|
I dislike how pazio always takes the ask your DM approach. That's like them saying "You should go play 3.5, it has way way more character options (feats, classes, prestige classes, settings, etc) a there's nothing broken about it"
Name one thing you think is broken about 3.5 or what makes pathfinder better and I can Rule Zero you into being wrong every time. Anything paizo changed from 3.5 could have been rule zero'd right from the begining.
It should absolutely not be the DM's job to balance the game, the DM is the story teller and NOT well.... A GAME DESIGNER.
I feel better :)
Power attack was broken in 3.5.
Don't believe me?
It took two feats to do the same thing with Combat Expertise. With one feat CE is limited to -5/+5.
|
|
Giving GMs options is not insisting they be game designers. There is also an openness about RPGs that allows a GM to make the game whatever he or she wants. Because of that, we sometimes have to give them the freedom the freedom that game designers enjoy.I dislike how pazio always takes the ask your DM approach. That's like them saying "You should go play 3.5, it has way way more character options (feats, classes, prestige classes, settings, etc) a there's nothing broken about it"
Name one thing you think is broken about 3.5 or what makes pathfinder better and I can Rule Zero you into being wrong every time. Anything paizo changed from 3.5 could have been rule zero'd right from the begining.
It should absolutely not be the DM's job to balance the game, the DM is the story teller and NOT well.... A GAME DESIGNER.
I feel better :)
Ok, maybe my question needs to be a little more specific.
Are advanced firearms legal for play in PFS?
|
|
Giving GMs options is not insisting they be game designers. There is also an openness about RPGs that allows a GM to make the game whatever he or she wants. Because of that, we sometimes have to give them the freedom the freedom that game designers enjoy.I dislike how pazio always takes the ask your DM approach. That's like them saying "You should go play 3.5, it has way way more character options (feats, classes, prestige classes, settings, etc) a there's nothing broken about it"
Name one thing you think is broken about 3.5 or what makes pathfinder better and I can Rule Zero you into being wrong every time. Anything paizo changed from 3.5 could have been rule zero'd right from the begining.
It should absolutely not be the DM's job to balance the game, the DM is the story teller and NOT well.... A GAME DESIGNER.
I feel better :)
With all due respect, DM's have as much freedom as we want to house rule and game design as we see fit in any game we run.
What we pay for from the game developers is the framework to build it off of, so that our players know we aren't just ruling by fiat.
Paizo has up to this point done a far better job than WOTC (and probably any other publisher) at trying to make sure balance issues are addressed and that old things don't become thrown out for the new. The update of the base classes was in large part done because of the power creep of the newer 3.5 classes making the classics sub-optimal choices.
I mean, why would anyone ever play a straight wizard in 3.5 when you consider all the prestige classes that were simply better.
I think it is safe to say we all like options. We all want more branches to explore. At the same time there is a concern that some of the new material is being introduced to broadly, with mechanics that will change the dynamics of the game.
Saying "don't use this if it doesn't work in your game" is fine in one off cases. But this is the primary weapon of a new class. It isn't like saying "This adventure is optional"
When something gets introduced that is better, and that something is available to all, of course players are going to want it. In the same way they wanted the broken prestige classes, in the same way they wanted the broken cheese spells, in the same way they look for every angle and ruling they can get to be more effective in the party.
I personally don't want crossbows to become obsolete. They were the dual wield ranged weapon of choice, and now that niche has a weapon that hits on touch attacks. Sure it has some mechanical advantages because of misfire and range, but nothing that comes close to the usefulness of touch attacks.
This isn't about creating openness. We don't need you to allow us to house rule. We can do that as we like.
We need you to be the limit setter. We need you to be the one who establishes the baseline and holds that baseline in place.
We need to be able to tell our players "Anything out of the book is fine" and then we can decide to add on from there.
To be clear, you guys have done a great job on the whole. My complaints are generally at the margins and I'm one of the loudest voices on the message boards against the "Broken" crowd in most discussions.
But on this one, it seems like power creep. And there is no need for it, as the cool new stuff that people want can be achieved in the framework of the new class.
If kept primarily in the framework of the new class.
If people want variation Gunslinger/Fighters/Rogues/etc...that was why multi-classing was invented.
|
Are advanced firearms legal for play in PFS?
