I have yet to play a gunslinger, but I don't really see the logic in the size penalty.
I see the logic in a penalty for melee weapons like a sword or a spear; a smaller person requires a smaller lance, and so the smaller lance, which has less weight, would do less damage. I can also see the logic in a bow-and-arrow doing less damage; a longbow made for a halfling couldn't have as much bend, and therefore the arrows would shoot with less force, and cut a person up less effectively (and maybe the arrowheads would be smaller).
With certain ranged weapons, however, this rule makes little to no sense to me. Why should the halfling sling staff (built for halfings) do less damage when a halfling wields it, as compared to a big person? Can't a halfling use a big person's hand crossbow? To them, wouldn't it just be a light crossbow, and therefore do the same damage that a big person's hand crossbow would (just like a big person's dagger was pretty much a short sword for Bilbo).
But guns and bullets go over the line here. One of the essential characteristics of a gun (and I'm talking about the real world here) is their ability to equalize. When I was in college we had a philosophy course that briefly dealt with guns and how their potential for destruction and black market proliferation were more than offset by their ability to grant self-defense to individuals (I won't say which side of the debate I was on, as it's not appropriate to this forum).
Basically, the argument boiled down to this: a woman who is 5'0" is poorly equipped to defend herself from the attacks of an abusive husband that is 14" taller and outweighs her by, let's say, a hundred pounds. A kitchen knife or baseball bat in her hands probably isn't going to make a huge amount of difference. But put a .45 in her hands, and then put one in her husband's, and suddenly they're pretty much on equal footing, because those weapons have equal stopping power. She will actually have an advantage if she's trained to use it and he isn't.
I don't see the point of imposing a penalty on halflings using "inappropriately sized" firearms. Is the idea that a halfling using a big person's gun would get knocked on their... behind? I would think that a halfling trained in the use of one (like a gunslinger), would simply know what to expect and brace oneself accordingly. To me it feels like Pathfinder rules would tell Peter Dinklage that he can't handle a .44 Magnum without a good chance of goofing up his shot (-2 on attack roll). Does Hit Girl need special "small" guns, and if she did, would they do less damage? I could [i]maybe[i] see imposing an attack penalty on things like rifles, but at the same I don't agree with reducing the damage for a halfling-sized rifle. Maybe the barrel needs to be a bit shorter and the grips and trigger a little smaller, but the powder and bullet can remain the same, as far as I'm concerned. Halfling muscles aren't pulling back a bowstring or loading a crossbow; it doesn't take extra muscle to load the same powder and bullet that the big people use, and the kick isn't so great that they can't get used to it with a little training. Does a halfling alchemist do less damage with a bomb, or have a shorter range?
As I look over the stats on halflings, perhaps the problem is that PF makes them too small. Why are they shorter than gnomes? Papa Tolkien described Hobbits as ranging from 2 to 4 feet, with an average height of 3'6", which seems to be 2 inches taller than the tallest PF Halfling ever. And IIRC, Frodo had a great uncle on the Took side who was so big that he could ride a horse (and once knocked an orc's head clean off and into a gopher hole, inventing the game of golf). Would he have been able to handle a big person's pistol?
My objection goes beyond simply debating the logic; I actually think that the damage should be the same and that that should be one of the main draws to the Gunslinger class. I think there ought to be a way for small-sized PC's to get ranged attacks without size penalties, since it's the kind of combat they ought to excel in. I'd even be willing to accept revocation of the +1 size bonus to attack rolls for it (equal footing goes both ways).
Consider two first-level gunslingers. One is a halfling and one human. They both have the same Dex bonus. Three things are out of balance
a) the halfling is (slightly) more likely to hit his opponent
b) the halfling is a little harder to hit than the human
c) the halfling is more likely to die if he does get hit.
To me B makes sense (shortie has much smaller strike zone) but A and C really don't. The halfling's bullet should be the same size as his taller opponent. It is here that the great equalizer that is the gun suddenly and inexplicably falls short.
Sorry so long-winded, but I've been thinking about this all day.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
A halfling has about 1/8th of the mass of a human. If anythings unrealistic, it's the fact that the halfling doesn't get any penalties for firing a bullet that has only slightly less impact than one fired with a human sized gun.
I'm okay with the rules as they are, though.
Assuming we have a fit 180 pound human fighter...
I think even the 2'10" minimal halfling has more than 22.5 pounds on him. In fact, the random weight generator starts at 32...
Eh, close enough. The fighter's probably a 200+ pound tank anyway. I won't say that you're math is wrong, but I do still disagree. I think the halfling deserves to be more dense, to the tune of an extra 20-50 pounds and about six inches of height. The stats they give strike me as more gnomish than halflingish, and at variance with Tolkien (the guy who invented the race).
Ever use a 20-pound bag of sand to steady a pistol shot? It does a hell of a job absorbing recoil. Now imagine that it's sentient, can grow arms, and has devoted it's life to the use of firearms.
Googling "flintlock recoil" led me to a bulletin board where somebody was asking how big of a caliber to give to an 8-year-old for his first flintlock. A few sample answers:
"Minimum of .40 cal. Even with full loads recoil is hardly noticeable. Load it down to half the full charge and recoil is not an issue at all but it is still very accruate at 25 to 50 yards." (that's 150 feet, yes?)
Another:
"I have flint locks in .32 to .75. Recoil in any of them is not
much if you don’t have a magnum mine set and see how
much you can over load them. I use a bore cleaner as a
patch lube and my .32 will shoot all day as easy as if I had
only shot it once. .32 are fun to shoot and inexpensive to
shoot (less powder & lead). If you want the kid to hunt big
game with it then check with his state that he would hunt
in as to what is legal to use."
