But why be aquaman when you can be chuck norris?Because of this.
Owned.
Owned.But why be aquaman when you can be chuck norris?Because of this.
Hardly -- Chuck Norris can kick Chuthlu's -- um... whatever that is.
Besides what good is the power to bring out Chuthlu if you don't have anything to do afterward?
Nihilism is only fun until you run out of things to break.
After 30 it is no longer a sneak attack...precisely -- after that range it is no longer a touch attack and you take penalties on the attacks.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.
Agreed -- however with a pistol after 20 it is no longer a touch attack.
As such if you shoot someone at 25 feet then you still get sneak attack damage -- but you are attacking their regular AC.
|
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.
Misfires are a limiting factor.
The question is do they offset a 60% + increase in ability to hit, which it particularly relevant in volume attacking classes, or if you decide to take damage increasing enchantments.
Particularly when you consider they are also 4X crit items that do two types of damage.
This is the open question.
I may try to build out in the morning, but I need some sleep to figure out a formula for the misfire chance.
As I said, I think if you limit rapid reload applying to guns for gunslingers of 6th level or higher it is fine, as that could be the limiting factor that keeps crossbows viable.
Misfires are a limiting factor.The question is do they offset a 60% + increase in ability to hit, which it particularly relevant in volume attacking classes, or if you decide to take damage increasing enchantments.
Particularly when you consider they are also 4X crit items that do two types of damage.
This is the open question.
I may try to build out in the morning, but I need some sleep to figure out a formula for the misfire chance.
As I said, I think if you limit rapid reload applying to guns for gunslingers of 6th level or higher it is fine, as that could be the limiting factor that keeps crossbows viable.
I don't think it's needed for several reasons:
1. Crossbows are simple weapons.
2. Crossbows have a 19~20 critical range so guns are only 1 'step' above them there.
3. Crossbows have better range.
4. Crossbows are cheaper.
5. Crossbows are more reliable.
6. Bolts are cheaper than bullets.
7. Bolts can be poisoned.
On every front except the first range increment being a touch attack and critical multiplier crossbows are still strictly better.
The question is do they offset a 60% + increase in ability to hit, which it particularly relevant in volume attacking classes, or if you decide to take damage increasing enchantments.
It's a fair question. I'm not a game designer, so I can't really say if it's a fair offset. Personally, I'd hate a 5-10% misfire chance and would never pick a weapon that had anything like that (baring specific concepts that didn't care about failing all the time of course :) ). But I can't think of a fight where I haven't eventually rolled a traitor (a 1) on a to-hit roll, so my view might be skewed. :)
I'd be more into firearms if they removed both the touch attack and the misfire.
|
|
I don't think it's needed for several reasons:1. Crossbows are simple weapons.
2. Crossbows have a 19~20 critical range so guns are only 1 'step' above them there.
3. Crossbows have better range.
4. Crossbows are cheaper.
5. Crossbows are more reliable.
6. Bolts are cheaper than bullets.
7. Bolts can be poisoned.On every front except the first range increment being a touch attack and critical multiplier crossbows are still strictly better.
1. Basic Crossbows (one shot light and heavy) are simple weapons. When you get into double and repeating it is basically the same if not worse since firearms proficiency covers all firearms while exotic is just one weapon.
2. But it is still one step, not to mention being both Bludgeoning and Piercing rather than just piercing. This isn't by any means insignificant.3. Yes.
4. Also yes.
5. Also yes, and this is the misfire question.
6. 5 to one on the heavy, 10 to one on light, yes.
7. Bullets can be alchemical (I suspect this may even out when Ultimate Combat comes out, as I would hope they would have something similar for bolts, but at this point advantage firearms.)
You are way too dismissive of the increased to hit of the touch attack vs a regular attack, and you overlooked the fact that it is the Crit multiplier AND the two types of damage, and more damage.
|
|
The question is do they offset a 60% + increase in ability to hit, which it particularly relevant in volume attacking classes, or if you decide to take damage increasing enchantments.
It's a fair question. I'm not a game designer, so I can't really say if it's a fair offset. Personally, I'd hate a 5-10% misfire chance and would never pick a weapon that had anything like that (baring specific concepts that didn't care about failing all the time of course :) ). But I can't think of a fight where I haven't eventually rolled a traitor (a 1) on a to-hit roll, so my view might be skewed. :)
I'd be more into firearms if they removed both the touch attack and the misfire.
If your remove both, they still are X4 hitting two types of damage, while most exotics give you one or the other.
The designers seem to believe the misfire chance is huge, and it is a significant issue since it gives your gun the broken condition, meaning you will always need a back-up gun.
If it is equal to making it a touch attack the a X4 crit and two damage types...that I'm a bit skeptical of.
|
|
If your remove both, they still are X4 hitting two types of damage, while most exotics give you one or the other.
The designers seem to believe the misfire chance is huge, and it is a significant issue since it gives your gun the broken condition, meaning you will always need a back-up gun.
If it is equal to making it a touch attack the a X4 crit and two damage types...that I'm a bit skeptical of.
Just let it go...can we all agree that since we've eleiminated advanced firearms (which ARE game breaking) that firearms are now the exclusive realm of the gunslinger class.