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfin derRPG/ultimateCombatPlaytest/gunslingerRound2/revolverQuestion&page=1# 2
# The Daring Act optional rule is not used in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
# The Amateur Gunslinger feat is NOT legal for play.
# Only gunslingers may take the Gunsmithing feat, with the following changes: crafting firearms is not allowed, and instead of crafting ammunition, they are considered to purchase mundane bullets and paper cartridges at 10% of its normal price. In order to gain the benefit of this feat, a gunslinger must purchase a gunsmith’s kit. Ammunition gained in such a way can only be resold for half its discounted price.
# Only gunslingers may purchase guns in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and only early firearms are permitted in the campaingn, as advanced firearms do not exist in Golarion.
Source :
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderS ociety/general/gunslingerPlaytestV20&page=1#1
It is the attitude that if it is in a book then the GM allow it that drove me away from most 3.x games.
The books are not chiseled in stone.
They are ink on paper.
Agreed.
|
|
# Only gunslingers may purchase guns in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and only early firearms are permitted in the campaingn, as advanced firearms do not exist in Golarion.
Well if thats true then a lot of argument could have been avoided, since judging by your quote it would seem that advanced firearms in fact do not exist in the official Golarion.
Which is what my question was asking in the first place, I know that if I want I can set the availability at Guns Are Everywhere.
I was trying to get a baseline availability assumption.
By the way they don't allow advanced firearms because they're completely game breaking.
And they know it.
But you're not gonna hear it from them because they have to stick to the company line.
L8R. Have fun gaming everyone!
*overdark has left the messageboards*
Then the DM becomes the build police, in addition to all other responsibilities that come with running a game.
It is the attitude that if it is in a book then the GM allow it that drove me away from most 3.x games.
The books are not chiseled in stone.
They are ink on paper.Agreed.
As if they weren't in 3.x?
Creative Director
|
Your reply on my last thread (which I'm goning to leave dead) didn't answer the question on the availability of Advanaced Firearms on Golarion.
From your last post, it would seem to me that they are indeed available, and in more places than just Alkenstar (Numeria was mentioned in the post).
I know they won't appear in any official published material, thats not the question. Do they exist, and are they available for purchase at the prices indicated in the playtest document.
Also how is a revolver cheaper than a pistol?
Thank you in advance. And continued success.
Advanced Firearms are not available in Golarion.
Unless your GM decides otherwise, of course.
But the baseline that I'm using when developing Golarion via the various product lines (Adventure Path, modules, Campaign Setting, novels, Pathfinder Society, Player's Companion, etc.) is that advanced firearms aren't available in Golarion.
How firearms and gunslingers will eventually end up represented in the Pathfinder Society won't be nailed down until the book is out at Gen Con. For now, we're allowing them in so we can get more playtest data, and the PFS is a GREAT place to get trustworthy playtest data, and lots of it. But it's important to keep in mind that ALL of this stuff is still in "playtest" mode. And that means things will change by the book's actual publication.
|
|
As if they weren't in 3.x?Then the DM becomes the build police, in addition to all other responsibilities that come with running a game.
It is the attitude that if it is in a book then the GM allow it that drove me away from most 3.x games.
The books are not chiseled in stone.
They are ink on paper.Agreed.
As if that was a good thing?
Are we aspiring to go back to the things Paizo was trying to fix by making Pathfinder?
Then the DM becomes the build police, in addition to all other responsibilities that come with running a game.
It is the attitude that if it is in a book then the GM allow it that drove me away from most 3.x games.
The books are not chiseled in stone.
They are ink on paper.Agreed.
so you do not make decisions as what does and does not get used in your games? (BTW allowing everything is a decision.)
Any time you sit down behind the GM screen you make a conscious decision to provide a fun time for all the players at the game table. That means yes you are the "build police" if by that term you mean ensuring that each and every single player at the table has fun. (That includes you the GM as well the PCs).|
|
That also goes for the Society Organized play. BTW, I haven't yet seen the Inner Sea guide, does that have the firearms rules in it and if so, how advanced do they get.
Check the online replacement for Chapter 13:
The following changes to the playtest document apply to all Pathfinder Society Organized Play characters:
A gunslinger’s starting weapon may be resold for 22 gp (the average of 4d10).
The Daring Act optional rule is not used in Pathfinder Society Organized Play.
The Amateur Gunslinger feat is NOT legal for play.
