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.
Any GM who does not screen every source he allows to be brought to the table; Does not deserve to sit behind the screen.
When I sit down to the RPG table I have certain expectations.
I expect the GM to be setting the tone of the game.
I expect the GM to be conversant with the rules.
I expect the GM to be the law as to what does and does not get used.
I expect the PCs to respect the GMs right to say no.
I expect the PCs to agree to play with in a setting as set or altered by the GM.
I expect the PCs to understand that the players are guests in the GMs world not the other way around.
I expect for us all to be able to have fun. (That cannot happen if one player ignores the social contract).
I expect the Game Publisher to provide the frame work/tools for the group to use. In a setting free rules book all the options that are available need to be presented.
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...
Ultimate Combat is not setting-specific.
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.
Any GM who does not screen every source he allows to be brought to the table; Does not deserve to sit behind the screen.
When I sit down to the RPG table I have certain expectations.
I expect the GM to be setting the tone of the game.
I expect the GM to be conversant with the rules.
I expect the GM to be the law as to what does and does not get used.
I expect the PCs to respect the GMs right to say no.
I expect the PCs to agree to play with in a setting as set or altered by the GM.
I expect the PCs to understand that the players are guests in the GMs world not the other way around.
I expect for us all to be able to have fun. (That cannot happen if one player ignores the social contract).
I expect the Game Publisher to provide the frame work/tools for the group to use. In a setting free rules book all the options that are available need to be presented.
Emphasis mine, +5.
I agree with everything in this post hands down. Ciretose, did you not screen the APG when it came out for your game? Personally, I haven't allowed traits in my games because I felt it would complicate things further for my players, 99% of which were brand new to RPGs or haven't played a 3.X edition of D&D or PF and I wanted to keep things uncomplicated.
For my first game with them (I'd played for about a year before, so I was fine with all the rules so far) I didn't allow most of the APG aside from equipment and feats. None of the new classes, none of the Archetypes, none of the spells, we played an almost entire core product for a couple months until I felt they were comfortable with the system.
Will I screen Ultimate Magic? Yes. I won't just drop the Words of Power on my players and say, "Here, you can use these now." I'll wait until I'm comfortable with the rules as a GM and until they are comfortable with the rules as players.
Will I screen Ultimate Combat? Hell yes I will, partly because I'm a martial PC kind of guy, partly because I'm the GM and it's my job to do so.
Any GM who does not screen every source he allows to be brought to the table; Does not deserve to sit behind the screen.
This stems from old players that have played through the worst kind of cheese.
I moved to pathfinder because the more "GM screening" disappears the better the game will be. If I have to start disallowing rules I'll go back too 3.5, same thing only a lot more options.
Any GM who does not screen every source he allows to be brought to the table; Does not deserve to sit behind the screen.This stems from old players that have played through the worst kind of cheese.
I moved to pathfinder because the more "GM screening" disappears the better the game will be. If I have to start disallowing rules I'll go back too 3.5, same thing only a lot more options.
So you don't screen anything? You run a kitchen sink game? I've found that kitchen sink games are ruined quicker than GM screened games. By allowing everything, you're allowing Pun-Pun to exist, which is a rules nightmare.
And by saying, "Well no, I wouldn't allow that" is GM screening.
So you don't screen anything? You run a kitchen sink game? I've found that kitchen sink games are ruined quicker than GM screened games. By allowing everything, you're allowing Pun-Pun to exist, which is a rules nightmare.
And by saying, "Well no, I wouldn't allow that" is GM screening.
If your all for DM screening then why are you playing pathfinder? 3.5 has way way more options. Person I play pathfinder because I no longer have to screen every product that comes out. If I do then the designers at paizo are no better then WOTC and I'll go play the game thats much more well established. If we let books come out with stuff that you have to screen then pathfinder will eventually have it's own pun-pun.
So your the one allowing cheese to run free. That's why I hate the answer "ask your DM" If it is in the book in my games then it is allowed. At least until paizo does what 3.5 did and screw up balance just because "the DM can fix it"
If your all for DM screening then why are you playing pathfinder? 3.5 has way way more options.
Actualy I play Pathfinder with all the 3.5 stuff....and there is still stuff we won't allow in our games.
Person I play pathfinder because I no longer have to screen every product that comes out.
Than I would suggest just keeping to core. Than you never have to screen anything.
Also the whole topic of this thread is guns....which most people have objection too because it does not fit in with thier views of Golarion. Not because it is cheese( we will see if that is the case when the book comes out).
So it has to do with the flavor....so if I ran a game in lets say a Oriental type setting and say flavorwise Elves and Halfling are out because they don't fit the a oriental type setting...I am screening due to flavorwise not because of cheese factor. You are saying my game will 'suck'?
This thread is also calling out advanced firearms, which are pretty wonky. oh and pulling things out for flavor isn't screening, you've kind of lost the meaning of the term there.
If you use an older flawed product (3.5) yeah you have to screen, but that's exactly why I don't use those.
So your the one allowing cheese to run free. That's why I hate the answer "ask your DM" If it is in the book in my games then it is allowed. At least until paizo does what 3.5 did and screw up balance just because "the DM can fix it"
I screen so I can keep the cheese out. Does your group always play with the hero points system in the APG? Will the Words of Power always be available in your game? Will firearms always be available in your games? What about every non-core prestige class and feat (and I'm talking the companion books for each country)?
All of the above is up to GM discretion.
This thread is also calling out advanced firearms, which are pretty wonky. oh and pulling things out for flavor isn't screening, you've kind of lost the meaning of the term there.
If you use an older flawed product (3.5) yeah you have to screen, but that's exactly why I don't use those.
1) We don't know what the final product of advanced firearms will look like. It is a play test after all.
2) Actualy I consider a game that has one baseline to be extremely flawed. as it will appeal to one kind of person. What you might find cheesey or overpowering others will find normal...or even weak. What you find right...others will find overpowering.
So unless you feel everybody should 'play' the game your way...as your way is 'THE ONLY RIGHT WAY'...than yes it is possible you might consider it a 'flaw'.
when i sit down to play pathfinder i dont want to have to run everything by my Dm, i want to be able to look at all my available material and play the Pathfinder as written, i would rather play a game where i can trust the system i play in than assume there are things "BROKEN" which indicates the system doesn't actually work.
maybe this topic is better for another thread, sorry for any derailment, im going to start a new thread on this topic if anyone wants to discuss
If your all for DM screening then why are you playing pathfinder? 3.5 has way way more options.
So you don't screen anything? You run a kitchen sink game? I've found that kitchen sink games are ruined quicker than GM screened games. By allowing everything, you're allowing Pun-Pun to exist, which is a rules nightmare.
And by saying, "Well no, I wouldn't allow that" is GM screening.
Can't speak for others, but I play PF because I love it, whereas 3.5 made me want to throw up. Yeah, I'm weird like that.
|
If your all for DM screening then why are you playing pathfinder? 3.5 has way way more options.Actualy I play Pathfinder with all the 3.5 stuff....and there is still stuff we won't allow in our games.
Person I play pathfinder because I no longer have to screen every product that comes out.Than I would suggest just keeping to core. Than you never have to screen anything.
Also the whole topic of this thread is guns....which most people have objection too because it does not fit in with thier views of Golarion. Not because it is cheese( we will see if that is the case when the book comes out).
So it has to do with the flavor....so if I ran a game in lets say a Oriental type setting and say flavorwise Elves and Halfling are out because they don't fit the a oriental type setting...I am screening due to flavorwise not because of cheese factor. You are saying my game will 'suck'?
Strawman.
When you add an element to a game, and make it universally available, it changes the dynamics of the games. Sometimes very little, sometimes a lot.
There is a difference between givng a specific class a skill, or including something in a setting, and adding a major mechanically different item everyone can access and use. One effects a class, one effects everything in the game.
The balance standard of the core should expand to the quarterly releases. AP and companion books are different, I get that, but the quarterly relaeses are 50 dollar books.
So pardon me if I have some quality expectation for that amount of money.
|
|
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.
Any GM who does not screen every source he allows to be brought to the table; Does not deserve to sit behind the screen.
When I sit down to the RPG table I have certain expectations.
I expect the GM to be setting the tone of the game.
I expect the GM to be conversant with the rules.
I expect the GM to be the law as to what does and does not get used.
I expect the PCs to respect the GMs right to say no.
I expect the PCs to agree to play with in a setting as set or altered by the GM.
I expect the PCs to understand that the players are guests in the GMs world not the other way around.
I expect for us all to be able to have fun. (That cannot happen if one player ignores the social contract).
I expect the Game Publisher to provide the frame work/tools for the group to use. In a setting free rules book all the options that are available need to be presented.Emphasis mine, +5.
I agree with everything in this post hands down. Ciretose, did you not screen the APG when it came out for your game? Personally, I haven't allowed traits in my games because I felt it would complicate things further for my players, 99% of which were brand new to RPGs or haven't played a 3.X edition of D&D or PF and I wanted to keep things uncomplicated.
For my first game with them (I'd played for about a year before, so I was fine with all the rules so far) I didn't allow most of the APG aside from equipment and feats. None of the new classes, none of the Archetypes, none of the spells, we played an almost entire core product for a couple months until I felt they were comfortable with the system.
Will I screen Ultimate Magic? Yes. I won't just...
Yes you read the book. But with the major releases the whole reason to buy them is you believe the developers are good at screening material.
This is why we buy the product.
If it gets to the splatbook level of some of the 3.5 releases, I won't buy the product.
Strawman.
When you add an element to a game, and make it universally available, it changes the dynamics of the games. Sometimes very little, sometimes a lot.
There is a difference between givng a specific class a skill, or including something in a setting, and adding a major mechanically different item everyone can access and use. One effects a class, one effects everything in the game.
The balance standard of the core should expand to the quarterly releases. AP and companion books are different, I get that, but the quarterly relaeses are 50 dollar books.
So pardon me if I have some quality expectation for that amount of money.
Everything changes the game. What is a good change...or a bad change is mostly based on the group not some universal standard. Pazio have been excellent so far that I have not felt the need to ban anything as of yet from any of their books. But I also realize not everyone is me...and not everything Pazio will do will fit my play style.
I am not saying you should not expect quality from the product...but I never understood why people like you assume everybody has the same standard...or why you must be catered to exculsively? There are serveral books back in 3.5 days I disliked like Weapons of Legacy great idea...bad excution...or the Tome of Nine Swords...didn't like how it works...but I don't think those books should be not published because other people liked them.
Just don't buy the book you see as useless...personaly Firearms are such a small portion of the UC book...I don't consider it a waste of money if I don't use the rules...as long as the book has a majority of stuff I'll use. Which so far Pazio does have excellent track record with me.
|
There is a difference between givng a specific class a skill, or including something in a setting, and adding a major mechanically different item everyone can access and use. One effects a class, one effects everything in the game.
You have touched the core of the issue here. Touch AC guns will have ripple effects a loooooong, looooong way from here. I think this will become the thing every Paizo author tries to forget or act like it was never mentioned, but within the gaming community, it will balloon into something that draws a lot of ridicule. Ever had the Leadership feat and wondered what to do, when you get to level 15+, with all those 1st level followers? when you're level 15 you're rich enough to buy a gun for all your goons... bye bye AC 5 great wyrm!
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...
But the whole point of putting the advanced firearms and variant prices for firearms into the book Ultimate Combat is to acknowledge that firearms on their own are separate from the Golarion setting. If Paizo put firearms rules in an Alkenstar supplement they are basically saying, "This is the way firearms are in Golarion, and since this book is about Golarion that's the only form of firearms rules that are being presented."
Also, I don't think the APG, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat are meant to be "go-to" books that every DM automatically lets in to his campaign without screening. For one, the APG introduces a variant Hero Points system and Ultimate Magic introduces words of power, 2 mechanics that will require a DM to say yes or no on them being in his campaign. Also, with the Alchemist and Summoner Paizo has already added classes that don't fit everyone's idea of fantasy, much like the gunslinger and gun rules won't. They fully expect, and should expect, that DMs read their products and decide for themselves what fits their home game since Paizo can't possibly make a set of rules that everyone will use every piece of.
Anyways, I get the feeling that your view of how firearms should work, terribly for everyone but gunslingers from your posts in many threads on this topic, and mine are so completely opposed that we'll have completely different views on what those rules should be. My point is that Paizo is doing their best to give both of us our preferred options, I can play with basic firearms more affordable and have an occasional advanced firearm be a major item for any gunslingers I have, and you can play with basic firearms being rare and so inefficient cost-wise that nobody but gunslingers will use them.
I simply don't see what the problem is with stating in their book that the DM needs to decide how much firearms affect his setting, since the DM is the one running the setting and knows how much of an impact they will have.
There is a difference between givng a specific class a skill, or including something in a setting, and adding a major mechanically different item everyone can access and use. One effects a class, one effects everything in the game.You have touched the core of the issue here. Touch AC guns will have ripple effects a loooooong, looooong way from here. I think this will become the thing every Paizo author tries to forget or act like it was never mentioned, but within the gaming community, it will balloon into something that draws a lot of ridicule. Ever had the Leadership feat and wondered what to do, when you get to level 15+, with all those 1st level followers? when you're level 15 you're rich enough to buy a gun for all your goons... bye bye AC 5 great wyrm!
What about getting all your goons a vial of acid or alchemist's fire? Doesn't that have the same effect (with faster reloading) without nearly the cost of buying the cheapest guns? Then there is still dragon fear, the dragon's significant ranged abilities, and magic which I think would easy hamper/destroy either your idea or my counter with absolutely no actual planning needed on the dragon's part. Short range touch attacks don't automatically kill dragons.
I'm not sure how cool I am with touch AC guns, but I other short range touch attacks don't exist in the game.
There is a difference between givng a specific class a skill, or including something in a setting, and adding a major mechanically different item everyone can access and use. One effects a class, one effects everything in the game.You have touched the core of the issue here. Touch AC guns will have ripple effects a loooooong, looooong way from here. I think this will become the thing every Paizo author tries to forget or act like it was never mentioned, but within the gaming community, it will balloon into something that draws a lot of ridicule. Ever had the Leadership feat and wondered what to do, when you get to level 15+, with all those 1st level followers? when you're level 15 you're rich enough to buy a gun for all your goons... bye bye AC 5 great wyrm!
Than disallow guns in your game.
Or adjust the rules so they do work for you.
Though in your example...
How many survive the dragon's first attack?
How many of them just have the guns blow up in their hands?
How did they get this close to the dragon...without the dragon reacting at all?
What about DragonFear...you think they will make that will save?
I does changes things...but I think creature will come up with...defenses for this kinda of tactic rather easy.
|
There is a difference between givng a specific class a skill, or including something in a setting, and adding a major mechanically different item everyone can access and use. One effects a class, one effects everything in the game.You have touched the core of the issue here. Touch AC guns will have ripple effects a loooooong, looooong way from here. I think this will become the thing every Paizo author tries to forget or act like it was never mentioned, but within the gaming community, it will balloon into something that draws a lot of ridicule. Ever had the Leadership feat and wondered what to do, when you get to level 15+, with all those 1st level followers? when you're level 15 you're rich enough to buy a gun for all your goons... bye bye AC 5 great wyrm!
lol
Breath Weapon
Also, Leadership is another one of those feats that is expressly limited to your DM's judgment as well, so... yeah.
|
You have touched the core of the issue here. Touch AC guns will have ripple effects a loooooong, looooong way from here. I think this will become the thing every Paizo author tries to forget or act like it was never mentioned, but within the gaming community, it will balloon into something that draws a lot of ridicule. Ever had the Leadership feat and wondered what to do, when you get to level 15+, with all those 1st level followers? when you're level 15 you're rich enough to buy a gun for all your goons... bye bye AC 5 great wyrm!
Unless they're alllll gunslingers, then they'll have missfire problems up the wazoo!!(Thats right I said wazoo.)
This exact same scenario could be achieved using sorcerer/wizard followers and wands of acid arrow (more expensive I know, but vastly superior range). Its not broken. It DIFFERENT. Touch attacks have existed for a long time now, a new way of doing them isn't exactly world shattering.
On a final note advanced firearms are presented as an optional rule for people who want to use them. They are NOT designed to be balanced. Almost as if the designers were trying to model around the perceived power of the gun!
|
|
guys, dragons have Spell Resistance, are immune to one kind of energy, and usually will have gear/spells also granting other energy resistances.
bullets go through all that... as long as you have magical bullets, you don't even have to worry about the dragon's DR/magic either.
i know i'm giving an extreme example and that the dragon can make a lunch out of 1st level folks in at least 56 different ways, but this is an example of how touch ac is broken; forget i said dragon and instead think golem, or t-rex or anything that's really big... warrior types should always roll against regular AC when using a weapon, period. playing an auto-hit 20 level gunslinger would be about as fun as playing an auto-hit 1st level commoner NPC with a Dex of 14 or 16 and a gun: both guys always freakin' hit...
So when you post flippant, sarcastic responses, its ok? But when we do it were out of line?Ok. A little hypocritical but ok.
Yes, I know that Golarion is a fictional-world. And exists purely as a backdrop (or setting) for your adventures.
I was asking about a core assumption of the world, I know I can disallow druids if I want, that doesn't change the core view of published material that druids exist. If you don't want to give a concrete definitive answer, fine why don't you just say that instead of getting sarcastic and defensive about it....
No, Overdark, I'm sorry, you misunderstand me...or maybe I could be clearer. I wasn't being flippant about what I was saying about the core assumption. Our core assumption is that we are going to provide the class, we are going to allow it in PFS, but it's not going to show up all over the place in the Adventure Paths, Companions, adventures, or the fiction. Everything is not going gunslinger (although it may seem that way if you read these boards).
What I gave you is the core assumption: We expect people to use it as much as they wish. We are going to present it as a rarity in the line. I would be surprised if you ever saw an advance firearm in printed Golarion product.
Translation for overdark:
Yes, they exist. Prices will vary, as they are rare, but could cost the printed costs. Are they available to players? Up to the GM, as is everything.
|
|
guys, dragons have Spell Resistance, are immune to one kind of energy, and usually will have gear/spells also granting other energy resistances.
bullets go through all that... as long as you have magical bullets, you don't even have to worry about the dragon's DR/magic either.
i know i'm giving an extreme example and that the dragon can make a lunch out of 1st level folks in at least 56 different ways, but this is an example of how touch ac is broken; forget i said dragon and instead think golem, or t-rex or anything that's really big... warrior types should always roll against regular AC when using a weapon, period. playing an auto-hit 20 level gunslinger would be about as fun as playing an auto-hit 1st level commoner NPC with a Dex of 14 or 16 and a gun: both guys always freakin' hit...
So targeting touch AC is broken? Well, all of a sudden Arcane Trickster just got way more powerful :P
Seriously, though, the touch AC thing isn't a big deal. Plenty of math has been done to show that it works just fine, and that guns (the ones which do exist in Golarion) are not overpowered. There are certain instances where the Gunslinger REALLY shines, and is potentially overpowered, but those are problems with the Gunslinger, not the weapons themselves.
Even then, Gunslingers are rarely in situations where they can outshine other group members completely anyways.
|
|
There is a difference between givng a specific class a skill, or including something in a setting, and adding a major mechanically different item everyone can access and use. One effects a class, one effects everything in the game.You have touched the core of the issue here. Touch AC guns will have ripple effects a loooooong, looooong way from here. I think this will become the thing every Paizo author tries to forget or act like it was never mentioned, but within the gaming community, it will balloon into something that draws a lot of ridicule. Ever had the Leadership feat and wondered what to do, when you get to level 15+, with all those 1st level followers? when you're level 15 you're rich enough to buy a gun for all your goons... bye bye AC 5 great wyrm!
The ripple effect isn't the immediate as much as everything going forward will be designed with this new mechanic under consideration.
Each part of a games system isn't an island in and of itself. They all interact with each other, and some elements are choices which preclude other choices.
The problem with the splatbooks was rarely a feat or spell in and of itself, it was how it interacted with other things to facilitate cheese builds and loopholes.
You've now created an item that hits on touch attack. That means anything going forward with bonuses coming off of the ability to hit with a ranged weapon will have to be considered under this new paradigm.
What rogue wouldn't carry a musket for the surprise round, since his damage comes from sneak attack damage, combined perhaps with deadly aim since accuracy isn't important.
Firearms existed under the previous ruleset and worked fine. They were even fairly effective if you allowed the exploding dice variant. But they were mechanically the same as other ranged weapons.
This is a major mechanical change.
I'm not worried about waves of 1st levels. I'm worried about weird interactions new mechanics tend to bring to systems, particularly since it was a gunslinger, not a firearm, playtest.
I don't worry too much if a single class is broken. You can just no have that class. But a new mechanical system is harder to isolate, as regardless of how I include firearms in my game, the future game modules, APs, System books, will all be designed off of this new way.
|
|
I'm not worried about waves of 1st levels. I'm worried about weird interactions new mechanics tend to bring to systems, particularly since it was a gunslinger, not a firearm, playtest.
(bolded emphasis mine)
Yes, they dropped two things on our lap: the gunslinger and Touch AC guns. Then they immediately go on to say: 'Touch AC are not part of this playtest and are here to stay, but go ahead and playtest the gunslinger using that new Touch AC gun thing... yeah, you'll see... it's cool!'
So the premise of the playtest felt flawed from the get go, as far as I'm concerned. There's a few things the playtest helped improve, but for the love of everything that's PRPG Core, dropping a Touch AC gun rule and saying "hands off that rule!" is not completely ingenuous...
The role of a playtest is to see what works and what doesn't. It's fine to define a scope for a playtest, be it class, a feat, or even a weapon! but when you design a whole class based on a new weapon and say "test the class, not the weapon," that's crap. Come on.
|
|
Yes, they dropped two things on our lap: the gunslinger and Touch AC guns.
Actually, the guns were revealed in the Inner Sea World Guide (or so I'm told), which is why they aren't part of the playtest. They are relatively new, yes, but it's not like they invented something specifically for the Gunslinger playtest and said "hands off."
|
|
guys, dragons have Spell Resistance, are immune to one kind of energy, and usually will have gear/spells also granting other energy resistances.
bullets go through all that... as long as you have magical bullets, you don't even have to worry about the dragon's DR/magic either.
i know i'm giving an extreme example and that the dragon can make a lunch out of 1st level folks in at least 56 different ways, but this is an example of how touch ac is broken; forget i said dragon and instead think golem, or t-rex or anything that's really big... warrior types should always roll against regular AC when using a weapon, period. playing an auto-hit 20 level gunslinger would be about as fun as playing an auto-hit 1st level commoner NPC with a Dex of 14 or 16 and a gun: both guys always freakin' hit...
Acid arrow ignores SR so Iron golems, T-rex etc fair no better. Its damage scales reasonably well without any additional input, such as feats or extra items, from the caster. The spells range at 15th level is 1000 ft. Not 20/40 ft for what will be standard in most games, or if you're including advanced firearms 100ft/400ft.
So unless you start throwing black/green dragons at the players almost exclusively, the low-ish damage touch attack of the firearm isn't really that big a deal.
Your main complaint seems to be based around the idea that really big monsters will suffer. I don't see this as a bad thing.
|
|
Your main complaint seems to be based around the idea that really big monsters will suffer. I don't see this as a bad thing.
Then you must be a player, not a DM. Would you honestly like to play a 15th level fighter with AC 42 and Touch AC 12, and have the DM sick a gunslinger at you in every single encounter? Answer yes to that and I will shut up forever on the issue.
Your main complaint seems to be based around the idea that really big monsters will suffer. I don't see this as a bad thing.Then you must be a player, not a DM. Would you honestly like to play a 15th level fighter with AC 42 and Touch AC 12, and have the DM sick a gunslinger at you in every single encounter? Answer yes to that and I will shut up forever on the issue.
hm... I see an apples to oranges thing here.
The GM has access to a lot more material and is supposed to change things up on a regular basis -- that's his job. As a player everything I'm doing is subject to GM knowledge as I'm doing it -- that's a point I don't have in reverse -- the GM naturally and by necessity keeps secrets from me (the player).
By default the GM must know what I am playing, and how I intend to play it before I even sit at the table -- in fact he must approve of my choices before we can even play.