I don't think it's warping combat rules too far to say that recoil that's "not much" for an 8-year old human (even a buff 8-year old probably has a strength score well below 7) is something an adult, trained halfling with a strength of 10 can handle without hitting him with a penalty to either his damage or his attack roll.
If recoil/momentum is the issue, why not simply impose a penalty for low strength scores instead? Wouldn't greater physical strength allow you to keep the weapon steady? I think an attack penalty equal to every point of negative strength modifier would be in order; this would keep your halfling gunslingers from treating strength as a dump stat.
So to sum up my proposal - strip small characters of their +1 attack bonus while using firearms. Then impose an attack penalty for having a Strength score less than 10 equal to the modifier, while simultaneously granting no bonus for a positive modifier (since being exceptionally strong doesn't really help you shoot better, but being weak means you have difficulty keeping it steady and accurate against recoil). Impose a penalty for small characters using a two-handed rifle, but offer them a smaller version with equal damage. Allow them to use pistols with full damage at no attack penalty, as long as they have at least one level in Gunslinger (which implies some training and familiarity with firearms).
Seems fairly balanced to me. As the rules are now it doesn't seem worth it to me to have a halfling gunslinger. And that just seems... wrong. The little guys should be just as able to mess up that T-Rex with a pistol or rifle as anyone else, since it's the explosive force of the powder doing the work.
I have yet to play a gunslinger, but I don't really see the logic in the size penalty.
The only size penalties Pathfinder has are those to attack rolls, AC, CMD/CMB, Fly and Hide. And I think Intimidate has a relative size penalty as well.
In most cases, the penalty gets worse the bigger you get.
With certain ranged weapons, however, this rule makes little to no sense to me. Why should the halfling sling staff (built for halfings) do less damage when a halfling wields it, as compared to a big person?
It is clear that you misunderstand the weapon size rules.
A halfling sling staff isn't automatically built for halflings. It's just a name. There are (or at least can be) halfling sling staves for all sizes. A medium one is made for humans (and elves and so on), and does more damage than a small one (which is made for halflings and other small creatures).
The small one does less damage because it is smaller and loads smaller ammo.
Can't a halfling use a big person's hand crossbow?
Yes, he can.
To them, wouldn't it just be a light crossbow, and therefore do the same damage that a big person's hand crossbow would (just like a big person's dagger was pretty much a short sword for Bilbo).
Note that this is an optional rule. The core assumption is that if you use a weapon that is not made for your size, it is still the same type of weapon (i.e. a longsword is a longsword even if a halfling uses a medium-sized one) and you take a penalty for using an inappropriately-sized weapons. Its handing also changes. If you use a weapon one size too large, it goes from light to one-handed or from one-handed to two-handed (you can't use an oversized weapon that is already two-handed)
There is the optional rule to use weapon equivalencies (medium longsword = small greatsword), but that doesn't always make sense, since those weapons are made for their size category (the handle is made for a medium-size person, small hands might not get a decent grip)
But guns and bullets go over the line here. One of the essential characteristics of a gun (and I'm talking about the real world here) is their ability to equalize.
That be as it may, but guns have different sizes and thus different damage potential, too: A small .22 Derringer does not have the same stopping power as a Desert Eagle .50.
And that DE is a man's weapon. It's not child's play to use that thing, because it kicks like a mule. I'd bet that a halfling would be unable to wield a human-sized Deagle altogether.
Basically, the argument boiled down to this: a woman who is 5'0" is poorly equipped to defend herself from the attacks of an abusive husband that is 14" taller and outweighs her by, let's say, a hundred pounds. A kitchen knife or baseball bat in her hands probably isn't going to make a huge amount of difference. But put a .45 in her hands, and then put one in her husband's, and suddenly they're pretty much on equal footing, because those weapons have equal stopping power. She will actually have an advantage if she's trained to use it and he isn't.
You're going at this wrong. You need to put the Halfling and his Derringer against a 15' Giant using a heavy machinegun as a sidearm.
I can assure you that the footing is far from equal here.
I don't agree with reducing the damage for a halfling-sized rifle.
But it makes sense: Halflings are smaller, so they'll get a shorter barrel with a smaller diameter, the ammo they'll load will be smaller, have a smaller charge, and do less damage.
As I look over the stats on halflings, perhaps the problem is that PF makes them too small. Why are they shorter than gnomes?
The problem is that you think halflings are bigger than they "actually" are. I put actually in quotation marks because they're a fictional range.
Papa Tolkien described Hobbits as ranging from 2 to 4 feet, with an average height of 3'6", which seems to be 2 inches taller than the tallest PF Halfling ever.
Halflings aren't hobbits, and the only "gnomes" Tolkien's stuff had were actually the most powerful elves.
And IIRC, Frodo had a great uncle on the Took side who was so big that he could ride a horse (and once knocked an orc's head clean off and into a gopher hole, inventing the game of golf). Would he have been able to handle a big person's pistol?
And Golarion has that guy who managed to pass the most difficult and dangerous test a mortal could ever face while being dead drunk.
That doesn't mean that humans can automatically turn into gods when they're drunk enough. Just means that there was one (quite exceptional) human that made it.
I actually think that the damage should be the same and that that should be one of the main draws to the Gunslinger class.
Main draws? The day the major attractions to a class contain "halflings get to use the same weapons as humans in that class" is the day I cancel all my subscriptions.