Only gunslingers may take the Gunsmithing feat, with the following changes: crafting firearms is not allowed, and instead of crafting ammunition, they are considered to purchase mundane bullets and paper cartridges at 10% of its normal price. In order to gain the benefit of this feat, a gunslinger must purchase a gunsmith’s kit. Ammunition gained in such a way can only be resold for half its discounted price.
Only gunslingers may purchase guns in Pathfinder Society Organized Play, and only muskets, pepperboxes, and pistols are permitted in the campaign, as advanced firearms do not exist in Golarion.
|
|
As if they weren't in 3.x?Then the DM becomes the build police, in addition to all other responsibilities that come with running a game.
It is the attitude that if it is in a book then the GM allow it that drove me away from most 3.x games.
The books are not chiseled in stone.
They are ink on paper.Agreed.
As if that was a good thing?
Are we aspiring to go back to the things Paizo was trying to fix by making Pathfinder?
You can't fix the fact that somebody, somewhere considers mage armor or Improved Counterspell fundamentally overpowered and refuses to allow them in his games... so you might as well go with the flow.
As if they weren't in 3.x?Then the DM becomes the build police, in addition to all other responsibilities that come with running a game.
It is the attitude that if it is in a book then the GM allow it that drove me away from most 3.x games.
The books are not chiseled in stone.
They are ink on paper.Agreed.
As if that was a good thing?
Are we aspiring to go back to the things Paizo was trying to fix by making Pathfinder?
No, we're simply trying to be reasonable in our expectations. The GM will always pull "build police" duty, in any system with enough options at least. You can't avoid it without simplifying the metagame a great deal. You know, like they tried to do in 4e. And even there, some options are so much better than others, it hurts.
I've played and ran countless games and systems. The only tabletop game I found that couldn't be broken in any way and where I didn't feel the need to keep track of players' character sheets is FATE. FATE is a fine system for what it tries to achieve, but it's metagame is so bland, I simply cannot play it. I wouldn't like PF to go anywhere near that direction, even if it means I get to do "build police".
By the way they don't allow advanced firearms because they're completely game breaking.
And they know it.
But you're not gonna hear it from them because they have to stick to the company line.
They're not game-breaking if they approach artifact level of uniqueness. If you give a high level gunslinger a "prototype" revolver the same way you give a high level paladin the Holy Vindicator, the game won't break.
They're not broken if they are commonplace. If you wish to run a Fantasy Wild West game where everyone has a sixshooter, the game won't break.
They're only game-breaking if you analyze them in vacuum, or if you can't handle your own campaign.
BTW, I love the conspiracy theorist vibe you sometimes show in your posts.
Advanced Firearms are not available in Golarion.
Unless your GM decides otherwise, of course.
But the baseline that I'm using when developing Golarion via the various product lines (Adventure Path, modules, Campaign Setting, novels, Pathfinder Society, Player's Companion, etc.) is that advanced firearms aren't available in Golarion.
How firearms and gunslingers will eventually end up represented in the Pathfinder Society won't be nailed down until the book is out at Gen Con. For now, we're allowing them in so we can get more playtest data, and the PFS is a GREAT place to get trustworthy playtest data, and lots of it. But it's important to keep in mind that ALL of this stuff is still in "playtest" mode. And that means things will change by the book's actual publication.
James said it, Makes it so!
:::runs around the fence to hide:::
Joking aside, this is why we have a creative director. James is a very understanding and tolerant director when it comes to Golarion. I admire his vision. And he is throwing truth bombs.
Oh, and BTW, can we not have this turn into a thread jack about what a GM's job should be? The answer is wherever he or she wants it to be. Some GMs love to tinker and poke, some like strict control, others just want a fun experience on the weekend. I think we can give rules that all of those types will like.
The no wrong way to GM. Or rather, if there is, your players are going to tell you.
Power attack was broken in 3.5.
Don't believe me?
It took two feats to do the same thing with Combat Expertise. With one feat CE is limited to -5/+5.
So if one feat caused you to lose a power attack completely no matter what you rolled it would be over powered too (looks at elusive target).
|
|
Oh, and BTW, can we not have this turn into a thread jack about what a GM's job should be? The answer is wherever he or she wants it to be. Some GMs love to tinker and poke, some like strict control, others just want a fun experience on the weekend. I think we can give rules that all of those types will like.
The no wrong way to GM. Or rather, if there is, your players are going to tell you.
This.
At the risk of doing exactly what he asked not to do (with the intent of staying on topic) I don't think it is the DM's job to define narrowly what the player can or can't do.
That is the job of the rules.
I don't want to have to micromanage, and my players don't want to be micromanaged. They want to be able to come to me and say "Here is the rule that says I can do this, and I am excited to play this character" and I want to be able to trust the game developers have worked out the mechanics to be balanced.
And I generally do. And part of why we are having this play-test is to make sure the rules that go in the book require as little table tinkering as possible.
The play-test is where we are as a community build policing.
I want to trust the game system. I've been able to for 99% of the stuff in the game, and in 99% of the apparent "Broken" situations it has been user error coming as a result of not reading the rule fully.
If the game says "yes" and the DM "says" no, it takes the one thing the player does control, his character, out of his control.
I control everything else in the universe when I run, I want to be able to let the players create what they want, within the framework.
So please, let optional rules be rare exceptions. And understand every player thinks their creation is a unique butterfly entitled to the "rare" items if they can afford them. Particularly once teleport comes into play.
This.
At the risk of doing exactly what he asked not to do (with the intent of staying on topic) I don't think it is the DM's job to define narrowly what the player can or can't do.
That is the job of the rules.
A GM that can't restrict his players is in for a world of hurt. I don't like a lot of restrictions on what I play -- but at the same time I do my best to respect the fact the GM has to be comfortable with his game.
Now ignoring the fact that you and overdark both seem intend on ignoring the whole host of problems with firearm usage, I would again state that if you can't tell your player's no on parts of the setting (something not controlled by the mechanical rules) how in the heck are you going to tell them no to using anything?
"I'm going to use this 3rd party publisher -- but it's ok -- these are the rules he has written and they are the rules!"
I think there are going to be super advanced weapons in Numeria.But that isn't going to have an entire class in the campaign setting built around it.
Don't make claims so soon. This system is still hurting for a mechanist/engineer class. And something with a gearman companion and lasers could be very fun to play.
-The Beast
|
|
This.
At the risk of doing exactly what he asked not to do (with the intent of staying on topic) I don't think it is the DM's job to define narrowly what the player can or can't do.
That is the job of the rules.
A GM that can't restrict his players is in for a world of hurt. I don't like a lot of restrictions on what I play -- but at the same time I do my best to respect the fact the GM has to be comfortable with his game.
Now ignoring the fact that you and overdark both seem intend on ignoring the whole host of problems with firearm usage, I would again state that if you can't tell your player's no on parts of the setting (something not controlled by the mechanical rules) how in the heck are you going to tell them no to using anything?
"I'm going to use this 3rd party publisher -- but it's ok -- these are the rules he has written and they are the rules!"
I don't use any 3PP unless we are running a 3pp game. Up to this point the rule has been if it's Paizo it is fine, no pulling from 3.5. and you have to justify anything out of the norm by character development.
It has been great not having to research as much as the players the various splatbook ideas they come up with, and also great not having to tell a player no after they spent hours planning out a concept.
For a RoTRL/CoTCT mix campaign We had a player working toward Eldrich knight who had access to guns because he was from Alkenstar (left because it is hard to study magic in a wild magic area) and had been a fighter who became interested in magic and came to Varisia to study at the Wizard school in Korvosa.
It was a really cool concept, and he was fine with the fact he wasn't great with guns because the gun was more a flavor piece than anything that increased his power. I allowed him to make it his bonded weapon and have him "shoot" spells out of it (no bonuses, just the spells came out of the muzzle)
Adding a strange weapon didn't effect others selecting a strange weapon as the weapon wasn't that great.
The limiting factors aren't that impressive when you consider the benefits. And there was no reason to give firearms that big of a benefit, relative to other weapons.
If there were real limiting factors that only gunslingers had access to it would be fine. But for basically the same feats you needed to be an effective crossbow specialist you can do it with a weapon that hits touch AC.
Make reloading as a free action gunslinger only, maybe it can work. The touch AC thing seems to be a dead issue at this point, but the feats aren't all laid out yet.
|
|
I think there are going to be super advanced weapons in Numeria.But that isn't going to have an entire class in the campaign setting built around it.
Don't make claims so soon. This system is still hurting for a mechanist/engineer class. And something with a gearman companion and lasers could be very fun to play.
-The Beast
Glitter Boys...
Why would I worry about power creep...
I would love Paizo to make a rift like setting (as well as a steam punk setting).