Thats at least how I'll be running it, and if a gunslinger wants to make an advanced firearms then that character can make one.
Simple, solves most of the balance issues and keeps the gunslinger unique. Its still not entirely fair that the gunslinger's tricks get to 'always' work, but I guess that's what they get for a misfire chance.
Also, Abraham, I noticed you quit commenting on my Power Attack theory, why is that?
1. Basic Crossbows (one shot light and heavy) are simple weapons. When you get into double and repeating it is basically the same if not worse since firearms proficiency covers all firearms while exotic is just one weapon.
2. But it is still one step, not to mention being both Bludgeoning and Piercing rather than just piercing. This isn't by any means insignificant.
3. Yes.
4. Also yes.
5. Also yes, and this is the misfire question.
6. 5 to one on the heavy, 10 to one on light, yes.
7. Bullets can be alchemical (I suspect this may even out when Ultimate Combat comes out, as I would hope they would have something similar for bolts, but at this point advantage firearms.)You are way too dismissive of the increased to hit of the touch attack vs a regular attack, and you overlooked the fact that it is the Crit multiplier AND the two types of damage, and more damage.
And you are way to dismissive of the fact that guns are exotic weapons, misfire, are harder to use (in setting), require more feats, and don't get their single advantage (touch ac) pass their first range increment when they only have 5 range increments.
Guns:
1. Are exotic weapons.
2. Misfire (more for those non-proficient).
3. Require additional feats to reload quickly (and more expensive ammo which also increases misfire opportunity).
4. Don't deal more damage than other ranged weapons (in fact deal less than most).
5. Cost more to fire than any other ranged weapon.
6. Cost more than any other ranged weapon.
The few advantages they have are all that makes them semi-decent exotic weapons -- especially with all the draw backs they have.
|
The few advantages they have are all that makes them semi-decent exotic weapons -- especially with all the draw backs they have.
Especially since a lot of comparisons have been made on different topics with different builds, and that guns have been proved to be balanced.
Not talking about advanced firearms though, these ones are broken, even as wondrous objects or artifacts.
Not talking about advanced firearms though, these ones are broken, even as wondrous objects or artifacts.
If I ever ran a Steampunk style game, where I wanted guns to be wholly viable, I might use them.
I'd probably take out the touch AC rule though. If guns are commonplace, they don't need something that makes them exotic or unique.
|
|
If I ever ran a Steampunk style game, where I wanted guns to be wholly viable, I might use them.
In that case, you'd better keep the misfire risk as for classic firearms, or you're on for some bad surprises as a DM.
If you use advanced guns as they are now and remove the touch AC rule, you've just got the equivalent of a bow that needs to be reloaded frequently and can't even use manyshot. Probably not really worth it...
Not talking about advanced firearms though, these ones are broken, even as wondrous objects or artifacts.If I ever ran a Steampunk style game, where I wanted guns to be wholly viable, I might use them.
I'd probably take out the touch AC rule though. If guns are commonplace, they don't need something that makes them exotic or unique.
If you want to run a Steampunk game, you should probably make guns not just viable, but desireable - it'll hardly feel like Steampunk if PCs unanimously prefer bows and greatswords over revolvers and rapiers. Dropping the touch AC rule from guns will make them vastly inferior to composite bows.
Just let it go...can we all agree that since we've eleiminated advanced firearms (which ARE game breaking) that firearms are now the exclusive realm of the gunslinger class.Thats at least how I'll be running it, and if a gunslinger wants to make an advanced firearms then that character can make one.
Simple, solves most of the balance issues and keeps the gunslinger unique. Its still not entirely fair that the gunslinger's tricks get to 'always' work, but I guess that's what they get for a misfire chance.
Also, Abraham, I noticed you quit commenting on my Power Attack theory, why is that?
Which power attack theory?
I'm sorry I've been across a lot of threads recently, gaming at home, and I work every week -- 3, twelve hour shifts -- so I tend to lose track of things during the weekends due to needs of sleeping and what not.
|
Excuse me Overdark, but I'm going to be a little flippant here. Sometimes I just can't help it.
I bet you could. It is astonishing to me that I get taken to task in the samurai playtest for my tone being poor and Paizo employs reserve the right to be flippant.
<snip snide comments>
What is the answer to the question, “are there any advanced firearms in Golarion?” The answer is, “ask your GM.” Game worlds, even published ones, have truths contingent on their GM's whims. We just provide tools for those whims.
And in PFS?
Edit: I see the illustrious creative director has also weighed in on it. And thank goodness. But the point stands that GM hand-waving is a poor response.
|
|
Edit: I see the illustrious creative director has also weighed in on it. And thank goodness. But the point stands that GM hand-waving is a poor response.
How is GM Hand-Waving a poor response? Really, it's the perfect response, especially in regard to something as controversial as Advanced Firearms. The developers recognize that some people want access to something which mimics the iconic "Western Gunslinger", so they provide it, but add that such things can only be included if your GM says so, which makes sense. A lot of people complain that they're overpowered, and it may be that the folks over at Paizo feel the same way, but want to give us the option anyways. By saying it's up to your GM (as are all firearms, really), they're saying that if you don't like it as a GM, you don't have to include it in your setting.
|
|
How is GM Hand-Waving a poor response? Really, it's the perfect response, especially in regard to something as controversial as Advanced Firearms. The developers recognize that some people want access to something which mimics the iconic "Western Gunslinger", so they provide it, but add that such things can only be included if your GM says so, which makes sense. A lot of people complain that they're overpowered, and it may be that the folks over at Paizo realize that, but want to give us the option anyways. By saying it's up to your GM (as are all firearms, really), they're saying that if you don't like it as a GM, you don't have to include it in your setting.
|
|
GM handwaving is a terrible excuse for poor game design. I think most of the people playing PF agree that v3.5 got awfully broken by the end because of power creep and ridonkulous spells and feats. Could a GM handwave all that away? Sure, but you don't want to, and your players don't want you to. They want to have the cool feat or spell or nifty prestige class, maybe even for flavor reasons, and to have to say NO all the time isn't any fun for anyone.Including flawed and/or broken rulesets and saying that it's ok to do so because GMs don't have to use the crappy rules is ... I really don't have the words to describe what it is. Wrong, immature, poor design, etc.
Really, if you want to get technical, the entire point of purchasing RPG books is because the GM doesn't want to make his own game. Which is a good reason, don't get me wrong. But to say that it's bad "game design" to let a GM choose what he wants from your source material is a little misguided.
What the developers are doing is giving people more options. Yes, sometimes the options aren't perfectly balanced. Remember Pre-APG Barbarians? What about Inquisitors, and how unbelievably versatile and powerful they are? Lots of people houserule certain aspects of the game because they don't fit, or are generally unliked. I KNOW a lot of people are going to houserule that guns target normal AC instead of Touch, but you don't see them telling the Designers that they failed at their job.
All rulesets are going to be flawed and/or broken. Just look at the countless threads on the problems with Stealth, Rogues in Combat, and other fiascoes. You can't escape these kinds of issues. At the same time, you can't say Paizo was being bad because they implemented mechanics that don't work all the time.
The developers are giving people more options. Whether you like these options is irrelevant, because the people who do like them (like me :D) are going to use them and have fun. But to flat out insult them by claiming that they are wrong or immature is more than a little rude. I'm glad Paizo is sticking to its guns (get it? Puns?), because more options are never a bad thing. By saying that GM's get the final say, they're saying, "If you don't like it, here's PERMISSION FROM US to say 'No.'" And then, of course, you simply have to let player's know what you're houseruling or disallowing before they start making characters, that way they don't get a really cool Gunslinger concept and find out they don't exist in your world. XD
Remember Pre-APG Barbarians? What about Inquisitors, and how unbelievably versatile and powerful they are?
Mind explaining that for me? I'm not sure what you mean by those statements. IME, Barbs were always a pretty good damage dealer, but not unbalanced compared to the rest. And I'm not sure about the Inquisitors cause I've never played one before
|
|
Mind explaining that for me? I'm not sure what you mean by those statements. IME, Barbs were always a pretty good damage dealer, but not unbalanced compared to the rest. And I'm not sure about the Inquisitors cause I've never played one before
Remember Pre-APG Barbarians? What about Inquisitors, and how unbelievably versatile and powerful they are?
I'll elaborate on this first. Barbarians have always been... capable damage dealers. But when the Core Rulebook first came out, there was a lot of skepticism because the Barbarian bonuses (+2 to Attack and Damage, up to +4) were basically overshadowed by the Fighter bonuses and some of the new abilities available to Rangers and Paladins, enough so that there wasn't much of a reason to select a Barbarian due to them basically just being plain less effective. Granted, I've always thought they were okay, but remember, the initial Rage Powers aren't spectacular. Heck, when I make Barbarians, I don't think I even use the Rage Powers that were presented in the Core Rulebook anymore, because the APG ones are just more fun and flavorful. And they last for more than one turn.
The Inquisitor is on the opposite end of the spectrum. Combining Judgments, solo teamwork feats, and a heavy number of spells from the Cleric Spell List (some of the best for combat), Inquisitors can be some of the most versatile and powerful characters in the current state of the game. Now, this held true for quite some time, and nowadays people tend to lean towards the other classes more because more math has been done regarding their newer abilities, but when Inquisitor first came out, it was BIG.
stuff
The point you made about insulting people was valid, and I didn't mean to be rude about it.
The point of Gunslingers not being fun or nifty is still up for grabs. After all, the playtest is still going, and we have no idea how the final version will be handled. I'll admit, I really like the current iteration of the class. Yes, it has several flawed mechanics, but Paizo seems to be really close with it as written. Just a few tweaks and it'd be good to go.
When it comes to the Firearm rules, though, there isn't a lot we can do about that. Yes, there's errata, but the guns at their base function (attacking Touch AC without Magic) are something I can't see changing any time soon. That said, there is some established precedent for 1-handed ranged weapons (Hand Crossbow), but it's true that there isn't an established Critical Failure system. However, this seems to have been done from a "fluff" perspective, and, as many people have pointed out, can be quite a limiting factor for a potential firearm user.