I think there ought to be a way for small-sized PC's to get ranged attacks without size penalties, since it's the kind of combat they ought to excel in.
No. They excel in ranged combat, but not because they get to use oversized weapons. They usually excel in it because their size makes it easier for them to shoot the bigger humans, harder for the humans to hit them back, and easier for them to hide from humans (which is good if you want to be a sniper).
Bigger damage dice don't figure in.
I'd even be willing to accept revocation of the +1 size bonus to attack rolls for it (equal footing goes both ways).
Then take Deadly Aim. -1 to attacks, +2 to damage. You're now on the same footing as a human. Enjoy.
Kae has summed it all up pretty well.
Thanks for the feedback. I don't agree that burning a feat should be the solution in this situation, since the halfling gunslinger has to burn that feat at first level to be on "equal footing" with a human of similar XP, Dex bonus (and the human gets to take Weapon Focus and Point Blank shot).
EDIT: As I read Deadly Aim, it says "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage." Doesn't this nullify most of a gunslinger's attacks?
A halfling sling staff isn't automatically built for halflings. It's just a name. There are (or at least can be) halfling sling staves for all sizes. A medium one is made for humans (and elves and so on), and does more damage than a small one (which is made for halflings and other small creatures).The small one does less damage because it is smaller and loads smaller ammo.
I guess I was confused about this. Thanks for clearing this up.
Halflings aren't hobbits
Come on.
The day the major attractions to a class contain "halflings get to use the same weapons as humans in that class" is the day I cancel all my subscriptions.
Sounds pretty extreme.
A halfling alchemist and a human alchemist are chucking bombs at a troll. The bombs are the same size, and do the same damage. Does the halfling get a range penalty? After all, he weighs a lot less, and should have less momentum to throw the thing. Also his arms are significantly shorter. And if he's made to throw a smaller bomb, shouldn't it do less damage?
Thanks.
Thanks for the feedback. I don't agree that burning a feat should be the solution in this situation, since the halfling gunslinger has to burn that feat at first level to be on "equal footing" with a human of similar XP, Dex bonus (and the human gets to take Weapon Focus and Point Blank shot).
Thing is, halflings are smaller. That means better attack bonus, less damage. If you don't want that, there's the human race for you to play. Or other medium-sized races.
The way weapon sizes and size modifiers are set up in PF makes a lot of sense. Smaller creature, smaller weapon, smaller damage potential. Making them the same would be boring, frankly.
So playing small characters and trying to get as much weapon damage as a medium one is not going to work. There are other ways to get nice damage, or generally be effective, but brute strength and bigger weapons is not going to work.
EDIT: As I read Deadly Aim, it says "The bonus damage does not apply to touch attacks or effects that do not deal hit point damage." Doesn't this nullify most of a gunslinger's attacks?
I'm too lazy to look up the playtest document or search the boards right now, but I'm quite sure that this either has already been addressed or is going to be addressed in the final game. If I remember correctly, one of the developers chimed in and said that guns should be able to use deadly aim.
Could be wrong, though.
Come on.
Halflings aren't hobbits
No, it's true. Back in the first editions of D&D, there was a race called hobbits. Then, when Tolkien House complained about copyright infringement, the race was renamed to halfling. Back then, that was the biggest difference.
Not any more. The focus of the halfling race has shifted.
And the exact sizes races can have are really not something you should look at stories that are not PF/D&D for.
In PF, halflings aren't as big.
You can always change that in your own setting, of course.
Doesn't really change the fact that they are small (as in size category small).
Sounds pretty extreme.
The day the major attractions to a class contain "halflings get to use the same weapons as humans in that class" is the day I cancel all my subscriptions.
Maybe. But if a class is being advertised with "gets to ignore some of the basic rules in the game", serious red flags are being raised in my head. Especially if it's "small races can now do medium races stuff", as opposed to "you can use weapons made for creatures one size category larger (so while halflings would be allowed to use human-sized weapons, the humans could use ogre-sized stuff).
A halfling alchemist and a human alchemist are chucking bombs at a troll. The bombs are the same size, and do the same damage. Does the halfling get a range penalty? After all, he weighs a lot less, and should have less momentum to throw the thing. Also his arms are significantly shorter. And if he's made to throw a smaller bomb, shouldn't it do less damage?
Thanks.
Bombs aren't weapons in the classical sense. Their damage isn't based on size really. They're more magical in nature. It's what you put into that bomb that matters. Halflings put the same stuff into their bombs as humans, just like they have the same "sprirtual size" as humans so their spells deal the same kind of damage.
For range/reach, the medium and small size categories are usually treated the same, probably because it would be too much bother to do differently, and the difference is not big enough to warrant a change.
Might be a bit inconsistent, because speed is usually a size thing, but I think for weapon range/reach, it was the best way to keep them the same for all player races.
And, the original point still stands: Halflings are smaller and weaker than humans, meaning they can only manage smaller calibres. That means smaller bullets (less mass to hit you and make a mess of your insides as they deform, or alternately pierce you, depending on ammo type) with a smaller payload, which means they won't go as fast (meaning less power).
For a fellow less than a metre tall, a 9mm would probably be a heavy weapon, while for a normal-sized human, it's not so bad. They'll have their difficulty with a .50 gun, while a 3m ogre will not find that not too much of a strain.
Keep thinking along the lines and you see rune giants ripping of railguns off battleships and using them as personal weapons.
|
Guns should only have one size unless they are custom buit for larger than man size creatures or conversley custom bulit for gnomes or halflings.
