|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From my reading of the Scatter rules, and the Misfire rules, it makes it seem to me that using a blunderbuss is nearly suicidal, even to a point where it doesn't even make sense internally.
As I understand it, I make a separate attack roll against each target in the cone; we'll say for the purposes of this example that I am level 1, there are four targets in the cone, and that these targets are goblins and adorable.
I shoot and then roll four times, once against each adorable goblin that I want to blow the oversized head off of. Would that not mean four misfire chances?
Furthermore, what if I roll more than one misfire on the same shot? Does it get broken, and then immediately explode?
Where it really doesn't make any sense is how if I fire a single shot at two guys, it's somehow less likely to misfire than if I fire that same shot at four guys.
Logically, you're still shooting just once, so the gun shouldn't misfire more than once.
I believe I've asked this before myself. Sure would like an answer.
A firearm making a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire.
A firearm making a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire.
Is that a new general rule you're going to add into the book (I very much hope)?
It's come up a few times now on the boards for various multiple attack roll/single shot abilities.
A firearm making a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire.Is that a new general rule you're going to add into the book (I very much hope)?
It's come up a few times now on the boards for various multiple attack roll/single shot abilities.
Of course it will be in the new book. I'm not going to make people wade through the messageboards to find the rule. :)
A firearm making a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire.
So does this mean the more people you get in the cone - i.e. the more attacks you make - the less chance you have of misfiring? Why does the number of targets affect the misfire chance?
A firearm making a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire.So does this mean the more people you get in the cone - i.e. the more attacks you make - the less chance you have of misfiring? Why does the number of targets affect the misfire chance?
It does...it does give you incentive to use it when you can get multiple people in the cone, but that incentive was already there anyway (the more people I hit the more damage it does) so that seemed better than giving incentive to the opposite.
Thank you for the swift reply.
It's a pretty counter intuitive situation, but I suppose the opposite - one misfire roll and you're boned - is punishing those who use the scatter guns for what they're for. Personally, I'd wish for a rule which didn't make the misfire chance depend on the number of targets (maybe the misfire only applies on the first attack roll?), but this option is the better one of the two presented.
A firearm making a scatter shot misfires only if all of the attack rolls made misfire.
That's...really odd...
Why not just make scatter weapons roll once to hit everyone in the cone? I mean, there is a reason why nobody uses bows and swords these days...
The only mathematical equivalent (and sensible) solution is to make the misfire roll on the first attack roll.
The only mathematical equivalent (and sensible) solution is to make the misfire roll on the first attack roll.
And I would agree with you normally, but as far as game balance went, playtests were showing me that scatter weapons were not being used at all. To be honest, the scatter gun needed some help.
I wasn't really interested in increasing its damage or its critical threat multiplier. This, along with how it deals with concealment were easy ways that I can make the gun more usable, without making it overpowered, or losing its feel.
I'll give you all a little look into the art of game design. Most of the time, we are looking to replicate and experience rather than simulate a physics.
Look at the success or failure of various MMORP and Computer games to see the success and failure of games simulating a physics. In many ways that's where that aspect of game design went, and requires computer's to adjudicate with the jerky and flat sense of physics that inhabits those games.
I'm dealing with a different kind of CPU, where replication of rules' forms along with incentives work better than a dynamic progression of zeroes and ones.
When someone shoots a firearm with the scatter quality, I don't need it to act exactly how ancient guns and current firearms act today. I don't have access to that kind of research, the rules would probably take up an entire chapter of Ultimate Magic (if not the whole book), and making that work with the Pathfinder core rules would be a nightmare, because the rest of the game rarely tries to deal with physics on that level. I need to make them feel like they are interesting weapons that do shotgun kind of things. Just like bows in Pathfinder don’t simulate the physics of the English longbow, it replicates a fantasy about that bow.
Scatter guns, like shotguns, are real utility guns. If you think about it, they are nothing more than big-barreled guns that can shoot just about anything--or at least that's how they started out. They go boom, things scream in pain.
In the final rules, you are going to see something more flexible, something that can shoot a line or a cone or a bullet. It's better at doing the last two. It doesn't have the crit range other guns do (even when firing a single shot), but it is really good for when you have to kill every *blankety blank* in the room. Or, at least, wound them.
This one of the reasons that, I'll often discard the mathematically equivalent, because the equivalency, while seeming sensible at first glance, is actually false.
.
..
...
....
.....
interesting stuff
Seemingly this is akin to a computer game where set animations are executed when triggered versus games where a physics engine calculates and displays animations in 'real time'.
I.E Animation driven versus physics driven
Example: The Interaction of Objects within Resident Evil 3 versus Half Life 2
In Resident Evil 3 there is no physics engine per se - objects within the environment are constrained by the animations keyed to them. When you move an object a set animation is triggered and displayed. No matter how many times you move the object, the same animation is triggered and displayed.
Likewise, jumping through a window is handled in the same manner -- animation is triggered, displayed - same results every time.
In Half Life 2, when you interact with an object - lets say you knock over a barrel - the physics engine does the calculations 'on the fly' and an animation is created and displayed 'in real time'. The barrel may roll one way or another, depending on the elements and forces involved in the physics engine's calculations at the time.
Falling bodies are handled in a similar manner - sometimes with comic results.
::
Round-about-on-topic: So, when firing a blunderbuss, we don't need to work out the exact what's and what not's - slowing play down by dragging the laws of physics to determine an 'accurate' representation of effect - but rather represent the effect of firing a blunderbuss in a consistent, rewarding manner that facilitates play.
Of course, 'rewarding manner' is dependent on the player's perception of 'realism' or, rather, depends on satisfying their desire for the enforcement of their game's verisimilitude.
..and of course, different folk are going to agree/disagree on exactly where to draw the line between real-world simulation and rewarding game choice/representation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and of course, different folk are going to agree/disagree on exactly where to draw the line between real-world simulation and rewarding game choice/representation.
Agreed, but taking a look at what people like about the Pathfinder rules, I think we can make some good general assumptions about the boundaries are for this. There will be some quibbling about the exact details, but we gamers love to quibble. It's our favorite pastime, next to playing games.
.
..
...
....
.....
*sanity*
Aye aye, for sure - and we know the Powers That Be will be doing the best they can with the tools they have.
Incidently, tho I'm sure it's been stated already: