Early firearms are available, but are relatively rare. Gunslingers must take the Craft Firearms feat just to make them feasible weapons. Advanced firearms may exist, but only as rare and wondrous items.
Rare and wondrous, not optional. Everything that costs hundreds or thousands of gold is rare and wondrous. Flacatas, Aldori dueling swords, elven curve blades are rare and wondrous.
In the world of the PC nothing except artifacts is truly rare and wondrous.
Sorcerers and Fighters are 'rare and wondrous' when most people are commoners, experts, and artistocrats. If it's got a GP value on it you should have a good reason why a guy can't go to Katapesh, or Alkenstar, or Absalom and buy it, when his buddy can easily buy his 2,000 gp +1 sword.
Since right in the description of Katapesh they tell you that ANYTHING is available if you're willing to give them a week or two. They've got 1,000,000,000 gp worth of assets.
Revolvers existed before the current gun rules in Golarion, so what they ret-conned them out into something that may or may not exist? Balls.
And 'Because I'm the GM and I said so' isn't a good reason, unless you just don't allow guns or use a lower level of advancement for firearms (Golarion doesn't).
And BTW where do you think most 'monsters' get their AC? Its from their Natural Armor bonus.
Aboleth - AC 20 (T 9)
Solar - AC 44 (T 11)
Ankheg - AC 16 (T 9)
Basilisk - AC 17 (T9)
Dire Bear - AC 18 (T10)
Marilith - AC 32 (T 17)
Starting to notice the trend? At higher CR's the monsters just keep getting easier to hit with a gun. Especially monsters that are large or larger (most of yer high CR monsters) All 4 CR 20 monsters in the Bestiary 1 have huge differences between AC's (Balor 36/20, Ancient Gold Dragon 39/5, Pit Fiend 38/18, Tarn Linnorm 36/10).
Back to the encounters...
Encounter 3 - vs. Asaam
After deciding that they didn't really like the Stolen Lands our heroes travel all the way down to the Mwangi Expanse and after much adventure they find themselves in the fabled City of Seven Spears and come up against the degenerate serpentfolk rogue Asaam
Asaam (CR15)
AC 30 (T 18) This chamber is about 60 feet by 30 feet, not a lot of room to hide from the gun wielder (again).
Valeros (Ftr13) +3 flaming burst comp. longbow (+5 STR) +22/+17+12 (1d8+11+1d6) [avg. 19]
Harsk (Rgr13) +3 flaming burst pistol +22/+17/+12 (1d8+3+1d6) [avg. 11]
Valeros needs to roll 8/13/18 to hit.
Harsk needs to roll 2/2/6 to hit.
Since they both have Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot these feats just cancle each other out, sure Valeros has Manyshot so he can get a +22(double arrow) attack. Sure he does more damage, when he hits.
When they both roll 3 5's for their attacks Valeros deals no damage, Harsk deals 22 damage
When they both roll 3 10's for their attacks Valeros deals 19 damage, Harsk deals 33 damage (with deadly aim Valeros doesn't even hit once, Harsk still hits 3 times)
When they both roll 3 15's for their attacks Valeros deals 38 damage, Harsk deals 33 damage (with deadly aim Valeros only hits once, Harsk still hits 3 times)
If they both miraculously roll nothing but 20's Valeros deals 150 damage, Harsk deals 100 damage
So with very good rolls Valeros deals more damage, but with average rolls Harsk deals more damage. With poor rolls the gun wielder really shines since he still hits 2 out 3 times.
With a Fighter or Gunslinger with a gun the damage does go up. Since fighters would get weapon training and gunslingers get to add their DEX bonus to damage.
Harsk still hits more often and Valeros had to buy 3 different magic bows to keep up with his strength increases, we'll just consider that a wash (its not) with the super expensive ammo that Harsk has to keep buying.