The small size creatures only being alowed to fire small sized weapons is just a load of whooy. Do gnome and Haling wizards cast small sized fireballs that deal less damage? Melee weapons deal less damage because they have less mass and thats how melee weapons deal damage.
Missle weapons should always deal the same amount of damage unless they are larger than man sized.
I sure people will say halfling sized crossbows are smaller but a cross bow can be made with gears and pulleys to give it the same strength as a standard sized crossbow.
Guns should only have one size unless they are custom buit for larger than man size creatures or conversley custom bulit for gnomes or halflings.
I don't see how a halfling could wield a longarm made for humans. He'd need a tripod to keep the barrel steady.
Do gnome and Haling wizards cast small sized fireballs that deal less damage?
Do wizards toss physical stuff around?
No they don't. They use magic. If you're using magic, only the size of your mind counts.
Melee weapons deal less damage because they have less mass and thats how melee weapons deal damage.
Missle weapons should always deal the same amount of damage unless they are larger than man sized.
You want to seriously claim that size does not affect the damage potential of ranged weapons?
What a halfling calls a longbow is basically a shortbow for humans. A human longbow is way too big for a halfling to wield. They'd have to hold their hands straight up to grip it at the right place. They'd need a periscope to aim properly. They'd need arm extensions to draw the thing completely. They probably wouldn't be as comfortable holding bigger arrows, either.
Since we don't have halflings in our world, go and buy a longbow, and then put it in the hands of a 4-year-old (which are about as tall on average as a halfling). Tell the little tyke to shoot that thing.
I sure people will say halfling sized crossbows are smaller but a cross bow can be made with gears and pulleys to give it the same strength as a standard sized crossbow.
And what size is that? Light? Heavy? Why are there light cossbows if heavy ones are the same?
Plus, if you make halfling crossbows with pulleys and gears and whatnot to make them as powerful as a standard human crossbow, why would humans use standard human crossbows? They'd have the ones with gears and pulleys as well, and can now use a crossbow with the power of an ogre's crossbow. The ogres, of course, will have pulleys and rival storm giants. It goes on and on.
Claiming the sizes are the same because the smaller ones could use tricks the bigger ones could use just as well is a pretty thin argument.
Bombs aren't weapons in the classical sense. Their damage isn't based on size really. They're more magical in nature. It's what you put into that bomb that matters.
This cuts exactly to the heart of my point. Why is this different for a gun? Isn't it what you put into the gunpowder that matters? Shouldn't this not be based on size? While the chemical reaction that propels a bullet isn't strictly "magical", there's nothing particularly magical about an alchemist's bombs other than the fact that they're the only ones that can use them (a condition that gunslingers share with their battered firearms). I really don't think doubling the size of a bullet is suddenly going to knock a halfling down.
As to rifles and longer weapons... yes, I think there's a point to be made that a halfling can't really handle a "two-handed" firearm without some help, and should suffer his -2 attack penalty. It's the pistols that bothers me.And I don't think that halfling pistols with the same damage as humans is some kind of horribly unbalancing element that throws Pathfinder all out of whack.
Plus, if you make halfling crossbows with pulleys and gears and whatnot to make them as powerful as a standard human crossbow, why would humans use standard human crossbows? They'd have the ones with gears and pulleys as well,
My point boils down to the fact that gunpowder is a great equalizer analogous to the pulleys that you're talking about here. The halflings aren't THROWING the bullets, any more than the humans are; they're loading them up with chemical powder that explodes and does the throwing for them, and with practice, they should be able to know what's coming and be prepared for it.
You keep bringing in these bizarre extreme examples of giants with railguns (railguns? In PF? Where did that come from?) and ogres with crossbows that can suddenly rival storm giants, as if a) it doesn't sound cool and b) it relates to what I'm talking about. I really don't think it does. You must be confusing me with someone saying "all size restrictions on weapons should be thrown out". I have patiently explained why I think most size restrictions on weapons are reasonable (and indicated confusion on others, which you cleared up and I thank you for it), but also why I think they shouldn't apply to one specific type of weapon (firearms), and only pertaining to one class (gunslinger), which is still in the playtesting stage. I don't know you, but it seems pretty silly to turn in your badge and um, gun, just because a halfling gunslinger can suddenly use a big boy pistol.
Technically (though I houserule this to be extraordinary) Alchemist bombs are a supernatural ability. Supernatural abilities are quasi-magical. They don't work in anti-magic fields, but their effects can't be dismissed by dispel magic. Also in the description of Alchemist, its abilities, etc, there is precedent for its abilities being magical. This also explains why bomb damage increases with Int mod on a 1:1 basis (as spells are often improved by dependent casting stat) as opposed to having a feat, discovery, etc. with a minimum Int requirement to improve bombs (which would be more representative of a character being smart enough to discover more effective chemical reactions)
Also, regarding Deadly Aim. Rules for firearms specifically say that while firearms resolve attacks against Touch AC, they do not count as touch attacks or ranged touch attacks (they are simply ranged missile attacks that resolve against touch AC) for the purposes of abilities and modifiers (i.e. Deadly Aim can be applied to it, and Deflect Arrows can be used to nullify it.)
I don't know you, but it seems pretty silly to turn in your badge and um, gun, just because a halfling gunslinger can suddenly use a big boy pistol.
Shooting someone with the Halfings .22 isn't going to do as much damage as the Humans Colt .45, but there's nothing stopping Mr Halfling picking up said Colt .45 and wearing a -2 TH Penalty.