As such if he doesn't like my fighter making touch attacks on a regular basis, and doing it in an expensive, dangerous way that could lose me rounds -- then he can shut it down before I start.
At which point I could do the same with an Eldritch Knight.
In fact at higher levels fighters will auto hit with almost every attack anyways -- the misfire mechanic actually hurts my odds more than the touch attacks help them.
Consider an archer fighter at level sixteen, with the usual ranged feats and haste. He's most likely to have the following to hit percentages:
95%/95%/95%/90%/70%/55%
If instead he is using a musket and alchemical cartridges he has the following chances to hit:
85%/85%/85%/85%/70%/55%
With a 15% chance that any of those attacks will stop the rest of his attacks.
As a GM I have no trouble letting a player use these firearms rules. He will be hurting himself as much if not more than he is helping himself.
|
|
Actually, the guns were revealed in the Inner Sea World Guide (or so I'm told), which is why they aren't part of the playtest. They are relatively new, yes, but it's not like they invented something specifically for the Gunslinger playtest and said "hands off."
Yes, they dropped two things on our lap: the gunslinger and Touch AC guns.
Firearms existed in the original campaign setting released under 3.5.
However now the mechanics have been changed completely.
|
|
Your main complaint seems to be based around the idea that really big monsters will suffer. I don't see this as a bad thing.Then you must be a player, not a DM. Would you honestly like to play a 15th level fighter with AC 42 and Touch AC 12, and have the DM sick a gunslinger at you in every single encounter? Answer yes to that and I will shut up forever on the issue.hm... I see an apples to oranges thing here.
The GM has access to a lot more material and is supposed to change things up on a regular basis -- that's his job. As a player everything I'm doing is subject to GM knowledge as I'm doing it -- that's a point I don't have in reverse -- the GM naturally and by necessity keeps secrets from me (the player).
By default the GM must know what I am playing, and how I intend to play it before I even sit at the table -- in fact he must approve of my choices before we can even play.
As such if he doesn't like my fighter making touch attacks on a regular basis, and doing it in an expensive, dangerous way that could lose me rounds -- then he can shut it down before I start.
At which point I could do the same with an Eldritch Knight.
In fact at higher levels fighters will auto hit with almost every attack anyways -- the misfire mechanic actually hurts my odds more than the touch attacks help them.
Consider an archer fighter at level sixteen, with the usual ranged feats and haste. He's most likely to have the following to hit percentages:
95%/95%/95%/90%/70%/55%
If instead he is using a musket and alchemical cartridges he has the following chances to hit:
85%/85%/85%/85%/70%/55%
With a 15% chance that any of those attacks will stop the rest of his attacks.
As a GM I have no trouble letting a player use these firearms rules. He will be hurting himself as much if not more than he is helping himself.
Avg AC of the cr 16 creature in beastiary is 35.75
Avg touch ac is 11.5What are your attack bonuses on your Level af fighter? And don't forget the penaltiesd of deadly aim and such.
Avg AC of the cr 16 creature in beastiary is 35.75
Avg touch ac is 11.5What are your attack bonuses on your Level af fighter? And don't forget the penaltiesd of deadly aim and such.
Generally much higher than that.
Consider:
BAB +16 Dex +10 weapon +5 Weapon training +3 greater weapon specialization/focus +4 = +38-5(deadly aim)-2(rapid shot) = +31 without trying. If we throw in haste, and point blank shot we have a +33 again.
The supposed average AC for CR 16 is supposed to be 31 (according to the chart provided by paizo in the back of the Bestiary).
I'm guessing you went and figured out the exact average though including both Bestiaries? (I honestly mean that -- the figure you give isn't a whole number which suggests you did go through and add it up and divide it out)
So I've got an easy +33 to hit at level 16 -- and I've only used about 86k gold out of my 315k gold (50k for the weapon, 36k for the belt of dex +6).
|
|
Avg AC of the cr 16 creature in beastiary is 35.75
Avg touch ac is 11.5What are your attack bonuses on your Level af fighter? And don't forget the penaltiesd of deadly aim and such.
Generally much higher than that.
Consider:
BAB +16 Dex +10 weapon +5 Weapon training +3 greater weapon specialization/focus +4 = +38-5(deadly aim)-2(rapid shot) = +31 without trying. If we throw in haste, and point blank shot we have a +33 again.The supposed average AC for CR 16 is supposed to be 31 (according to the chart provided by paizo in the back of the Bestiary).
I'm guessing you went and figured out the exact average though including both Bestiaries? (I honestly mean that -- the figure you give isn't a whole number which suggests you did go through and add it up and divide it out)
So I've got an easy +33 to hit at level 16 -- and I've only used about 86k gold out of my 315k gold (50k for the weapon, 36k for the belt of dex +6).
"Easy"?
You just maxed out a 20 dex fighter for a single weapon and didn't make the numbers. Not other class would come close.
I can swap out 4 of the bonuses for enhancements, lose all of the fighter bonuses, and still more or less auto hit on all attacks.
