I've been reading over the forums, lurking my way through the concerns that people seem to have with this class. I agree with a lot of the problems people have with this class, and figured I'd throw in my two cents.
First, the touch AC issue. It's a problem, albeit one that isn't going to be addressed. Yes, it's odd that a high enough level gunslinger doesn't need the guiding ability score for ranged attackers in order to hit his target. Yes, it's strange that soft lead balls ignore +Epic Armor. And yeah, it's tough to reconcile the idea that a bullet that can pierce armor can fails to break through glass with minimum damage rolled.
Further, I can see no better poison delivery system than a scattergun. Of course, even without Touch AC issues that's true.
Though, and I say this with a sigh, this doesn't look like it will change. It may render a full base attack bonus superfluous, and might be seem unfair to other touch attackers who have to deal with Spell Resistance, but it is what it is. One can always houserule.
Reloading and misfires are also hot topics. While the new playtest offers a number of feats, class features, and gun enchantments that serve to remedy these problems, I find myself wondering at the contribution that these inclusions make to the game. Reloading has never bothered me the way that it has some people, and guns with multiple shots (or pickled shots) offer what I consider to be the best solution. Misfires, on the other hand, offer little in terms of a pleasurable gaming experience. I can see how, as a machine, if a firearm is broken in some way one will experience misfires. Improper cleaning and maintenance will do that, but for a fully functioning gun to suffer the same causes me some confusion.
These issues, as well as similar issues based around gun rules, make up a hefty number of gunslinger options. What we have as a result is a class whose main contribution is fixes for what feel like unnecessary penalties. The class is taxed with feat choices and grit retention in order to simply make their weapons viable.
It may sound like another 'guns are awful' commentary, but without optimism for guns to be reworked for Ultimate Combat, my point is that 'fixing' guns for the gunslinger is a good - excellent idea. It's just not enough to make the class an exciting option.
Gunslinger damage has been discussed as sub par. Players face a similar concern with unarmed damage. The solution was to allow the monk, a class focused on unarmed strikes, to get a damage boost as they gained class levels. Make it a static +1/2 class level, make it a damage die increase, or even something as unusual as "+1d4 1d6s per 6 levels", but offering the gunslinger something to move towards wouldn't hurt the class.
Deeds should be chosen, not automatic. Paizo's people did a fantastic job with customizable classes in the APG, both in terms of current product and future expansion through upcoming products. Gone were the woes of seeing book after WoTC book that offered a hundred new spells for casters and nothing but feats for the mundane folks. I referenced that kind of brilliant design strategy when prodding my friends to give Pathfinder a try. If the gunslinger deeds were chosen, we'd see that idea persist. It was a good idea, and it should persist.
I'm glad Perception made it onto class skills. There's a part of me that wishes Perform was in there, simply because I was raised to understand that every cowboy sings a sad, sad song. In fact, that sentiment is an integral component to what I know as the meaning of life. I will, however, persevere.
Finally, the "Firearms in Your Campaign" sidebar. It's clear what the intention was, and I understand that until players and GMs stop looking towards developers to answer their questions and guide their hands these things are necessary. I don't, however, think this was beneficial to the playtest. There are arguments going on that reduce concerns to 'that's only for that era of play'. The rules have changes, and the baseline is unclear, and so for thematic design interests we don't have everyone on the same page. That's no more beneficial to the playtest than saying 'if you don't like it, don't use guns'.
It also seems like a cop-out - with all due respect. I enjoy my GM discretion as much as anyone, and probably more than most, but I still appreciate a solid ruling. Variants are all well and good, and an appreciated addition to the GM toolbox, but with the source document providing such a vague "we set it up for this type of game, but whatever", my confidence level wanes. I yearn for the clarity of knowing that 'this is how it is' and it will always be my decision whether I should accept that.
Long posts are cathartic.
Further, I can see no better poison delivery system than a scattergun. Of course, even without Touch AC issues that's true.
Well, you don't have to worry about poison.
Firearm ammunition cannot be treated with poison.
Well, you don't have to worry about poison.
Firearm ammunition cannot be treated with poison.
Granted. Spell storing, then. Bestow Curse stored in a scattergun.
Yes, it's strange that soft lead balls ignore +Epic Armor. And yeah, it's tough to reconcile the idea that a bullet that can pierce armor can fails to break through glass with minimum damage rolled.
You're in luck, because bullets don't penetrate armor, kinetic force penetrates armor.