So he CAN in fact have 'equal' footing, without the spend of a feat.
He will be -1 TO HIT, and have the advantage of being -1 TO BE HIT.
Balance is maintained.
in 3.5's dmg they had anti-matter rifles
medium dealt 6d8 damage, small did 6d6...
its friggen antimatter. how does that work?
Bigger weapon = more antimatter?
Anyway, it was still a manufactured weapon, they probably wanted to stick to the code.
It might not make too much sense for antimatter, but then again I'm no expert on the military applications of antimatter, how you'd weaponise it, and what the effect would be if you shoot it at people. And it's sci-fi/fantasy, so you don't necessarily have to stick completely to science. So it might mean parts of you disappear, or you explode, or whatever.
Anyway, size-based damage for that stuff might be correct, or it might. I'm guessing, though, that they just wanted a cool name for their future weapons in a section that is more an afterthought. I probably just put more thought into the whole thing than they did.
This cuts exactly to the heart of my point. Why is this different for a gun? Isn't it what you put into the gunpowder that matters? Shouldn't this not be based on size?
Bigger weapon = bigger calibre. Bigger calibre = bigger bullets. With bigger payload. With bigger energy yield.
While the chemical reaction that propels a bullet isn't strictly "magical", there's nothing particularly magical about an alchemist's bombs other than the fact that they're the only ones that can use them
An alchemist's alchemy (which includes bombs) is magical in nature. It's not just mixing chemicals. It's mixing chemicals and then infusing the whole mess with magic.
That's why bombs only work if alchemists use them, and why they're not size-based.
(a condition that gunslingers share with their battered firearms).
The battered firearms aren't useless to others because of magic. They're useless to others because sometimes technical stuff just is that way. "Nancy's car. Six miles from the farm. 'Nobody but me can keep this heap running' she told me. Good girl. The car stalled out on that yellow bastard and you didn't tell him how to start it up again. You kept your mouth shut. I'll bet Junior was furious."
I really don't think doubling the size of a bullet is suddenly going to knock a halfling down.
How much can you double the size?
Remember that you'll be doubling the size of a human bullet, too.
And I don't think that halfling pistols with the same damage as humans is some kind of horribly unbalancing element that throws Pathfinder all out of whack.
And I don't think them having the exact same weapons makes sense, and it's totally unnecessary.
You keep bringing in these bizarre extreme examples of giants with railguns (railguns? In PF? Where did that come from?) and ogres with crossbows that can suddenly rival storm giants, as if a) it doesn't sound cool and b) it relates to what I'm talking about.
So you're saying that only halflings can use that stuff and thus need to have the same weapons as humans?
I think they shouldn't apply to one specific type of weapon (firearms), and only pertaining to one class (gunslinger), which is still in the playtesting stage. I don't know you, but it seems pretty silly to turn in your badge and um, gun, just because a halfling gunslinger can suddenly use a big boy pistol.
What you're either not understanding or intentionally ignoring is that if halflings can learn to use medium pistols, humans can learn to use large pistols.
Class abilities that only apply to characters of a certain size are bad design.
Shooting anti-matter would just be a waste. (and likely make a much bigger boom.)
Especially since it would go boom as soon as it hits the matter (ie air) right outside the barrel. :)
Uhm, topic, right. I'm totally with KY on this one. Be thankful that you don't actually take penalties to hit or smaller range increments due to small-size guns having shorter barrels and thus a shorter effective range like they would in real life.
|
[QUOTE="ZappoHisbane"
Especially since it would go boom as soon as it hits the matter (ie air) right outside the barrel. :)
Unless it was surrounded by some sort of magnetic envelope that breaks on impact.
But yes, I agree that smaller firearms should do less damage and smaller people need smaller guns. Even my 70 lbs 4+ foot 3rd grader wouldn't be able to fire my Colt 45 and she is significantly bigger than a halfling in Pathfinder.
[QUOTE="ZappoHisbane"
Especially since it would go boom as soon as it hits the matter (ie air) right outside the barrel. :)
Unless it was surrounded by some sort of magnetic envelope that breaks on impact.
But yes, I agree that smaller firearms should do less damage and smaller people need smaller guns. Even my 70 lbs 4+ foot 3rd grader wouldn't be able to fire my Colt 45 and she is significantly bigger than a halfling in Pathfinder.
Ah, but does she have a strength of 12? Is she an adventurer who has been trained to, um, sling guns?
A halfling sling staff isn't automatically built for halflings.
Say Whaaaaaat? you find a +1 halfling sling staff listed as treasure in a dungeon and you, the DM, would need to check the size on it?
"Sorry there Mr halfling, this magical weapon is also sized for a medium character, no treasure for you this time either."
Dog slicers and dwarven waraxes aren't automatically meant for goblins and dwarves? Sure by the rules you can have these weapons in all sizes I suppose, but doesn't that seem silly to you? A giant sized dog slicer? A fine sized dwarven waraxe? Wouldn't you assume that these things would be normally sized for the race that builds and uses them?
That be as it may, but guns have different sizes and thus different damage potential, too: A small .22 Derringer does not have the same stopping power as a Desert Eagle .50.
And that DE is a man's weapon. It's not child's play to use that thing, because it kicks like a mule. I'd bet that a halfling would be unable to wield a human-sized Deagle altogether.
But it makes sense: Halflings are smaller, so they'll get a shorter barrel with a smaller diameter, the ammo they'll load will be smaller, have a smaller charge, and do less damage.