Also, if you could post links to class builds using guns in a way that clearly usurps the abilities of other weapons, or at least point me in the same direction, I'd appreciate it. I've seen a good bit of math pertaining to Rogues, and the occasional Gunslinger, but so far I haven't seen anything to indicate that guns are doing "too much" or "too little" damage. They seem to be doing decently in the hands of certain classes, but the same can be said about most weapons.
|
|
I've seen a good bit of math pertaining to Rogues, and the occasional Gunslinger, but so far I haven't seen anything to indicate that guns are doing "too much" damage.
Here. I couldn't count the double misfire risk, and the loss of DPR due to the move action spent to fix it though. It has been established that the misfire risk is pretty much THE balance point of guns, and the funny part is that any way to improve this is to pay exorbitant magical enhancements, while your weapon is still a small 7 DR 15 HP weapon destroyed in one hit at mid-to high levels.
I've seen a lot of builds, and it has been proved that guns AREN'T OVERPOWERED. At best, they have a similar power to a bow wielder, they just hit more often but attack less with less damage. With the rogue, they allow for a good sneak attack combo which is a bit nasty, but only makes the class more capable in combat - which isn't a bad thing since it is still way less powerful than any other fighting class and needs a lot of conditions, like almost perma-invisibility, a f+@!ton of feats and prayers to Thor so that everything goes right and that oh god I hope this Dragon Wyrm is stupid enough to not have any way to spot me even if he lived 1000 Years defending himself from adventurers and magicians like us.|
|
1. Basic Crossbows (one shot light and heavy) are simple weapons. When you get into double and repeating it is basically the same if not worse since firearms proficiency covers all firearms while exotic is just one weapon.
2. But it is still one step, not to mention being both Bludgeoning and Piercing rather than just piercing. This isn't by any means insignificant.
3. Yes.
4. Also yes.
5. Also yes, and this is the misfire question.
6. 5 to one on the heavy, 10 to one on light, yes.
7. Bullets can be alchemical (I suspect this may even out when Ultimate Combat comes out, as I would hope they would have something similar for bolts, but at this point advantage firearms.)You are way too dismissive of the increased to hit of the touch attack vs a regular attack, and you overlooked the fact that it is the Crit multiplier AND the two types of damage, and more damage.
And you are way to dismissive of the fact that guns are exotic weapons, misfire, are harder to use (in setting), require more feats, and don't get their single advantage (touch ac) pass their first range increment when they only have 5 range increments.
Guns:
1. Are exotic weapons.
2. Misfire (more for those non-proficient).
3. Require additional feats to reload quickly (and more expensive ammo which also increases misfire opportunity).
4. Don't deal more damage than other ranged weapons (in fact deal less than most).
5. Cost more to fire than any other ranged weapon.
6. Cost more than any other ranged weapon.The few advantages they have are all that makes them semi-decent exotic weapons -- especially with all the draw backs they have.
1. So are double, repeating, repeating heavy, hand, and launching crossbows. And unlike those, you only have to take one feat to be proficient in firearms (at this point).
2. See above.3. What addition feats beyond what is required to do the same thing with a crossbow?
4. Deal the same or more than crossbows actually when you remember the 4X, and you once again overlook the fact that it does two different types of damage as well.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
If it was gunslinger only, I wouldn't care at all. If the reloading feats were gunslinger only I also wouldn't care at all, because the fact that they are expensive makes them suboptimal for low level, and if you can't reload as a free action they are suboptimal for high level (except gunslingers and gunslinger multi-classes with at least 6 levels of gunslinger.
That is kind of what I'm pushing for as the solution.
Why would they need to be more suboptimal?
The crossbow doesn't require an exotic weapon proficiency feat -- yes you can take one for the crappier crossbows but you shouldn't.
Guns as an exotic weapon require that feat -- then you need rapid reload so that you can load them, then you need alchemical cartridges to get it to a free action.
So you spend two feats, and gold to increase the misfire rate and finally be able to simply use the weapon.
At this point you are being the crossbow man in feats, and more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else -- you have a 15% chance of misfire which the crossbow man with a light crossbow doesn't have. You spend more on each shot too.
And for what? A bigger critical hit multiplier and shorter range -- meaning you rack up penalties on your to hit bonus faster as well. Yes the first range increment is touch, but you still have to get into that first range increment -- the crossbow man doesn't.
You damage at this point still stinks -- you have to turn around again and spend even more feats to simply get decent at damage, and hope you don't misfire which will ruin your round.
If you take gunsmith so your shots are cheaper then you are another feat behind.
At the end of the day we have this:
Exotic weapon 1d8 20/x4 (if you roll a 1,2,3 gun fails and takes time to fix reload) 20 ft range 5 increments only, B and P 11gp per shot and a weapon cost of some 3,000 gp.
That's not a good deal even with touch attacks -- out of every twenty shots you take (which has a total cost of 220gp) you fail on 3 of them.
If you are taking multiple shots in a round -- lets say 4 shots a round.
Odds of you actually getting all your shots on any round are: 52.21%
You have a misfire chance per round of 47.79%
If you use advanced guns as they are now and remove the touch AC rule, you've just got the equivalent of a bow that needs to be reloaded frequently and can't even use manyshot. Probably not really worth it...
More like a "super crossbow" that actually competes against the bow without being ridiculous.