You're in luck, because bullets don't penetrate armor, kinetic force penetrates armor.
That seems to be the go-to argument, yes. It is also an argument that ignores the difference between a blunt shock and a bullet penetration, both of which do the same physical damage in the system. That is without going into lengthy rants about the kinetic force a bullet would possess considering the low range on all these weapons. Kinetic energy requires velocity, and velocity offers more stopping power. If they really possess so much kinetic force, they should really be providing more damage.
Again, can't break glass on minimum damage - kinetic force or no.
The rules aren't perfect obviously. But guns attacking the touch AC aren't broken. But that's less a problem of the guns, than the general idea of AC and HP. At twenty feet, the pistol ball is going to have considerable force. And the ball itself is quite small, so all that force hits in one small area. If you've ever been shot with a paintball at close range, it's the same thing. Even with thick clothes on, that hurts. And even an old style flintlock pistol has considerable force.
The touch AC at one range increment seems a pretty good abstraction of this. The bullet hits, your adamantine breastplate stops the bullet itself, but the impact causes a bruise or cracks a rib. That's an HP loss. I'm more concerned with the arrow spam that archers become.
The intention was not to start another 'guns hitting touch AC' is broken. It's just difficult to ignore the fact that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in the system as it stands. In general, RPG systems including guns rely on DR, 'vitality points', or 'soak' to deal with issues of realism while leaving the stopping power of guns intact. There are usually also option for armor that stops bullets, and subsequently armor-piercing bullets. In a fantasy setting including a blanket ruling for this specific weapon stating that armor does nothing to stop or reduce bullet damage only leads to what we've seen on the forums - a lot of argument and complaint.
The system wasn't designed for this. Touch AC wasn't made for guns. Armor, natural armor, and the system that accommodates them wasn't built to factor against weapons that could ignore it. Sure, brilliant energy, but that's an enchantment with a cost - one that was once paid in experience amongst other things. This is very new, and a lot of old traditions are creaking against the weight.
Given a full base attack bonus, it wasn't a necessary inclusion. And given the low damage and short range, it is unjustifiable from a perspective of 'realism'. But it's done. The developers have been quite firm in their defense of this mechanic, and beating the dead horse until there's not enough left for a gunslinger to hit on a natural 2 isn't going to change that.
I'm not seeing anything new here...
How is the system "not designed for this?"
Are touch attacks new?
Have you not had touch attacks before?
Have you never had a ray specialist in your party?
"But but they work in an anti-magic zone!"
So what? Honestly? This is the fall back? "I can't use the easiest gimmick in the book anymore to take away touch attacks!"
Never mind the fact that you could take touch attacks with something as mundane as a feat.
"But it's lower level"
No it isn't -- rays have been around just as long -- and with longer touch attack range.
Honestly something new please cause this drivel that's been going around is getting old.
**********************************
As to deeds:
Why shouldn't we have a martial class with a lot of different options and abilities always available?
Consider the 'mundane' counter to the spellcaster just without the wuxia and wire fu added in.
Honestly how is this a bad thing that the gunslinger can do all this stuff? Really "because anyone can do it that is a gunslinger?"
Heck any fighter can do lots of damage, and any wizard can cast any spell -- yet they aren't all the same now are they?
How is "they'll all look the same" even the start of an argument in comparison?
*****************************
For the gunslingers -- yes their damage is a bit subpar -- could it be though that the gunslinger should look just as much at the debuffing and lockdown maneuvers he can do instead of just pure damage?
He receives for free several means of stopping his foes and maintaining battlefield control -- without magic!
Isn't that what people have been yelling and screaming for before now?
Why is it when they finally get that they have to complain that they, "Can't do as much damage?"
I thought we wanted other options to be viable? And now that they are the complaint is damage?
******
On the sidebar -- I got nothing -- I feel it's a well added piece and very much needed to remind players that the book has neat stuff -- but the GM is in charge.
It doesn't hurt -- it does help, and for newer GMs or those lacking some backbone it throws them a bit more support from the developers.
After all aren't we always hearing about how the developers are "taking away the GM's power and authority" but having the rules easily accessible by the players/ posting how things are supposed to work according to the developers?
Now they offer support to the GM's position and this is an issue?
************************
I'm just starting to find these complaints more than a little ironic, and incredulous.
It doesn't make sense at all to attack touch AC with firearms!
A commoner with 14 Dex is harder to hit/damage with a bullet than a higher level fighter with 13 Dex wearing magical plate-mail and wielding a magical shield...