I did figure it out on averages.
11 vs 35 matters.
"Easy"?
You just maxed out a 20 dex fighter for a single weapon and didn't make the numbers. Not other class would come close.
I can swap out 4 of the bonuses for enhancements, lose all of the fighter bonuses, and still more or less auto hit on all attacks.
I did figure it out on averages.
11 vs 35 matters.
Yes -- easy... that's not a maxed out fighter and isn't anywhere near a maxed out fighter.
I can grab +2 to hit and damage from gloves, +1 to hit, skills and saves from an Ioun stone, and have just spent 45,000gp. So that puts me up to +36 to hit.
If you switch out for the gun, and switch out for the lower damage of the gun, and the extra feats, and still spend all that money -- you hurt your chances to hit due to misfire.
And that's never good.
|
|
So, out of 10 changes we have 4 improvements, 3 minor changes/nerfs, and 2 major nerfs plus the touch AC debacle.
Honestly I think the best answer to this would be drop Touch AC, increase threat range by 1 where Touch AC is referenced, and restore the old range increments (or at least increase them a bit). This puts the balance about where it was while keeping all the improvements.
So your solution is to take away Touch AC? So, basically, we just make guns the worst weapons in the game.
Absolutely NO benefit over a crossbow (except the critical hit modifier), expensive ammo, AND a relatively high chance of exploding and becoming useless? Hardly a fix, I think.
Actually I'm no fan of the misfire rule. No other weapon has gains the broken condition on the roll of a natural 1.
Goblin weapons -- dog slicers specifically, as well as horsechoppers both break on a natural 1 on the dice.
Supposedly the ultimate combat will have more such weapons.
|
|
"Easy"?
You just maxed out a 20 dex fighter for a single weapon and didn't make the numbers. Not other class would come close.
I can swap out 4 of the bonuses for enhancements, lose all of the fighter bonuses, and still more or less auto hit on all attacks.
I did figure it out on averages.
11 vs 35 matters.
Yes -- easy... that's not a maxed out fighter and isn't anywhere near a maxed out fighter.
I can grab +2 to hit and damage from gloves, +1 to hit, skills and saves from an Ioun stone, and have just spent 45,000gp. So that puts me up to +36 to hit.
If you switch out for the gun, and switch out for the lower damage of the gun, and the extra feats, and still spend all that money -- you hurt your chances to hit due to misfire.
And that's never good.
When you start with a 20 dex and use both your belt and your arm slot, are a fighter focusing several abilities and feats on a single weapon you can be almost as likely to hit as pretty much anyone with a fire arm over say, 8th level.
Misfire is a legitimate issue, and a clunky mechanic.
The old system was better. I could have used some revision, but the make over is both more complicated in execution while also creating major potential exploits and loopholes.
|
|
Actually I'm no fan of the misfire rule. No other weapon has gains the broken condition on the roll of a natural 1.Goblin weapons -- dog slicers specifically, as well as horsechoppers both break on a natural 1 on the dice.
Supposedly the ultimate combat will have more such weapons.
Again, as if we need more things to keep track of at the table...
|
|
So, out of 10 changes we have 4 improvements, 3 minor changes/nerfs, and 2 major nerfs plus the touch AC debacle.
Honestly I think the best answer to this would be drop Touch AC, increase threat range by 1 where Touch AC is referenced, and restore the old range increments (or at least increase them a bit). This puts the balance about where it was while keeping all the improvements.
So your solution is to take away Touch AC? So, basically, we just make guns the worst weapons in the game.
Absolutely NO benefit over a crossbow (except the critical hit modifier), expensive ammo, AND a relatively high chance of exploding and becoming useless? Hardly a fix, I think.
The ammo cost is "technically" offset by the feat tax of Gunsmithing which brings the cost back to where it should be, and at higher levels (when you are dropping 10s of thousands of gp on magic items) amounts to loose change.
Actually I'm no fan of the misfire rule. No other weapon has gains the broken condition on the roll of a natural 1. (much less has a chance to explode) I'm not happy that they made it standard instead of keeping it optional, but as it was an optional rule and the new mechanic is cleaner I don't see it as that much of a negative compared to the old rules.
And honestly, guns should be about as good as crossbows. They should be less bulky and faster to reload. Since there is no room mechanically between the crossbow and bow for reload time, that should end up a wash with them being on par with crossbows.
+1
I wish they had made exploding dice standard, gun jams on a 1 and go ahead and keep the X4 crit and increase in dice damage.
The touch attack aspect is a) currently problematic and b) going to be long term problematic as additional features will always have to be considered through the prism of having a range touch attack weapon available to all classes at an accessible price.
When you start with a 20 dex and use both your belt and your arm slot, are a fighter focusing several abilities and feats on a single weapon you can be almost as likely to hit as pretty much anyone with a fire arm over say, 8th level.
Misfire is a legitimate issue, and a clunky mechanic.
The old system was better. I could have used some revision, but the make over is both more complicated in execution while also creating major potential exploits and loopholes.