Yet the bullet, gun, and powder costs the same. You'd think that if you were using a smaller shot and less powder in a smaller gun the costs would be less, but they aren't.
Let's not look at extremes here, we're not talking about Derringers and Desert Eagles, we're talking about an average hand gun, a 38 in the hands of of a kindergartner. Are you saying that the kick would be too great for someone that size?
No wait, that's to basic an argument. We're not talking real world here or there wouldn't be an argument at all! Let's look at it this way: a halfling with a 10 strength weighs 20 pounds but likely has at least that much in gear and can easily lift 75 pounds over his/her head. We're not talking about a toddler strength here, we're...
Huzzah!
... er, uh, +1.
|
|
Yet the bullet, gun, and powder costs the same. You'd think that if you were using a smaller shot and less powder in a smaller gun the costs would be less, but they aren't.
A mithral shirt for halflings costs the same amount of gp as a human sized mithral shirt. Are you really arguing that it should weight as much since it uses the same amount of mithral?
I really don't think doubling the size of a bullet is suddenly going to knock a halfling down.How much can you double the size?
Remember that you'll be doubling the size of a human bullet, too.
How does this follow? Why must it be that if a halfling, who lives in a world where the most effective guns are built by people bigger and learns to cope with that disparity through training needs to automatically translate into humans being able to wield cannon-sized weapons?
And I don't think that halfling pistols with the same damage as humans is some kind of horribly unbalancing element that throws Pathfinder all out of whack.And I don't think them having the exact same weapons makes sense, and it's totally unnecessary.
Well, agree to disagree.
Class abilities that only apply to characters of a certain size are bad design.
And yet certain races naturally bend towards certain classes. Elves with a hit to their CON don't usually become Barbarians. Dwarves with a hit to CHA don't usually become bards.
So halflings, with a BONUS to DEX, face an uphill battle to become gunslingers? Doesn't make sense to me.Let me put it this way:
Think about a guy who's about three feet tall, and has grown up in a city full of giants. He's not too bright, has no skill for magic, and doesn't fit into a few of the usual halfling stereotypes in that he can't play a tune worth a dang and the fact that he's been kicked around most of his life has left him bitter and hostile (CHA is his dump stat). But by virtue of his small size and apparent innocuousness, he can muster up enough charm so that it's not really a handicap, and he's used this to get out of a few jams - but just as often his charm has failed him, and he paid the price in bruises and concussions.
He's tougher and stronger than many of his race, but as he comes of age he realizes that no matter how much he trains and exercises, he'll never be able to stand toe-to-toe with a trained human fighter and come out on top. He feels himself gravitating towards an inevitable life of crime... and then one day he comes into the possession of a wondrous, magical thing that has the potential to put him on equal footing with the big people.
He takes his battered old flintlock out to the woods to practice. At first it knocks him on his rear. But he gets up, and he tries it again. And again. And again. Over time, with lots of practice, (he stole a crate of powder and bullets with his amazing stealth abilities) he learns how to use it without getting knocked down. Even better, he gets to the point where he can get the hole almost exactly where he wants it more often than not. Lucky for him he seems to have a natural edge when it comes to aiming ranged weapons; finally his parentage seems to be paying off.
Before you know it, our man is strolling around town with confidence, a smile, and a reassuring weight on his hip, tucked just under his coat. Some of his old nemeses catch up with him in an alleyway, ready to split his head open with their fists, but they're in for a surprise...
I have trouble swallowing the fact that with an 18 DEX and, let's say a 14 STR, our man still has to choose between a -2 penalty or a hit to damage dice in the WEAPON THAT HIS CLASS IS NAMED FOR.
I think unpenalized proficiency with the weapon at its baseline damage dice is more than a "class ability", it's the central element to the class, around which everything else about the class revolves and without which there would be no class. Is there another PF class that penalizes a race in the central element to its class (in this case, either hitting with the gun or doing damage with the gun) while simultaneously that race has a bonus in that class's prime requisite (in this case, dexterity)?
Yet the bullet, gun, and powder costs the same. You'd think that if you were using a smaller shot and less powder in a smaller gun the costs would be less, but they aren't.A mithral shirt for halflings costs the same amount of gp as a human sized mithral shirt. Are you really arguing that it should weight as much since it uses the same amount of mithral?
Probably the argument could be made that it ought to cost less, since it takes less material to make it. But let's just say that they don't sell mithral shirts by weight, but by labor.
Since the gunslinger is loading his own pistol, or making his own cartridges, labor shouldn't really be a factor. Certainly I would expect the gunpowder to be sold by weight.|
|
Kae Yoss, perhaps you have never heard of a carbine. Same caliber as a standard sized rifle/musket only with a shorter barell and stock. Mainly used by calvery. a Carbine would deal the same damage as a musket/rifle but would have a shorter range IMO the range increment should be 30' 10' longer than handguns 10' shorter than muskets.
Carbines = halfing muskets
Kae Yoss, perhaps you have never heard of a carbine. Same caliber as a standard sized rifle/musket only with a shorter barell and stock. Mainly used by calvery. a Carbine would deal the same damage as a musket/rifle but would have a shorter range IMO the range increment should be 30' 10' longer than handguns 10' shorter than muskets.
Carbines = halfing muskets
Right, a Carbine is a 'cut down' weapon.
The trigger size and handgrips remain basically the same, the calibre is the same etc... thats not a halfling size musket, as the trigger etc are still human size.The problem WILL REMAIN that the Halfling is now trying to fire a cut down human size weapon thats still 'too big' due to factors such as recoil.