90+% of encounters that you will find will occur at less than 150 feet (usually about a third of that) so the touch range for guns is just going to mean that the gun wielder is going to have to move in the first round (just like a melee character) and then only if he doesn't have an advanced firearm, then when the Sorcerer still needs to get a little bit closer to use their close range touch spells (ALL rays have a max range of 75 feet @ 20th level) a revolver has a touch range of 100 feet @ 1st level. And when the Sorcerer gets close he has to be worried about getting hit with his lower AC and less HP. The Fighter with a gun can still wear his Full Plate Mail and enjoy his d10 hit dice. The Gunslinger has acrobatics so even if you do get close enough to hit him he can just tumble away.
If you think I don't have a clue as to what I'm talking about still, then fine. Nothing I say will make you admit that the gun touch attack feature is a mistake. I know guns took over in the real world, I'm not talking about the real world. I'm talking about a game and maintaining balance within that game. Guns should be just as balanced as every other weapon. Crossbows were designed for the purpose of shooting through heavy armor, so why don't crossbows make touch attacks in their first range increment?
Up the damage die of all guns by one step (maybe two) and keep the x4 critical then I think that the guns will be much more balanced. A one-handed heavy crossbow with a x4 critical sounds like a very balanced exotic weapon, to me at least. A one-handed light crossbow that targets touch AC with a x4 critical, sounds like an unbalanced exotic weapon. To me.
Give the Gunslinger a Deed for making touch attacks with guns...
Piercing Shot: At XX level, the gunslinger may spend 1 grit point to make all her attacks for the current combat round as ranged attacks that target her enemies touch armor class.
This seems like a decent fix to me, and don't say that the rules for guns can't be changed, anything can be changed. The developers at Paizo can make mistakes just like everyone else. And personally I think this one is a mistake, if you disagree, fine. But you're not gonna make me think that it's not a mistake. When coupled with a class that removes all the drawbacks of guns (slow-reload, misfire, cost), what are the drawbacks then?
When using average attack rolls (10) the gunslinger hits more often, especially at higher levels.
More hits = more damage.
Guns win.
So, again, the only way that guns are overpowered is if all your characters, including the gun-wielder, are very under-optimized?
We know this to be true; again, guns are understood to have their best value when picked up by the untrained. But I don't think we usually use a comparison of poorly-built, under-damaging characters to determine whether a new weapon is too powerful.
Also, you're still not using Rapid Shot in these builds. Rapid Shot is a major source of damage for a bow-wielder; refusing to include it in the stat block is tantamount to saying "the gun-wielder is better if we ignore what makes the bow-wielder good".
|
|
Arbalest (Heavy Crossbow)
5,000 ft-lbf
.50 AE (IMI Desert Eagle)
1,500 ft-lbf
foot pounds of force.
So how does a modern gun still fail to produce the same enrgy as a heavy crossbow, let alone muskets and flintlocks? Don't answer, I don't expect to sway you, you have your minds made up. Just some information for you.
|
|
So, again, the only way that guns are overpowered is if all your characters, including the gun-wielder, are very under-optimized?
We know this to be true; again, guns are understood to have their best value when picked up by the untrained. But I don't think we usually use a comparison of poorly-built, under-damaging characters to determine whether a new weapon is too powerful.
Apples to Apples. Not Apples and Oranges.
|
Arbalest (Heavy Crossbow)
5,000 ft-lbf.50 AE (IMI Desert Eagle)
1,500 ft-lbffoot pounds of force.
So how does a modern gun still fail to produce the same enrgy as a heavy crossbow, let alone muskets and flintlocks? Don't answer, I don't expect to sway you, you have your minds made up. Just some information for you.
Hey, is it D&D we're talking about? That game where a mid-level Barbarian can fall from 500ft. and brush it off, because 20d6 falling damage is so damn realistic?
|
|
Also, you're still not using Rapid Shot in these builds. Rapid Shot is a major source of damage for a bow-wielder; refusing to include it in the stat block is tantamount to saying "the gun-wielder is better if we ignore what makes the bow-wielder good".
Rapid shot just makes the bow-wielder miss more. More shots that miss don't deal any damage still.