I feel sorry for the OP, 'cause now he's gonna get buried by the much more vocal fan-boy crowd who thinks everything Paizo touches is golden... and everyone who thinks otherwise has a flawed argument and must "prove themselves", like this is some sort of American daytime TV courtroom.
|
It doesn't make sense at all to attack touch AC with firearms!
A commoner with 14 Dex is harder to hit/damage with a bullet than a higher level fighter with 13 Dex wearing magical plate-mail and wielding a magical shield...
I feel sorry for the OP, 'cause now he's gonna get buried by the much more vocal fan-boy crowd who thinks everything Paizo touches is golden... and everyone who thinks otherwise has a flawed argument and must "prove themselves", like this is some sort of American daytime TV courtroom.
I'd like to kindly remind you that we are playing a game where a level 10 Barbarian can fall 500 ft. and walk away from that.
Or where shooting LIGHTNING BOLTS underwater somewhat doesn't cause the entire lake/river to be go BZZZT.
I feel sorry for the OP, 'cause now he's gonna get buried by the much more vocal fan-boy crowd who thinks everything Paizo touches is golden... and everyone who thinks otherwise has a flawed argument and must "prove themselves", like this is some sort of American daytime TV courtroom.
Not at all -- Second darkness was one of the single worse adventure paths I've ever seen -- and I'll snub the words of power they presented in the testing any day of the week... it's just in this case the arguments against guns (which aren't even a part of the playtest) are... well lacking beyond 'realism' which falls apart as quickly as a wizard eating a full attack from a dragon in an anti-magic field.
The problem is the flawed arguments and not inherently the position taken.
Don't like firearms? Ok, I get that. How is telling everyone such helping or stopping the rules? Answer: It's not -- simply don't use them as they are in a supplemental book instead of core (which is for a reason).
Don't like the way paizo is presenting firearms? Ok, that's good too. Don't however pretend they are 'broken' when the math proves otherwise, and don't pretend that's for 'realism' -- just say you don't like it and either find a different set of rules for firearms, or houserule it yourself. I know that my table is going to not use the touch attack (in the first range increment) rules, instead we'll stick to the exploding dice. Which is fine for us -- doesn't mean I think the touch attack rules are broken (they aren't) or that it doesn't work (it does) it simply isn't for us.
However thread after thread going "it's broken" or "I don't like it" doesn't help when it's something not covered in the playtest.
**********************
This is not to bash the conversation -- I believe a lot of good has come from the conversation over all -- I also think that a lot of the "firearms with touch attacks are broke/bad/unfun" drivel is just that -- drivel.
To Dirlaise, I think that you make valid points here, but as a cynic and a realist, I also agree with what you are saying. The easiest solution would be to rework guns, but at the same time, it is also impractical. I don't blame Paizo for this. As far as I can see, never before has a playtest for a class been more focused on the perceived (real or not) weakness of a weapon.
There is definitely a valid point about the monk and gunslinger facing similar problems, and I think that is a relatively unique idea that could stand to solve problems.
As to everyone else in this thread,
"I feel sorry for the OP, 'cause now he's gonna get buried by the much more vocal fan-boy crowd who thinks everything Paizo touches is golden... and everyone who thinks otherwise has a flawed argument and must "prove themselves", like this is some sort of American daytime TV courtroom."
That is the problem with debate. The status quo is considered correct or functional. I have experience with debate, and as such, do understand these topics. When you propose a change, the change must show that it is better than what is already here. You do, by saying guns are OP or underpowered, have to show that you are correct. You do have to defend yourself. The affirmative has the burden of proof, not the negative.
To Dirlaise, I think that you make valid points here, but as a cynic and a realist, I also agree with what you are saying. The easiest solution would be to rework guns, but at the same time, it is also impractical. I don't blame Paizo for this. As far as I can see, never before has a playtest for a class been more focused on the perceived (real or not) weakness of a weapon.
There is definitely a valid point about the monk and gunslinger facing similar problems, and I think that is a relatively unique idea that could stand to solve problems.
As to everyone else in this thread,
"I feel sorry for the OP, 'cause now he's gonna get buried by the much more vocal fan-boy crowd who thinks everything Paizo touches is golden... and everyone who thinks otherwise has a flawed argument and must "prove themselves", like this is some sort of American daytime TV courtroom."