But Golarion doesn't need to be it.
|
|
I think there are going to be super advanced weapons in Numeria.But that isn't going to have an entire class in the campaign setting built around it.
Don't make claims so soon. This system is still hurting for a mechanist/engineer class. And something with a gearman companion and lasers could be very fun to play.
-The Beast
I agree. The third party Artificer from ToS did start with a good concept (science replicates spells and allows to build whatever combination of spell effects you need, foreshadowing the future Words of Power from Ultimate Magic) but alas, a really poor execution, balance and clarity.
I would love to see a "puppeteer" variant of summonner (something -playable- in a big party, at least...) which would dominate ennemies with ease at the cost of being unable to cast when moving his living puppet, or make use of a crafted puppet when this isn't possible.This is also a steampunk class concept which would be perfect as a mechanist/artificer/engineer theme. It's been a long time I searched for a Genius Girl or Mad Mecha in forums and PFDB, but there never was something satisfying and balanced enough to be added to the game. An engineer class operating from the inside of (or next to) an upgradable golem-exosqueleton would be a hella' fun too...
I can't really say it better then Ciretose already has, but if we just start making possibly unbalancing things based around rule zero, then why are we play-testing at all? Couldnt they just release it with every cool gunslinger-ish ability they can think of and then add a "All abilities are useable at DM discretion." Which is not what I pay money on books to see.
Guns will (IMO) be a lot more playable if they are made balanced (not like you guys cant do it, you've done wonderfully with everything else) and just make them as buy-able and findable as other equipment.
I can't really say it better then Ciretose already has, but if we just start making possibly unbalancing things based around rule zero, then why are we play-testing at all? Couldnt they just release it with every cool gunslinger-ish ability they can think of and then add a "All abilities are useable at DM discretion." Which is not what I pay money on books to see.
Guns will (IMO) be a lot more playable if they are made balanced (not like you guys cant do it, you've done wonderfully with everything else) and just make them as buy-able and findable as other equipment.
The funny thing is that guns are actually currently weaker than any other weapon available.
Every single time someone has tried to prove otherwise they still can't top out the current DPR olympics -- or any highly optimized DPR build for that matter.
They simply are behind the curve when it comes to everything.
|
|
I can't really say it better then Ciretose already has, but if we just start making possibly unbalancing things based around rule zero, then why are we play-testing at all? Couldnt they just release it with every cool gunslinger-ish ability they can think of and then add a "All abilities are useable at DM discretion." Which is not what I pay money on books to see.
Guns will (IMO) be a lot more playable if they are made balanced (not like you guys cant do it, you've done wonderfully with everything else) and just make them as buy-able and findable as other equipment.
The funny thing is that guns are actually currently weaker than any other weapon available.
Every single time someone has tried to prove otherwise they still can't top out the current DPR olympics -- or any highly optimized DPR build for that matter.
They simply are behind the curve when it comes to everything.
Whipped out the excel here at work and crunched some numbers.
Average ac of the cr 10 monsters in the beastiary is 22.8.
Average touch is 10.6.
Given each dice is basically 5 percent, you are about 61 percent more likely to hit with a gun.
Staying 1Oth, manyshot only applies precision damage to the first attack. Basically the same as improved two weapon, only I can apply precision to all attacks and you have more range.
Both can use deadly aim.
Guns can misfire, but they also have X4 crit.
I donakt have access here at work to the gunslinger pdf, so what am - missing?
|
|
The funny thing is that guns are actually currently weaker than any other weapon available.
Every single time someone has tried to prove otherwise they still can't top out the current DPR olympics -- or any highly optimized DPR build for that matter.
They simply are behind the curve when it comes to everything.
Mostly true... though if advanced firearms are used and the misfire chance is negated, AND a gunslinger can stay within one range increment, it's going to be awfully close once 5th level rolls around. Gunslingers probably start to come out ahead once they have their Dex +4 item.
|
|
Mostly true... though if advanced firearms are used and the misfire chance is negated, AND a gunslinger can stay within one range increment, it's going to be awfully close once 5th level rolls around. Gunslingers probably start to come out ahead once they have their Dex +4 item.The funny thing is that guns are actually currently weaker than any other weapon available.
Every single time someone has tried to prove otherwise they still can't top out the current DPR olympics -- or any highly optimized DPR build for that matter.