A six shooter that can be loaded with a speed loader can compete with regards to sustained shots. Toss in TWFing and options for non-freehand reloading (or not needing to reload - magically), and you'll have your reason to use guns over bows.
The rifle, I admit, should likely bump back up to 1d12 though (instead of the 1d10 for the advanced firearms entry in the playtest).
Scatter weapons have a unique enough mechanic that they don't need much else.
Note that in such a campaign, guns would likely be simple weapons (martial at most), and cost would be low on the average weapon because of mass production.
This would definitely change the face of Golarian though, hence why it'd be applicable for a Steampunk game, rather than standard gaming.
|
|
I'll elaborate on this first. Barbarians have always been... capable damage dealers. But when the Core Rulebook first came out, there was a lot of skepticism because the Barbarian bonuses (+2 to Attack and Damage, up to +4) were basically overshadowed by the Fighter bonuses...
So fighters are better fighters than barbarians? And?
Having seen an Inquisitor in play (still just 3rd level) I'm just not seeing the 'overpowering-ness' of the class, maybe he just hasn't come into it yet, I guess we'll see.
Summoners on the other hand are definetly something else, the ones I've run haven't tried to exploit the attacks per round loophole that alot of people were complaining about on the thread I saw. The 2 characters in 1 aspect of the class is the one that I've noticed as being overpowered, its really something else.
Now on to the gunsllinger, after spending the last few days crunching a lot of numbers and builds for gunslingers. Here's what I've come to...
1)Grit, kinda sucks, except for the abilities that require you to always have 1 grit. So NEVER spend your last grit.
2)Advanced firearms are game breaking, we all seem to be able to agree on this point. Since PFS and the core assumption is that they don't exist then no problems there. If a gunslinger PC wants to build one, I'd probably allow it, since its functionally no different than another character crafting 1/2 price magic items.
3)Since only basic firearms are available, then the only class that can exploit them is the gunslinger, and even then they still need to invest most of their feats in it.
4)Gunslingers get around the rarity of guns and ammo by making it.
So since the gunslinger is basically the only class that gets to use guns (effectivly) then I don't see the problem.
|
|
Off topic...@ Abraham spalding...
Citing a feat that takes two other feats to get and only works against one foe doesn't make 3.5 power attack balanced.
Stiil waiting to see if you can come up with a good defense for 3.5 power attack. It was broke, just admit it.
Thats why they changed it for PF, and made it work just like Combat Expertise BTW.
Off topic...@ Abraham spalding...
Citing a feat that takes two other feats to get and only works against one foe doesn't make 3.5 power attack balanced.
Stiil waiting to see if you can come up with a good defense for 3.5 power attack. It was broke, just admit it.
Thats why they changed it for PF, and made it work just like Combat Expertise BTW.
I disagree -- here is why:
3.5 power attack -- by itself was not broken.
In fact by itself it was hardly worth taking unless you were using a two handed weapon and even then it was barely worth it.
What actually made 3.5 power attack "broken" was the other feats you could take that worked with each other in conjunction to spike the damage at the expense of penalties to things other than the attack roll.
A simple -1 to hit and +1 to damage wasn't worth it.
IF you take 3.5 power attack by itself, you would have a horribly difficult time breaking it.
Pathfinder's changes actually increased its power, and made it easier to use -- which was the point of those changes.
|
|
I disagree -- here is why:
3.5 power attack -- by itself was not broken.
In fact by itself it was hardly worth taking unless you were using a two handed weapon and even then it was barely worth it.
What actually made 3.5 power attack "broken" was the other feats you could take that worked with each other in conjunction to spike the damage at the expense of penalties to things other than the attack roll.
A simple -1 to hit and +1 to damage wasn't worth it.
IF you take 3.5 power attack by itself, you would have a horribly difficult time breaking it.
Pathfinder's changes actually increased its power, and made it easier to use -- which was the point of those changes.
I disagree...and here's why:
Power attack doesn't work the same way as Combat Expertise which is basically the same feat (-1 for +1). But Combat Expertise is capped at 5, power attack isn't. Thus my determination that 3.5 power attack is broken/unbalanced (whatever term you prefer).
It just gets worse when you introduce a lot of other feats to exploit that, but that just means that the base feat (power attack) is broken to begin with. Combat Brute becomes less unbalancing if power attack didn't work the way it did in 3.5.
Power Attack in 3.5 was easy to use but sucked when compared to a two-hand user, PF power attack rocks for 1-handers and is slightly better for 2-handers.
I disagree...and here's why:Power attack doesn't work the same way as Combat Expertise which is basically the same feat (-1 for +1). But Combat Expertise is capped at 5, power attack isn't. Thus my determination that 3.5 power attack is broken/unbalanced (whatever term you prefer).
It just gets worse when you introduce a lot of other feats to exploit that, but that just means that the base feat (power attack) is broken to begin with. Combat Brute becomes less unbalancing if power attack didn't work the way it did in 3.5.
Power Attack in 3.5 was easy to use but sucked when compared to a two-hand user, PF power attack rocks for 1-handers and is slightly better for 2-handers.
Just because Combat Expertise was capped doesn't mean power attack needed to be:
Consider what would have happened if combat expertise hadn't have been capped -- a wizard could have taken it and taken the penalty to hit every round to transfer all his BAB into his AC.