No -- as a matter of fact you are better than anyone using a firearm at that point. In fact it takes much more effort for the firearm to even break even with a fighter's damage output -- which is exactly my point.
At its best the firearm is a clunky weapon that doesn't work well and is liable to hold you back.
Now with that said I personally did like the exploding dice system with firearms better -- in fact that's what my group has agreed to stay with until we see exactly what is in ultimate combat... even then we'll probably stick to the exploding dice firearms.
However as they are right now -- firearms are not impressive.
|
|
When you start with a 20 dex and use both your belt and your arm slot, are a fighter focusing several abilities and feats on a single weapon you can be almost as likely to hit as pretty much anyone with a fire arm over say, 8th level.
Misfire is a legitimate issue, and a clunky mechanic.
The old system was better. I could have used some revision, but the make over is both more complicated in execution while also creating major potential exploits and loopholes.
No -- as a matter of fact you are better than anyone using a firearm at that point. In fact it takes much more effort for the firearm to even break even with a fighter's damage output -- which is exactly my point.
At its best the firearm is a clunky weapon that doesn't work well and is liable to hold you back.
Now with that said I personally did like the exploding dice system with firearms better -- in fact that's what my group has agreed to stay with until we see exactly what is in ultimate combat... even then we'll probably stick to the exploding dice firearms.
However as they are right now -- firearms are not impressive.
I can put all my enhancements into damage and be just as likely to hit.
And the firearm is a clunky weapon. Which is a far bigger problem than any game-breaking aspects. I am more annoyed that introducing this type of mechanic just begs for cheese builds and exploits.
And at least we agree on the exploding dice. And honestly, in most other threads :)
I can put all my enhancements into damage and be just as likely to hit.
And the firearm is a clunky weapon. Which is a far bigger problem than any game-breaking aspects. I am more annoyed that introducing this type of mechanic just begs for cheese builds and exploits.
And at least we agree on the exploding dice. And honestly, in most other threads :)
I really don't think all the enhancements in damage are going to do much good.
Remember you still have to close to first range increment for that touch attack -- which is really short range for a ranged weapon -- the fighter can hit out to 120 feet with a composite longbow at no penalties -- the gun user isn't going to have that option -- and he's taking stiff penalties instead of getting a touch attack.
Add to this the fact that most enhancements simply are not worth it compared to what you get out of a +5 weapon and I don't think you'll see much return. Maybe if you stick to things like Holy, and Axiomatic you will. I have no doubt you'll want reliable though, and you'll want distance too to try and increase the range you get touch attacks (for a pistol this would get you out to 40 feet -- which I would consider minimum before the firearm's touch attack is a real danger of any sort). That means you are already +3 for only a +1 bonus... if you take anything else to kill the misfire chance you will hit +7 before any damage enhancements at all.
That's a lot of gold to dish out simply to make a weapon work. Not to count the feats you must spend in order for the firearm to actually be relevant. I'm not talking about the feats the archer is going to need too -- I'm talking about the need for exotic proficiency and rapid reload.
Now granted a character *could* get those feats, and all the ranged feats he needs to be relevant -- but if he isn't a fighter or rogue he's going to be doing a lot of nothing for a long time.
************************************************
I will agree that my only real problem with these firearms rules is the fact that they just about guarantee a knee jerk reaction of "that's too powerful" even when it really isn't.
The math and actual probabilities support the gun as a horrible weapon choice (much like most of the exotic weapons actually...) but on the surface it doesn't appear that way.
|
|
Then you must be a player, not a DM. Would you honestly like to play a 15th level fighter with AC 42 and Touch AC 12, and have the DM sick a gunslinger at you in every single encounter? Answer yes to that and I will shut up forever on the issue.
1: I GM more than I play, in many different systems and settings.
2: If I play a 15th level fighter with touch AC 12 I deserve everything I get.
3: If I was playing and my GM threw the EXACT SAME challenge at me every single encounter (regardless of what that challenge is) I would inform him/her that they were a crap GM.
So as far as I can see it, your fears amount to GM's being crap or players somehow having an edge over a certain kind of monster (big ones). If this is the case use other challenges as a GM, or as a player, don't play with crap GM's.
I guess I would answer no to your question, but not for the reasons you suggest.
|
|
So, out of 10 changes we have 4 improvements, 3 minor changes/nerfs, and 2 major nerfs plus the touch AC debacle.
Honestly I think the best answer to this would be drop Touch AC, increase threat range by 1 where Touch AC is referenced, and restore the old range increments (or at least increase them a bit). This puts the balance about where it was while keeping all the improvements.
So your solution is to take away Touch AC? So, basically, we just make guns the worst weapons in the game.
Absolutely NO benefit over a crossbow (except the critical hit modifier), expensive ammo, AND a relatively high chance of exploding and becoming useless? Hardly a fix, I think.
Swap exploding dice for touch. Use old ammo costs and range. New misfire is ok (as long as gunslingers get reductions)