That is the problem with debate. The status quo is considered correct or functional. I have won Top South Debater in Novice, along with Top Arkansas Debater in Novice multiple times. When you propose a change, the change must show that it is better than what is already here. You do, by saying guns are OP or underpowered, have to show that you are correct. You do have to defend yourself. The affirmative has the burden of proof, not the negative.
Not everyone is into debating.
Not everyone is a great debater.Being good at debating does not make you smarter.
Being better at debating does not make you or your opinion better.
Forcing people to fight to prove their ideas when you are smart enough to figure it out yourself is unfair.
This is not a courtroom.
Don't be arrogant.
Not everyone is into debating.
Not everyone is a great debater.
Being good at debating does not make you smarter.
Being better at debating does not make you or your opinion better.
Forcing people to fight to prove their ideas when you are smart enough to figure it out yourself is unfair.This is not a courtroom.
Don't be arrogant.
I am sorry for coming off as arrogant. I removed the offending sentence, and replace with a much more neutral statement.
That more flowed from a general frustration with the way that the arguments are proceeding on this forum. Some are claiming a stance, but then not defending their point with evidence, only repeating their point. This occurs on both sides of any debate here.
And I am not 'forcing' anyone to fight for their stance, it just astounds me that people expect others to agree with their stance on their word alone! I posted a thread in the Results section of this playtest, and was shown that I was incorrectly calculating the Gunslinger. This has shown that maybe not all of my criticism has a stance, but if I had not supported my claims, my mind, and possibly others, would not have been changed.
And I would hesitate to say that anyone here cannot support their ideas and prove their points themselves.
The status quo is considered correct or functional. I have experience with debate, and as such, do understand these topics. When you propose a change, the change must show that it is better than what is already here. You do, by saying guns are OP or underpowered, have to show that you are correct. You do have to defend yourself. The affirmative has the burden of proof, not the negative.
Actually this isn't the case -- the status quo isn't assumed to be correct or functional expressly because there currently isn't a status quo to be had. This is a playtest which means almost everything about the class is up in the air.
Now many people have stated that the current rule set for the gunslinger does not work -- and have been right and demonstrably so.
However to date every time someone states that guns are 'broken' either in the hands of the gunslinger or anyone else (such as a fighter or rogue) they have been proven wrong -- please note I stated proven. They present a build that shows how 'powerful' the current rules are and either they have failed to follow the rules, or the result they present is no more powerful (and in some cases much less powerful) than what is already possible.
As such until they can present an actual counter argument that is capable of being proven the ball remains in their court.
Actually this isn't the case -- the status quo isn't assumed to be correct or functional expressly because there currently isn't a status quo to be had. This is a playtest which means almost everything about the class is up in the air.Now many people have stated that the current rule set for the gunslinger does not work -- and have been right and demonstrably so.
However to date every time someone states that guns are 'broken' either in the hands of the gunslinger or anyone else (such as a fighter or rogue) they have been proven wrong -- please note I stated proven. They present a build that shows how 'powerful' the current rules are and either they have failed to follow the rules, or the result they present is no more powerful (and in some cases much less powerful) than what is already possible.
As such until they can present an actual counter argument that is capable of being proven the ball remains in their court.
I agree, I don't think guns are overpowered here. What I was saying about the status quo was that the people who are saying they are overpowered or underpowered have to show that the guns themselves are the cause and should be worked out.
So there is a status quo, the guns. The guns are in published material right now, and so they are considered to be correct until proven not.
Again, I agree that gunslingers are broken and underpowered, but the problem is that people are making claims without showing how or why and that is the wrong part. Not the claims, but the lack of evidence.
I agree, I don't think guns are overpowered here. What I was saying about the status quo was that the people who are saying they are overpowered or underpowered have to show that the guns themselves are the cause and should be worked out.So there is a status quo, the guns. The guns are in published material right now, and so they are considered to be correct until proven not.
Again, I agree that gunslingers are broken and underpowered, but the problem is that people are making claims without showing how or why and that is the wrong part. Not the claims, but the lack of evidence.
Ok your wording suggested to me that you thought the people saying the status quo was fine were the ones not providing evidence. It almost sounded like you were saying that they were relying on the fallacy of tradition -- when they had provided evidence that what they were saying was indeed correct (which is quantifiable in this case).
So if something (in this case guns are not overpowered) can quantifiable be proven to not be overpowered then someone that wants to say otherwise needs to provide proof that their case is correct.
Not because the status quo is universally accepted, but because the status quo has evidence backing it up which the opposing argument has failed to provide to date.
Now this of course doesn't hold in every case, but in the case of guns being overpowered it does.