With the cap in place he can't get the full +10 like he might have wanted.
In contrast power attack provided nothing for the one handed weapon user in the way of increase on DPR. The -1 penalty to hit actually hurt more than the +1 to damage.
In fact if you search the old 3.5 forums that WotC used to maintain (I'm not sure if they still do) the only time power attack was recommended in a "core only game" was if you were using a two handed weapon -- it was highly recommended that you not take power attack in any other circumstance.
Besides if 3.5 power attack was "broken/unbalanced" why make it more powerful for pathfinder?
***************************************************
Alas I feel we are probably going way too far off topic here -- if you would like to bring this up in general discussion forum feel free to, and I will join you there -- however I would suggest (and only suggest) that you look into the archives from the playtest that happened prior to the release of pathfinder because this very topic was discussed extensively then.
|
|
Just because Combat Expertise was capped doesn't mean power attack needed to be:
Consider what would have happened if combat expertise hadn't have been capped -- a wizard could have taken it and taken the penalty to hit every round to transfer all his BAB into his AC.
With the cap in place he can't get the full +10 like he might have wanted.
In contrast power attack provided nothing for the one handed weapon user in the way of increase on DPR. The -1 penalty to hit actually hurt more than the +1 to damage.
In fact if you search the old 3.5 forums that WotC used to maintain (I'm not sure if they still do) the only time power attack was recommended in a "core only game" was if you were using a two handed weapon -- it was highly recommended that you not take power attack in any other circumstance.
Besides if 3.5 power attack was "broken/unbalanced" why make it more powerful for pathfinder?
***************************************************
Alas I feel we are probably going way too far off topic here -- if you would like to bring this up in general discussion forum feel free to, and I will join you there -- however I would suggest (and only suggest) that you look into the archives from the playtest that happened prior to the release of pathfinder because this very...
I'm not suggesting that you 'uncap' Combat Expertise but instead 'cap' Power Attack (like PF did).
I agree that for a 1-hander 3.5 power attack sucks.
PF power attack is limited by your base attack and works good for both 1-handers and 2-handers. And works mechanically the same as Combat Expertise.
Both feats became better in PF.
Power Attack in 3.5 was broken. Power creep just made it worse and more obvious.
And yes (again) I know its off-topic but my question got answered by James so I feel fine with hijacking my own thread.
|
|
I'm not suggesting that you 'uncap' Combat Expertise but instead 'cap' Power Attack (like PF did).I agree that for a 1-hander 3.5 power attack sucks.
PF power attack is limited by your base attack and works good for both 1-handers and 2-handers. And works mechanically the same as Combat Expertise.
Both feats became better in PF.Power Attack in 3.5 was broken. Power creep just made it worse and more obvious.
And yes (again) I know its off-topic but my question got answered by James so I feel fine with hijacking my own thread.
Broken can mean a lot of different things. It can mean overpowered, underpowered, and many things in-between.
If you are referring to overpowered, then I have to disagree and say that, by itself, Power Attack wasn't overpowered. In fact, you could follow a Pathfinder-like progression if you wanted to with it.
Shock Trooper and Leap Attack were overpowered though, and very broken, especially with pounce cheese.
actually none of those are broken, the DM can just change or outright ban them. According to most of the responses I've seen paizo tends to think that makes them balanced.
I just dislike how the DM is always used as a scapegoat when they don't want to be wrong.
|
|
Broken can mean a lot of different things. It can mean overpowered, underpowered, and many things in-between.
If you are referring to overpowered, then I have to disagree and say that, by itself, Power Attack wasn't overpowered. In fact, you could follow a Pathfinder-like progression if you wanted to with it.
Shock Trooper and Leap Attack were overpowered though, and very broken, especially with pounce cheese.
Shock Trooper and Leap Attack seem broken because Power Attack was broken.
Both feats (with a bit of minor re-wording) would be just fine in PF with it's revised (capped) Power Attack feat.
PF Power Attack Progression
1-3: -1/+1(+2)
4-7: -2/+2(+4)
8-11: -3/+3(+6)
12-15: -4/+4(+8)
16-20: -5/+5(+10)
3.5 Power Attack allows an 8th level Fighter to Power Attack for -8/+16 when using a 2-hand weapon. Thats broken. Adding feats on top of it just highlights the flaw in 3.5 power attack. That doesn't make the feats after it broken.
PF Leap Attack feat would allow an 8th level fighter to leap attack for -3/+9 (3.5 gets -8/+24).
Leap Attack isn't the problem. 3.5 Power Attack is/was.
Broken can mean a lot of different things. It can mean overpowered, underpowered, and many things in-between.
If you are referring to overpowered, then I have to disagree and say that, by itself, Power Attack wasn't overpowered. In fact, you could follow a Pathfinder-like progression if you wanted to with it.
Shock Trooper and Leap Attack were overpowered though, and very broken, especially with pounce cheese.
Shock Trooper and Leap Attack seem broken because Power Attack was broken.
Both feats (with a bit of minor re-wording) would be just fine in PF with it's revised (capped) Power Attack feat.