Also I'm guessing that the other 250 pages that we haven't seen of Ultimate Combat are gonna include a bunch of feats to get your gunslinger right back in the mix.
Apples to Apples. Not Apples and Oranges.So, again, the only way that guns are overpowered is if all your characters, including the gun-wielder, are very under-optimized?
We know this to be true; again, guns are understood to have their best value when picked up by the untrained. But I don't think we usually use a comparison of poorly-built, under-damaging characters to determine whether a new weapon is too powerful.
If we were debating whether a new fertilizer made one kind of apple much juicier than another, should we compare the best apple we can with or without the fertilizer, or should we compare the two moldy apples we found at the bottom of the barrels?
If the argument is that the fertilizer makes BAD apples much better, we should compare bad apples. But if the argument is that the fertilizer gives the apples a truly unfair advantage, we need to compare using the BEST non-fertilized apple we can find.You refuse to do that because whenever we actually look at a really juicy non-fertilized apple, it's as good as the fertilized ones.
So you don't like my examples and want better ones well fine...here ya go.
And I don't want to hear about how the iconics suck, the Paizo staff use them when planning the adventures they write so they must be good enough for them, so deal with it. I can make 25-point buy characters and trounce them too, thats not the point. Paizo encounters with Paizo NPCs.
Encounter 1 - vs. The Stag Lord
After battling through his minions the heroes at last come face to face with The Stag Lord himself, in his 15x20 foot room. Unlikely? Sure, but his bad attitude means that he stays here (this time at least)Stag Lord (CR6)
AC 19 (T: 15)
Valeros (Ftr4)
Stop right there.
You keep using the iconics' stats for comparison. As we told you many times, these guys have ridiculously inefficient builds, even considering that they're built using elite array (which is pretty suboptimal in itself compared to point-buy).
Until you show us actual optimized combat builds, all your data is worthless. Unless your fully optimized build outpaces a fully optimized archer Fighter (the current king of sustainable ranged DPR), it's absolutely impossible to even consider firearms being broken. Even then, it's a long shot, as it's extremely hard to break the game with just dealing damage, but at least it'd be the basis for discussion. Showing us two crippled builds whose DPR improves when they switch to firearms isn't going to cut it.
And no, it's not just a matter of extrapolation, because many things change along the optimization route. An optimized 10th level Archer will hit much more often than Valeros will, which skews the calculation heavily in his favor.
Rapid shot just makes the bow-wielder miss more. More shots that miss don't deal any damage still.
No. Unless the bow-wielder is only hitting on a 17 or higher (20% of the time), Rapid Shot increases his hits per round and therefore his expected damage per round. For the scenarios you're considering, it increases these things quite a lot.
|
|
Hey, is it D&D we're talking about? That game where a mid-level Barbarian can fall from 500ft. and brush it off, because 20d6 falling damage is so damn realistic?Arbalest (Heavy Crossbow)
5,000 ft-lbf.50 AE (IMI Desert Eagle)
1,500 ft-lbffoot pounds of force.
So how does a modern gun still fail to produce the same enrgy as a heavy crossbow, let alone muskets and flintlocks? Don't answer, I don't expect to sway you, you have your minds made up. Just some information for you.
Yes it is D&D that I'm talking about (or Pathfinder same-same to me) and that Barbarian still has to save vs. massive damage. And most importantly, if you say 'guns shoot harder than crossbows thats why they get a to hit touch AC' then you should be able to base that in fact.
Just to add Rapid Shot to the first example:
Stag Lord (CR6)
AC 19 (T: 15)
Valeros (Ftr4) [trade the focus of his Focus and Specialization to Longbow]
+1 comp. longbow (+3 STR) +9 (1d8+6) [avg 10.5]
Harsk (Rgr4) [trade the focus of his Rapid Reload to pistol and Precise Shot to Exotic WP]
+1 pistol +8 (1d8+1) (and gets to shoot every round) [avg 5.5]
Against AC 19, Valeros hits 55% of the time for 10.5 damage, or 5.8 DPR.
If he rapid shots, Valeros hits with each shot 45% of the time for 10.5 damage, or 9.45 DPR.
This is a big difference. Both are more than Harsk's DPR, but only the latter is a LOT more.
|
|
You keep using the iconics' stats for comparison. As we told you many times, these guys have ridiculously inefficient builds, even considering that they're built using elite array (which is pretty suboptimal in itself compared to point-buy).
Until you show us actual optimized combat builds, all your data is worthless. Unless your fully optimized build outpaces a fully optimized archer Fighter (the current king of sustainable ranged DPR), it's absolutely impossible to even consider firearms being broken. Even then, it's a long shot, as it's extremely hard to break the game with just dealing damage, but at least it'd be the basis for discussion. Showing us two crippled builds whose DPR improves when they switch to firearms isn't going to cut it.
And no, it's not just a matter of extrapolation, because many things change along the optimization route. An optimized 10th level Archer will hit much more often than Valeros will, which skews the calculation heavily in his favor.
So when I skew the odds in my favor by using large high CR dragons and solars, then I'm refusing to be realistic, but when I use Paizo encounters with Paizo characters and Paizo guns and Paizo everything, then somehow I'm STILL being unrealistic? Whatever.
you're not gonna make me think it's not a mistake
Then what is the discussion if nobody can be swayed in either direction?
|
|
Yes it is D&D that I'm talking about (or Pathfinder same-same to me) and that Barbarian still has to save vs. massive damage. And most importantly, if you say 'guns shoot harder than crossbows thats why they get a to hit touch AC' then you should be able to base that in fact.Hey, is it D&D we're talking about? That game where a mid-level Barbarian can fall from 500ft. and brush it off, because 20d6 falling damage is so damn realistic?Arbalest (Heavy Crossbow)
5,000 ft-lbf.50 AE (IMI Desert Eagle)
1,500 ft-lbffoot pounds of force.
So how does a modern gun still fail to produce the same enrgy as a heavy crossbow, let alone muskets and flintlocks? Don't answer, I don't expect to sway you, you have your minds made up. Just some information for you.
Of course, you didn't notice the tiny little fact that massive damage rules are optional in PF :)
So when I skew the odds in my favor by using large high CR dragons and solars, then I'm refusing to be realistic, but when I use Paizo encounters with Paizo characters and Paizo guns and Paizo everything, then somehow I'm [i}STILL[/i] being unrealistic?
"Unrealistic" isn't the problem, and the word doesn't appear in his post.
A new rule is overpowered if it lets you do substantially more than you can do without it, or lets you do the same things much more cheaply or with a much lower character build investment.A new rule is NOT overpowered if there are other routes to do the same thing that have about the same cost and/or build investment.
Showing us how unoptimized characters can be improved by firearms, when those same characters could be improved the same amount with the application of other existing rules (like better feat choices), shows us that firearms are balanced relative to other options. This is what you've been doing.
Showing us how optimized character can be improved by firearms moreso than with other options, shows us that firearms are unbalanced. Can you do this?
Battle axe 1d8/x3
Exotic axe 1d10/x3Longsword 1d8/19-20/x2
Exotic sword 1d10/19-20/x2Falcata 1d8/19-20/x3
Aldori dueling sword 1d8/19-20/x2 (finess)Exotic ranged weapon 1d8/x4 (touch attacks)???
Thats balanced, sure.
If it's impossible to create an overpowered character using it, it IS balanced.
When you've created such a character, please post it.|
|
Battle axe 1d8/x3
Exotic axe 1d10/x3Longsword 1d8/19-20/x2
Exotic sword 1d10/19-20/x2Falcata 1d8/19-20/x3
Aldori dueling sword 1d8/19-20/x2 (finess)Exotic ranged weapon 1d8/x4 (touch attacks)???
Thats balanced, sure.
If it's impossible to create an overpowered character using it, it IS balanced.
When you've created such a character, please post it.
Rogue + greater invisibility + revolver + sneak attack.