Example of what that might look like.
/endthread.
Kae Yoss, perhaps you have never heard of a carbine. Same caliber as a standard sized rifle/musket only with a shorter barell and stock. Mainly used by calvery. a Carbine would deal the same damage as a musket/rifle but would have a shorter range IMO the range increment should be 30' 10' longer than handguns 10' shorter than muskets.
Carbines = halfing muskets
Right, a Carbine is a 'cut down' weapon.
The trigger size and handgrips remain basically the same, the calibre is the same etc... thats not a halfling size musket, as the trigger etc are still human size.The problem WILL REMAIN that the Halfling is now trying to fire a cut down human size weapon thats still 'too big' due to factors such as recoil.
Example of what that might look like.
/endthread.
You wish.
First of all, the clip you showed is medium-sized people shooting a gun and falling over because they're untrained.
Since we're going this route, let's look at some little kids shooting guns. Not "heroes" who have devoted their lives to the study of firearms, mind you, just some kids who have practiced shooting. None of these weapons is a derringer or a .22.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhNnVoO7CcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA_zVwnxmtw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BH5q_ks87U&NR=1
This kid doesn't look any bigger than a halfling. Someone's helping him steady it (but with a slender, female arm).
More: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKRWYGNEVbg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSJaimwdX5w&feature=fvwrel
Best for last:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4R-7ZO4I1pI
It all has to do with physics - a halflings smaller mass will have more trouble compensating for the recoil of a weapon made for humans, hence the -2 penalty. To negate this, a halfling would use an appropriately sized smaller weapon. Smaller weapons mean less force imparted to the bullet, so less damage.
How does this follow? Why must it be that if a halfling, who lives in a world where the most effective guns are built by people bigger and learns to cope with that disparity through training needs to automatically translate into humans being able to wield cannon-sized weapons?
Because, if there are techniques that allow a small-sized race to effectively wield weapons designed for creatures one size larger then them, then those same techniques could be used by medium-sized creatures to effectively wield weapons for creatures one size bigger then them. So, if small sized characters can use medium sized weapons, then medium sized creatures can use large size weapons.
And those videos all show larger children - a typical halfling is closer in size to a 2 year old. (At least according to this and this (a typical halfling being about 3 feet I believe, so 36 inches). Find me video of a 2 to 4 year old effectively using weapons designed for an adult human, and maybe you would have a point.
|
|
Jera your anaology does not hold water. a halfling may only be between 2 to 3 1-2 feet tall but they can have a 16 strength which would easily allow them to handle even a big game rifles recoil as most humans do not have a 16 strength.
A gunsmith could easily craft a firearm that fires the same powder load
as a human sized rifle in a smaller package for a Halfling that deals the same damage. Also handling the recoil of a large caliber fire are is a matter of training which a gunslinger would have as they are proficent with all firearms and gain weapons training with each type of fire arm as they progress in levels opposed to an untraind shulb.
Firearms in the world guide are way nerded IMO Range increments are far to short a musket should have a range increment of at least 90'.
I support this by the engament ranges in the Napoleonic era were between 30 to 50 yards when using smooth bore muskets. the 95th rifles
an elitie British unit engaged at upto 150 yards and shots by indiviual
rifle men were recorded up to 400 yards. The 95th used the baker rifled musket.
To take a musket or pistol that is already nerfed and make it worse by decreasing the damage completley unbalaces firearms compared to bows crossbows let alone compare the range of firearms to even short range spells.
Jera your anaology does not hold water. a halfling may only be between 2 to 3 1-2 feet tall but they can have a 16 strength which would easily allow them to handle even a big game rifles recoil as most humans do not have a 16 strength.
Yet 16 Str for a Small creature DOES NOT EQUAL 16 Str for a medium does it? It is actually TWO DIFFERENT FIGURES.
Hint: look up carrying capacity for size. There's the first clue.
Also, these aren't napoleonic rifles, thats a much later era... these things in PF would be museum pieces by that time.
The other point is that running around firing appropriate size weapons is hard work.. its not standing still like the kid in the video for up to TWO COMBAT ROUNDS just getting his posture in shape, you are moving, firing and reloading on the fly - this is hard physical work (as those in the know would know) not just totting daddys 12g out on the porch for a yippee shoot.
Well, a 16 strength does have the same modifier no matter what your size is. However, a 16 strength is not the same for a small creature as it is for a medium creature for carrying capacity. A halfling with a 16 strength can only manage 172 pounds as a heavy load, which a human can do with a 14 strength.
So it depends on how you look at it. The modifiers don't change, but looking at the carrying rules a small 16 is indeed weaker than a medium 16.
And that 16 strength halfling would be as rare as an 18 strength human would be. (Well, may be common if it is a player character. Rare for NPCs.) So saying a halfling with a 16 strength can do it doesn't matter, as that is an exceptional halfling, nowhere near your typical strength halfling.
(As a note, if you follow what is said here, where real world people would be at best 5th level, then that 16 strength halfing would be the the running for the Worlds Strongest Halfing competition.)
uhwhaaa? In what way are they two different figures? Aren't they the same figure, but the small creature sufferes a penalty during character creation?
No they aren't.
A Human (size M) with 16 Str can carry:
16 / 76 lbs. or less / 77–153 lbs. / 154–230 lbs.
A Dwarf/Halfling/Gnome with the same score can only carry:
16 / 57 lbs. or less / 58-114 lbs / 115-172 lbs.