They simply are behind the curve when it comes to everything.
And there is DPR and DPR ramnged. I am not sure how 61 percent more likely to hit, while losing no bonuses vs other weapons and having a X4 crit isn't better.
By the way they don't allow advanced firearms because they're completely game breaking.
All this talk about game breaking firearms have, if nothing else, reminded me that I really need to reboot my Dragonstar campaign for Pathfinder.
Staying 1Oth, manyshot only applies precision damage to the first attack. Basically the same as improved two weapon, only I can apply precision to all attacks and you have more range.
Are we still assuming we're permanently greater invisibility'ed?
Maybe I'm not good at the whole optimization thing, but I feel the waters get really muddled when all sorts of optional items and/or spell effects are taken into account, rather than just doing a straight comparison without any external modifiers.
|
|
So if one feat caused you to lose a power attack completely no matter what you rolled it would be over powered too (looks at elusive target).Power attack was broken in 3.5.
Don't believe me?
It took two feats to do the same thing with Combat Expertise. With one feat CE is limited to -5/+5.
Countering power attack with another ability doesn't mean that 3.5 power attack wasn't broken.
Why did it get changed (and now work exaclty like Combat Expertise by the way) if it wasn't broken?
BTW, I know this is off topic now but since I'm the OP I feel I'm allowed. And James answered my question too.
[EDIT] Elusive Target takes 3 feats and its a tactical feat on top of that. And only works against one foe per round.
|
|
Staying 1Oth, manyshot only applies precision damage to the first attack. Basically the same as improved two weapon, only I can apply precision to all attacks and you have more range.
Are we still assuming we're permanently greater invisibility'ed?
Maybe I'm not good at the whole optimization thing, but I feel the waters get really muddled when all sorts of optional items and/or spell effects are taken into account, rather than just doing a straight comparison without any external modifiers.
It is comparing it to existing weapons, as I see advantages that outweight disadvantages.
The rogue cheese move still is an issue, but only if they win initiative within range.
|
|
And there is DPR and DPR ramnged. I am not sure how 61 percent more likely to hit, while losing no bonuses vs other weapons and having a X4 crit isn't better.
We've sort of gone over this in some other threads, but the answer is:
Because if the damage isn't higher than the alternatives, then it isn't better than the alternatives.
Once the gunslinger (just the gunslinger!) starts to add Dex to Damage, they begin to pull ahead. And yes, this is given a straight comparison, not using rogues with perma-improved-invisibility or whatever. But again, that's IF advanced firearms are in play, and IF the gunslinger can be within one range increment to benefit from attacking vs. touch AC.
If misfires are in play rather than advanced firearms, DPR calculations are A) vastly more difficult and B) much less in favor of the gun-wielder.
|
|
And there is DPR and DPR ramnged. I am not sure how 61 percent more likely to hit, while losing no bonuses vs other weapons and having a X4 crit isn't better.We've sort of gone over this in some other threads, but the answer is:
Because if the damage isn't higher than the alternatives, then it isn't better than the alternatives.
Once the gunslinger (just the gunslinger!) starts to add Dex to Damage, they begin to pull ahead. And yes, this is given a straight comparison, not using rogues with perma-improved-invisibility or whatever. But again, that's IF advanced firearms are in play, and IF the gunslinger can be within one range increment to benefit from attacking vs. touch AC.
If misfires are in play rather than advanced firearms, DPR calculations are A) vastly more difficult and B) much less in favor of the gun-wielder.
A 60 percent increase in the chance you will hit vs missfire chance seems to be the balance then?
Ll other factors seem comparable unless I am missing something.
A 60 percent increase in the chance you will hit vs missfire chance seems to be the balance then?Ll other factors seem comparable unless I am missing something.
I guess a 10% miss fire chance is pretty significant when you fire your weapon three or more times a round.
At least it'd explain why only adventurers are crazy enough to field them en masse. :)
Whipped out the excel here at work and crunched some numbers.Average ac of the cr 10 monsters in the beastiary is 22.8.
Average touch is 10.6.Given each dice is basically 5 percent, you are about 61 percent more likely to hit with a gun.
Staying 1Oth, manyshot only applies precision damage to the first attack. Basically the same as improved two weapon, only I can apply precision to all attacks and you have more range.
Both can use deadly aim.
Guns can misfire, but they also have X4 crit.
I donakt have access here at work to the gunslinger pdf, so what am - missing?