PF Power Attack Progression
1-3: -1/+1(+2)
4-7: -2/+2(+4)
8-11: -3/+3(+6)
12-15: -4/+4(+8)
16-20: -5/+5(+10)3.5 Power Attack allows an 8th level Fighter to Power Attack for -8/+16 when using a 2-hand weapon. Thats broken. Adding feats on top of it just highlights the flaw in 3.5 power attack. That doesn't make the feats after it broken.
PF Leap Attack feat would allow an 8th level fighter to leap attack for -3/+9 (3.5 gets -8/+24).
Leap Attack isn't the problem. 3.5 Power Attack is/was.
Yet again, you're missing the important balancing factor here.
Dumping all your BAB into 3.5 PA gives you a lot of damage in return, but it also means you're missing horribly often against level-appropriate adversaries. Since damage output is useless if you can't hit, and since DPR calculations are a function of both variables, it's going to balance out. Any warrior, and I mean "warrior" as in "any class that deals physical damage as it's primary function", who dumps all his BAB for "mad damage" better have insanely good buffers backing him up if he's hoping to deal any damage at all at higher levels.
Also, comparing PA to Combat Expertise is completely off-base. Those feats may have similar mechanics, but they do entirely different things. Saying they must have identical cost-benefit ratio to be balanced makes no sense whatsoever.
|
|
Yet again, you're missing the important balancing factor here.
Dumping all your BAB into 3.5 PA gives you a lot of damage in return, but it also means you're missing horribly often against level-appropriate adversaries. Since damage output is useless if you can't hit, and since DPR calculations are a function of both variables, it's going to balance out. Any warrior, and I mean "warrior" as in "any class that deals physical damage as it's primary function", who dumps all his BAB for "mad damage" better have insanely good buffers backing him up if he's hoping to deal any damage at all at higher levels.
Sure on a full-attack using your full power attack means that only your first attack will still have any chance of hitting and the rest are just chances to roll a 20. But on a charge/leap attack where you are only gonna get the one attack, the full power attack gives you the chance to hit for 2 or 3 hits worth of damage and becomes kinda broken. And even at full power attack the warriors I saw in 3.5 still had a good shot at hitting with their first attack.
Also, comparing PA to Combat Expertise is completely off-base. Those feats may have similar mechanics, but they do entirely different things. Saying they must have identical cost-benefit ratio to be balanced makes no sense whatsoever.
And yet in PF they work exactly the same. Hmmm, I wonder why that is...
Sure on a full-attack using your full power attack means that only your first attack will still have any chance of hitting and the rest are just chances to roll a 20. But on a charge/leap attack where you are only gonna get the one attack, the full power attack gives you the chance to hit for 2 or 3 hits worth of damage and becomes kinda broken. And even at full power attack the warriors I saw in 3.5 still had a good shot at hitting with their first attack.Yet again, you're missing the important balancing factor here.
Dumping all your BAB into 3.5 PA gives you a lot of damage in return, but it also means you're missing horribly often against level-appropriate adversaries. Since damage output is useless if you can't hit, and since DPR calculations are a function of both variables, it's going to balance out. Any warrior, and I mean "warrior" as in "any class that deals physical damage as it's primary function", who dumps all his BAB for "mad damage" better have insanely good buffers backing him up if he's hoping to deal any damage at all at higher levels.
So, in hindsight, it's not really overpowered at all on itself?
Also, comparing PA to Combat Expertise is completely off-base. Those feats may have similar mechanics, but they do entirely different things. Saying they must have identical cost-benefit ratio to be balanced makes no sense whatsoever.And yet in PF they work exactly the same. Hmmm, I wonder why that is...
How so?
Combat Expertise: -1 to hit / +1 AC, upgrades with BABPA: -1 to hit / +2 damage (+1 on off-hand, +3 two-handed), upgrades with BAB
How is it the same? How does extra damage compare to extra AC anyway?
You're comparing apples to oranges... and claiming they're the same because they cost the same. How does that make sense for you?
Again see my last post, according to the creators and paizo, completely balanced.
Again see my last post, according to the creators and paizo, completely balanced.
I don't know, as a player and a GM I've always taken anything that specifically says either "ask your GM" or "the gm should decide whether or not they want to include this in their game" as "I can't have this unless the GM says I can." not " I can have this unless the GM says I can't." The distinction between those two is VERY important.
Having things with that tag doesn't give the designers license to be lazy, it gives them the freedom to do things that fall outside the normal restrictions of game balance... No the guns aren't balanced with other weapons, nor should they be. If that was the case militaries would still be equipped with crossbows and swords.
Look at the side bar for guns in the playtest document, not only do they say
"Firearms and the gunslinger are not for every campaign, and even if you are excited about introducing firearms into your campaign, you should still make a decision of how commonplace they are." but beyond that they say that even if you want guns in your game, you should think carefully about whether or not you want to include the advanced firearms.
Acknowledging that no matter the content published, GMs will have it their own way is common sense, not a cop-out.
|
|
Acknowledging that no matter the content published, GMs will have it their own way is common sense, not a cop-out.
It depends on if it is expected to make it work.
See Simulacrum.
Up to this point, Paizo has done a great job with new classes. The boards were very excited about the APG classes.
This round, my impression was that the Samurai class was pretty much given a thumbs up with minor changes, the Ninja was controversial (as is to be expected) but so similar to the rogue it might as well be a rogue archtype, and the Gunslinger has been unable to decide what it wants to be.
If the solution is "You figure it out for your game" that would be a huge cop out.
IMO Advanced firearms as presented are a huge cop out.
Deal with the system you have, in the setting you have, or make a new setting.
I would LOVE a new setting. Forgotten Realms and Eberron worked quite well as cousins.
But right now there is one setting. So...you know...stuff should be made for that setting.
|
|
IMO Advanced firearms as presented are a huge cop out.Deal with the system you have, in the setting you have, or make a new setting.
I would LOVE a new setting. Forgotten Realms and Eberron worked quite well as cousins.
But right now there is one setting. So...you know...stuff should be made for that setting.
I'm not really sure what the big deal is.
Paizo explicitly has said that the RPG line is meant to be a universal toolbox, and thus advanced firearms are an option in that toolbox.
Golarion doesn't have advanced firearms, as the devs have said.
I like the advanced firearms, specifically because they are unbalanced, as guns ought to be. Guns are the apex of personal weaponry and they ought to be better than other types of weapons. It's one of the rare ways that we get proper simulationist support in the system, rather than everything being gamist stuff. And the sidebar even comes with what I've asked many times, "dial" settings that allow you to easily fit the optional rules into a setting.
I specifically want to have the option to run a homebrew campaign with the pathfinder system where advanced guns shake up the normal fantasy milieu order. There ought to be an Ash-like arrogance when you wield an advanced firearm. So these rules are great as they provide a whole set of published support that I can draw upon and use right out of the box.
I wouldn't care about a published setting. I like to homebrew and it's great when there is toolbox support that I can draw upon. The advanced firearms are the aspect of this whole gunslinger thing that I like the most. The weakest thing out of all of this is the gunslinger class itself, which just doesn't seem very coherent or compelling to play.
I agree with the last part.
I think there is a lot of trying to be cute around the edges and not enough creating the foundations of a good class.
I don't even care if advanced firearms are in the game, so long as they are controlled and limited based on their power. If only gunslingers knew how to use advanced firearms properly, it would be fine.
This whole current playtest has lacked a clarity of purpose for each class that the past playtests had.
Every other class had a clear plan for what it wanted to be, while these three seem more geared toward being like existing classes than surviving on their own.
The Samurai worked fine for this, since it is so similar in concept to the Cavalier anyway. The other two...I'm just used to a lot more from Paizo.
That's a terrible thing to do in a book of generic options for a roleplaying system, especially for Paizo with their very new world of Golarion, since I'm fairly positive Golarion doesn't have the fan base on its own to support a rules system that excludes other possibilities. With people playing homebrew worlds or in the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, heck probably even one of two still in Mystara settings, Paizo is much better off using their rules to give options that can be applied everywhere rather than restricting options because it doesn't fit their setting.
They've also said that they aren't going to make any of their game rules books setting specific, and that DMs should decide what they will and won't accept in their worlds. That's not a cop out, that's good game design, since they can't possibly create something that everyone will be happy with, especially when it comes to something as polarizing as firearms.
Some people hate firearms in their fantasy, deciding that they ruin everything and can't be part of fantasy, some people love them, feeling that firearms are already a part of many fantastic fantasy stories and add to any setting, and the rest are anywhere in between. With the firearms rules as presented the DM is the one who decides how much of an impact the firearm rules have on his campaign, which is as it should be. The only complaint I have with the firearms rules is that Advanced Firearms are said not to misfire in their descriptive text, but then have a misfire chance on the firearms table, though I'm sure that's just a type or other minor error.
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.This is a very healthy attitude for a game designer. I find it encouraging.
+1
As a GM I rather have options...and as a player I understand when the GM says 'No' to something.
|
|
That's a terrible thing to do in a book of generic options for a roleplaying system, especially for Paizo with their very new world of Golarion, since I'm fairly positive Golarion doesn't have the fan base on its own to support a rules system that excludes other possibilities. With people playing homebrew worlds or in the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, heck probably even one of two still in Mystara settings, Paizo is much better off using their rules to give options that can be applied everywhere rather than restricting options because it doesn't fit their setting.
They've also said that they aren't going to make any of their game rules books setting specific, and that DMs should decide what they will and won't accept in their worlds. That's not a cop out, that's good game design, since they can't possibly create something that everyone will be happy with, especially when it comes to something as polarizing as firearms.
Some people hate firearms in their fantasy, deciding that they ruin everything and can't be part of fantasy, some people love them, feeling that firearms are already a part of many fantastic fantasy stories and add to any setting, and the rest are anywhere in between. With the firearms rules as presented the DM is the one who decides how much of an impact the firearm rules have on his campaign, which is as it should be. The only complaint I have with the firearms rules is that Advanced Firearms are said not to misfire in their descriptive text, but then have a misfire chance on the firearms table, though I'm sure that's just a type or other minor error.
If you want to have those kind of things, put them in the supplement books. Hell, do the Alkenstar supplement book and put it in there.
Don't put them in the quarterly major releases. Those are the hard and fast "Go to" books DM's shouldn't have to worry about screening before allowing player use.