Against an adult green dragon (CR12)
AC 27 (T 8, FF 27)
Rogue A still has to hit 27 since he's using anything other than a gun.
Rogue B gets to enjoy his +19 to attack with his firearm.
Battle axe 1d8/x3
Exotic axe 1d10/x3Longsword 1d8/19-20/x2
Exotic sword 1d10/19-20/x2Falcata 1d8/19-20/x3
Aldori dueling sword 1d8/19-20/x2 (finess)Exotic ranged weapon 1d8/x4 (touch attacks)???
Thats balanced, sure.
If you're not prepared to be wrong, you're not prepared to convince anyone, either. It sounds like you have an emotional attachment to the subject. Please let it go. All anyone is asking for is a serious analysis using the method of calculation determined in the DPR thread and to use optimal builds for it.
I'm reminded of the witch hex deal and how some people thought that 1/person was way too powerful. Then, they remembered that this is a game that mostly deals with small parties, not 15, 100, or more so it turned out in practice to be just fine.
My thinking is: taking a typical scenario at a table with an optimal character doing the most effective things he can is the way to figure out how it balances with the rest of the game.
Rogue + greater invisibility + revolver + sneak attack.
This sounds like the argument that ciretose is making. Excellent. Please post the build.
|
|
My thinking is: taking a typical scenario at a table with an optimal character doing the most effective things he can is the way to figure out how it balances with the rest of the game.
I did, a rogue with the rest of his party (fighter, sorcerer, cleric) come to the lair of an Adult Green Dragon. Sounds pretty typical to me.
Rogue A still has to hit the dragons full AC (even when invisible)
If you change only the Rogue's weapon he gets a +15 bonus to attack, if you change 1 feat, then he gets +19 to attack.
So when I skew the odds in my favor by using large high CR dragons and solars, then I'm refusing to be realistic, but when I use Paizo encounters with Paizo characters and Paizo guns and Paizo everything, then somehow I'm STILL being unrealistic? Whatever.You keep using the iconics' stats for comparison. As we told you many times, these guys have ridiculously inefficient builds, even considering that they're built using elite array (which is pretty suboptimal in itself compared to point-buy).
Until you show us actual optimized combat builds, all your data is worthless. Unless your fully optimized build outpaces a fully optimized archer Fighter (the current king of sustainable ranged DPR), it's absolutely impossible to even consider firearms being broken. Even then, it's a long shot, as it's extremely hard to break the game with just dealing damage, but at least it'd be the basis for discussion. Showing us two crippled builds whose DPR improves when they switch to firearms isn't going to cut it.
And no, it's not just a matter of extrapolation, because many things change along the optimization route. An optimized 10th level Archer will hit much more often than Valeros will, which skews the calculation heavily in his favor.
First, I never complained about you using Solars or Ancient Dragons as examples.
Second, by using "Paizo characters", you are skewing the odds much further in your favor. Optimized characters hit much more often, significantly negating the advantage of firearms.
Why do guns go against Touch AC? Simply because firearms could penetrate breastplates, let alone any other...
Not true. They could penetrate a breastplate, if they were lucky. Whaat ended the armored knight was the pike and the longbow; what ended the breastplate was the jungle heat of the Americas. Amor has been used continuously in history from the Iron Age through the Digital Age. German tank gunners in WWI wore breastplates.
|
|
So when I skew the odds in my favor by using large high CR dragons and solars, then I'm refusing to be realistic, but when I use Paizo encounters with Paizo characters and Paizo guns and Paizo everything, then somehow I'm STILL being unrealistic? Whatever.You keep using the iconics' stats for comparison. As we told you many times, these guys have ridiculously inefficient builds, even considering that they're built using elite array (which is pretty suboptimal in itself compared to point-buy).
Until you show us actual optimized combat builds, all your data is worthless. Unless your fully optimized build outpaces a fully optimized archer Fighter (the current king of sustainable ranged DPR), it's absolutely impossible to even consider firearms being broken. Even then, it's a long shot, as it's extremely hard to break the game with just dealing damage, but at least it'd be the basis for discussion. Showing us two crippled builds whose DPR improves when they switch to firearms isn't going to cut it.