So build it and prove it -- your rogue wasn't exactly inspiring.
IF the guns are so 'broken' the get around to proving it for once instead of claiming it with no math or facts to back it up.
|
|
Whipped out the excel here at work and crunched some numbers.Average ac of the cr 10 monsters in the beastiary is 22.8.
Average touch is 10.6.Given each dice is basically 5 percent, you are about 61 percent more likely to hit with a gun.
Staying 1Oth, manyshot only applies precision damage to the first attack. Basically the same as improved two weapon, only I can apply precision to all attacks and you have more range.
Both can use deadly aim.
Guns can misfire, but they also have X4 crit.
I donakt have access here at work to the gunslinger pdf, so what am - missing?
So build it and prove it -- your rogue wasn't exactly inspiring.
IF the guns are so 'broken' the get around to proving it for once instead of claiming it with no math or facts to back it up.
How much damage did that rogue do relative to other ranged rogues?
|
|
That 60% increase is a theoretical one, which only will be real if the attack bonus involved is +9 or less. At that point, you will hit the limit for attack accuracy with the gun while the other weapon is still increasing in accuracy. And it may not, in itself, matter greatly in terms of damage/round. Higher average damage is a significant factor.A 60 percent increase in the chance you will hit vs missfire chance seems to be the balance then?
Ll other factors seem comparable unless I am missing something.
At cr 11 the gap goes to 25.5 to 11.7 or about 69 percent.
Regular ac raises faster than touch AC it appears.
How much damage did that rogue do relative to other ranged rogues?
Once you stopped incorrectly including sneak attack damage? 149 DPR at level 16 at under 20 feet.
So if we did another rogue with similar stats only using hand crossbows we would expect the same a lower amount.
If we used a bow instead it would be the same DPR (due to the lack of extra penalties) except to a longer range with more feats left over.
Misfires do present a real problem in overall performance.The system is built with the assumption that there are four combats a day, and each combat typically lasts five rounds. Thus there is an assumption of 20 rounds of combat a day.
That means that statistically you're expecting at least 1 misfire with a pistol, and 2 misfires with a musket per day.
Each misfire makes you lose one round. Then add in the fact that guns in general are only going to be able to be fired once per round and you're having a real problem compared to the archer.
The archer potentially is firing 40 shots per day withe rapid shot.
The gunslinger is potentially firing 19 (pistol) or 18 (musket) shots per day. If the gunslinger doesn't want, or can't, use their grit to clear their jammed guns then this can go down to 18 shots (pistols) or 16 shots (musket).
And that's at level 1. It actually gets worse the higher level you are. The more attacks you have, the more expensive losing a round can be. A gun might jam on the last shot of the round, or on the first.
With, say, four attacks per round, that 5-10% chance crops up a lot.
|
|
How much damage did that rogue do relative to other ranged rogues?Once you stopped incorrectly including sneak attack damage? 149 DPR at level 16 at under 20 feet.
So if we did another rogue with similar stats only using hand crossbows we would expect the same a lower amount.
If we used a bow instead it would be the same DPR (due to the lack of extra penalties) except to a longer range with more feats left over.
10 extra feet (sneak is inside 30)
I'll stat it out when I get home.
10 extra feet (sneak is inside 30)
I'll stat it out when I get home.
The range increment of a pistol is 20 feet, innit?
The range increment of a pistol is 20 feet, innit?10 extra feet (sneak is inside 30)
I'll stat it out when I get home.
precisely -- after that range it is no longer a touch attack and you take penalties on the attacks.
The greatest misunderstanding in this thread has yet to be addressed:
No one wants to be Aquaman.
The king of seas, ruler over the vast majority of the planet, with superhuman strength, endurance, and speed (you try running about with 8 tons per inch pressing on you), what kind of madman wouldn't want to be Aquaman?
You know why Cthulhu stays in the sea? Because Aquaman put him there. And he'll let him out only when he's good and ready.
The greatest misunderstanding in this thread has yet to be addressed:
No one wants to be Aquaman.The king of seas, ruler over the vast majority of the planet, with superhuman strength, endurance, and speed (you try running about with 8 tons per inch pressing on you), what kind of madman wouldn't want to be Aquaman?
You know why Cthulhu stays in the sea? Because Aquaman put him there. And he'll let him out only when he's good and ready.
But why be aquaman when you can be chuck norris?