And no, it's not just a matter of extrapolation, because many things change along the optimization route. An optimized 10th level Archer will hit much more often than Valeros will, which skews the calculation heavily in his favor.
First, I never complained about you using Solars or Ancient Dragons as examples.
Second, by using "Paizo characters", you are skewing the odds much further in your favor. Optimized characters hit much more often, significantly negating the advantage of firearms.
You can skew the math in favor of whatever scenario you want to postulate. Melee guys out damage then gun wielder, except against a flying opponent. Guns hit more often except against a will-o-wisp. A 20th level gunslinger can stun-lock 4 ancient dragons (unlikely, sure), if he's using a crossbow or bow his last 2 attacks probably miss. You can keep going round and round with this, we agree to disagree about the unbalanced touch attack rule for guns.
I think it is, you don't.
Pinpoint Targeting, Brilliant Energy (which doesn't even work at all on two entire types of monsters and doesn't bypass natural armor) are all balanced within the game.
An exotic weapon that grants touch attacks to fighters, is not balanced. Sorcerers get it so that they can target a lower number to compensate lower attack bonus, and to put the burden of the die roll on them as opposed to putting it on the target with a saving throw.
Arbalest (Heavy Crossbow)
5,000 ft-lbf.50 AE (IMI Desert Eagle)
1,500 ft-lbffoot pounds of force.
So how does a modern gun still fail to produce the same enrgy as a heavy crossbow, let alone muskets and flintlocks? Don't answer, I don't expect to sway you, you have your minds made up. Just some information for you.
actually, nunchucks, according to FBI testing, deliver more Ft lbs than a 45 bullet.
but you are also more likely to bop yourself in the head with nunchucks as you are the enemy, when untrained.
Hollywood gives guns more power than they have.
Bullets penetrate far and deep, and thus are more likely to hit something vital (like a long knife). foot pound of force is actually measuring kinetic force that is measured over the surface of an area, so it doesn't accurately measure apples to apples penetrative effectiveness.
The 50. AE is actually a cut down bullet made for a pistol and is NOT the same .50 cal bullet everyone thinks of. THAT one is a .50 BMG:
A .50 BMG round can produce between 10,000 and 15,000 foot pounds (between 14 and 18 kilojoules) or more, depending on its powder and bullet type, as well as the rifle it was fired from.
Kinda puts your arablest to shame...don't it?
Your trying to compare a rifle sized crossbow to a cut down pistol round.
Caliber is the circumference of the bullet, not the SIZE of the round.
the amount of powder is what produces foot pounds, if which, the AE cartridge doesn't have that much. It's designed to work in the action of an auto slide pistol, which requires short cartridges and thus, small amounts of powder. Large/long cartridges do not work well in an auto pistol, they have been tried they jam.
That's by big boomers are still used in bolt action rifles and no auto rifles, for the same reason.
Additionally, a signification portion of the energy in an auto is expended to operate the slide and eject the casing. Two types of autos, gas operated and blow back. Both rob kinetic energy (one from the source, expanding gases, and the other from the force it's self)
Muzzleloaders have one place for gases to go, out the barrel and use pretty heavy charges.
Bolt actions put out the most energy and are the closest in weight and size and purpose to your crossbow example.
In order to find accurate information on wiki, you need to know what to look for to begin with.
You can skew the math in favor of whatever scenario you want to postulate. Melee guys out damage then gun wielder, except against a flying opponent. Guns hit more often except against a will-o-wisp. A 20th level gunslinger can stun-lock 4 ancient dragons (unlikely, sure), if he's using a crossbow or bow his last 2 attacks probably miss. You can keep going round and round with this, we agree to disagree about the unbalanced touch...
When different circumstances create different outcomes, isn't this the very definition of balance?
You're so hung up on the touch attack thing, you ignore all the circumstances that balance it out. When a weapon is superior only for certain builds and against certain enemies, it's not really superior at all.
Your whole gripe with firearms is pure theorycraft, in the worst sense of the word. In a diverse campaign environment, wielded by different builds against many different foes, firearms will never achieve the dominance you expect of them.
Unless of course you run enough different tests and calculations in a multitude of conditions, and they prove otherwise. By all means, go ahead and start crunching.
You can skew the math in favor of whatever scenario you want to postulate. Melee guys out damage then gun wielder, except against a flying opponent. Guns hit more often except against a will-o-wisp. A 20th level gunslinger can stun-lock 4 ancient dragons (unlikely, sure), if he's using a crossbow or bow his last 2 attacks probably miss. You can keep going round and round with this, we agree to disagree about the unbalanced touch...So when I skew the odds in my favor by using large high CR dragons and solars, then I'm refusing to be realistic, but when I use Paizo encounters with Paizo characters and Paizo guns and Paizo everything, then somehow I'm STILL being unrealistic? Whatever.You keep using the iconics' stats for comparison. As we told you many times, these guys have ridiculously inefficient builds, even considering that they're built using elite array (which is pretty suboptimal in itself compared to point-buy).
Until you show us actual optimized combat builds, all your data is worthless. Unless your fully optimized build outpaces a fully optimized archer Fighter (the current king of sustainable ranged DPR), it's absolutely impossible to even consider firearms being broken. Even then, it's a long shot, as it's extremely hard to break the game with just dealing damage, but at least it'd be the basis for discussion. Showing us two crippled builds whose DPR improves when they switch to firearms isn't going to cut it.
And no, it's not just a matter of extrapolation, because many things change along the optimization route. An optimized 10th level Archer will hit much more often than Valeros will, which skews the calculation heavily in his favor.
First, I never complained about you using Solars or Ancient Dragons as examples.
Second, by using "Paizo characters", you are skewing the odds much further in your favor. Optimized characters hit much more often, significantly negating the advantage of firearms.
Until you can actually show that it is unballanced, all you have is speculation. I did a breakdown of a 10th level fighter gun user vs bow user using some of the general guidelines from the DPR Olympics. I intentionally broke those rules though to make my point. I did not include deadly aim for the gun user, having missed the point where it is allowed. At some point I will redo it with the feat, which will alter his build but skew things more in his favor.
Even then, the damage output from the gun user is not overly impressive. Its on par with other optimal builds, but it gets significantly less from playing as part of a team than the bow user, and has greatly reduced effective range.
If you want to prove your point, provide at least a realistic partial build that includes the parts necessary to gauge it.
|
|
The 50. AE is actually a cut down bullet made for a pistol and is NOT the same .50 cal bullet everyone thinks of. THAT one is a .50 BMG:
A .50 BMG round can produce between 10,000 and 15,000 foot pounds (between 14 and 18 kilojoules) or more, depending on its powder and bullet type, as well as the rifle it was fired from.
Kinda puts your arablest to shame...don't it?
Well when compared to a squad automatic weapon sure, when compared to an actual rifle.
7.62 × 51 mm (2802 ft-lbf) still about half of a heavy crossbow.
[edit] Sorry - Heavy Machine Gun. S.A.W. still only go up to M60's and other portable LMG.
|
|
Are you kidding us ? You lost your time doing numbers with under-optimized pregens, and just ignore what has been posted before ?
Since you seem to like ignoring what don't make you right, I'll just post the following again :
Fighter A, level 2, 20 Point-buy, Bowman :
16
18
12
8
12
8HPs :
1d10 + 10(DV) + 2(Predilection) + 4(Con) = 1d10 + 16 = 20.AC :
10 + 4(Dex) + 4(Armor)
18/14/14Attack :
BAB : +2
Melee -> +5
Ranged -> +6
CMB -> +5
CMD -> 19Damage :
Composite Longbow (Mwk + Heirloom + Focus) -> +9 (1d8+3, 20x3) +1 under 30 feet, -1/+2 DA
Rapid Shot -> +7/+7 (1d8+3, 20x3), +1 under 30 feet, -1/+2 DAFeats :
H. Point-blank shot
1. Rapid Shot
1B. Deadly Aim
2. Weapon FocusFighter B, level 2, 20 Point-buy, Gunner :
16
18
12
8
12
8HPs :
1d10 + 10(DV) + 2(Predilection) + 4(Con) = 1d10 + 16 = 20.AC :
10 + 4(Dex) + 4(Armor)
18/14/14Attack :
BAB : +2
Melee -> +5
Ranged -> +6
CMB -> +5
CMD -> 19Damage :
Pistol (Mwk + Heirloom) -> +9 (1d8, 20x4) +1 under 30 feet, -1/+2 DA
Rapid Shot -> +7/+7 (1d8, 20x4), +1 under 30 feet, -1/+2 DAFeats :
H. Point-blank shot
1. Rapid Shot
1B. Deadly Aim
2. Weapon FocusAll following use DA + PBS + RS.
DPR calculated with Tejòn's DPR calculator, I'm not perfectly used to it but I don't think I made a mistake while using the .xls.Against Air Elemental, small, CR 1 => AC 17 (Touch 14) :
DPR fighter A : 10,29 (Hit chance 0,55)
DPR fighter B : 8,86 (Hit chance 0,7)(Needs to reload)Against Devil, Accuser (Zebub), CR 2 => AC 17 (Touch 15) :
DPR fighter A : 10,29 (Hit chance 0,55)
DPR fighter B : 8,22 (Hit chance 0,65)(Needs to reload)Against Wolf, Dire, CR 3 => AC 14 (Touch 11) :
DPR fighter A : 13,09 (Hit chance 0,7)
DPR fighter B : 10,75 (Hit chance 0,85)(Needs to reload)Against Rhinoceros, CR 4 => AC 16 (Touch 9) :
DPR fighter A : 11,22 (Hit chance 0,6)
DPR fighter B : 12,02 (Hit chance 0,95)(Needs to reload)Hope you love to reload. And hope I'll not have to explain in details (hint : guns hit easier, do less damage).
OPTIMIZED characters, not pregens. And yes, maybe I should have made the Gunner with 20 Dex. You still get less damage in each exemple. And if I get Rapid Shot off the bowman, he does less DPR.
Could you please post the build of an overpowered character made with a gun, and compare him to an OPTIMIZED bow fighter or whatever else you would use as a base to say it's overpowered ? But, you know, with feats, and not "rapid shot sucks because it hits less!" theorycraft. If your idea of power is only "oh GOD it hits !" even if you do 6 damage when the bowman hits less but deals way more, so then yes, guns are probably overpowered for you.
By the way, the first rules threads I was able to find on a quick search all seem to confirm my intuition that Rapid Shot doesn't give you free weapon reloads. So unless you have some other way to get your firearm reloads to a free action, I don't think the Rapid Shot calculations are valid for the gun-wielder.
|
|
By the way, the first rules threads I was able to find on a quick search all seem to confirm my intuition that Rapid Shot doesn't give you free weapon reloads. So unless you have some other way to get your firearm reloads to a free action, I don't think the Rapid Shot calculations are valid for the gun-wielder.
Rapid shot doesn't give you free reloads. Or free 'effective-actions' as someone posted. Under current rules you can't use it with firearms...oh wait sure you can with an advanced firearm.
|
|
By the way, the first rules threads I was able to find on a quick search all seem to confirm my intuition that Rapid Shot doesn't give you free weapon reloads. So unless you have some other way to get your firearm reloads to a free action, I don't think the Rapid Shot calculations are valid for the gun-wielder.
If it's true, then it's even worse. With :
- base attack 2- Weapon Focus
- Heirloom Mwk Weapon,
- dice average 4,5
- crit. 20x4
- +5 Dex to attack,
Then if Tejòn's calculator is right, against Touch AC 14 you go from 12,08 to 6,90 DPR.