Thats RAW.
So straight up, no they aren't the same.
Similarly the strength bonus will be notionally the same (+3th/dam) but the smaller size of the weapon they can handle will also come into play meaning they cant deliver as much force - hence the lesser weapon damage.
You're saying that one character isn't as strong as another with the exact same strength score. Come on.
A dwarf is a small-sized creature? Dwarves can 172 pounds? Dwarves have the same encumbrance as gnomes and halflings? You might want to check up on that.
As I see it, "can carry" isn't the same as "can lift". Sure, there are weights that I could carry easily that would become unwieldy if you were to blow the volume up without the weight. I don't think this necessarily translates to pistol firearms.
Consider a sawed-off 12-gauge lever action shotgun. There's no way I should be able to wield that one-handed without a penalty. But Arnold can drive around on a Harley and use it one-handed easily (okay, so he's a robot from the future; still, if there were a movie where Arnold was a human bounty hunter or something, I don't think people would question it). I think of halfling gunslingers as the Small version of little Arnolds. They probably couldn't sling that 12-gauge around without a penalty, but a pistol that a regular human is supposed to use without penalty? I don't see why they shouldn't be able to wield it (given the appropriate strength score and their GUNSLINGER TRAINING).
I think there's also something to be said for proportional strength. Based on the carrying capacity table, a halfling with a strength of 10 carrying 24.5 pounds is considered a light load. That's pretty close to his own body weight. A light load for a human with the same strength is 33 pounds - which is nowhere near his body weight unless he's on the moon. A hundred pounds on his back (which is a slender body weight for an elf) is weighing him down and reducing his dex bonus to 1.
Also consider that that lightly-loaded halfling now has about fifty pounds to hold against that recoil.
I don't see why they shouldn't be able to wield it (given the appropriate strength score and their GUNSLINGER TRAINING).
They can. But because the weapons are designed for creatures with larger hands, halflings get a -2 penalty. Their hands simply arn't big enough to comfortably get around the grip and the trigger, and so they have some difficulty (not a lot, it is only a -2 penalty) wielding it. (Yeah, strength has been mentioned as one possible reason for the penalty. But the books make no mention exactly why there is a -2 penalty, other than the size is wrong.) You can not say a weapon designed to fit comfortably in the hand of a medium sized creature will fit just as comfortable in a hand that is half as big at best.
You want to remove the penalty, fine. Make a feat. Oversized Weapon Use or something. Negates the -2 penalty for using a weapon one size larger than you.
And a little side question - why is it, when you mention a halflings strength score, you always pick an above average number? 16 strength, 10 strength? An average halflings strength would be 8. Rules should be based on a typical member of the race, not the rare exceptions. Those body-building halfling gunslingers you imagine would be rare, not the norm.
You're saying that one character isn't as strong as another with the exact same strength score. Come on.
Yes I am, and so is the RAW.
A dwarf is a small-sized creature? Dwarves can 172 pounds? Dwarves have the same encumbrance as gnomes and halflings? You might want to check up on that. .
Ah yes I forgot the stupidity of 3rd Ed plus in which Dwarf means 'Same size as a human'. Apart from the ridiculous assertion of the equality, I will accept by RAW they are M.
So that leaves Halflings and Gnomes, without Dwarves... and you have just therefore stated that the Encumberance rules apply differently.
A Dwarf with 16 Str can CARRY MORE than the other two - therefore aren't you saying one character isn't as strong as another with the exact same strength score.? Oh where have I heard that before?
What you have REALLY highlit is the silliness of such small creatures having (by scale) such ridiculously high physical stat scores, like an 18STR Gnome.
As I see it, "can carry" isn't the same as "can lift". Sure, there are weights that I could carry easily that would become unwieldy if you were to blow the volume up without the weight. I don't think this necessarily translates to pistol firearms..
Having a bet each way much? So my size Tiny dude can walk around with the biggest handgun ever, and that shouldn't be a problem - because he can lift it? So why doesn't the human just walk around with a howitzer? Surely the Howitzer will do more damage? or not?
Now by this logic a dog with a 14 STR is even stronger then a human with a 16 STR as something with four legs can carry even more then something that has two legs.
And have you looked at what the RAW says on this matter?
The dog probably IS according to RAW.
The question you have failed to ask is why the dog has a 14 in the first place.
And a little side question - why is it, when you mention a halflings strength score, you always pick an above average number? 16 strength, 10 strength? An average halflings strength would be 8. Rules should be based on a typical member of the race, not the rare exceptions. Those body-building halfling gunslingers you imagine would be rare, not the norm.
I'm not really interested in playing an "average" or "typical" member of a race while roleplaying. "Average" humans aren't sorcerers or lycanthropes either.
I guess what this is coming down to, which Guy pretty much crystallized, is that PF's size rules/ penalties/ damages have really castrated halflings as any sort of non-spellcasting class, IMO. Even the archetypal halfling "burglar" seems to be out of luck. Do short swords really require a damage or attack penalty for the little guys? Do daggers? Or blowguns?
I can accept that a halfling's going to have a problem with a human lance or a two-handed bastard sword. But a short sword? Does Bilbo have to suffer a -2 penalty to wield sting, because it was built for elves? Can't we just agree that for him, it's like a longsword?
It was my hope that at least the gunslingers would be immune, but I guess not. A halfling should be allowed to wield a pistol as accurately and with as much damage as a human. The counterargument seems to be that it opens the door to humans with cannons on their shoulders, and not suffering a penalty, in the name of "balance", and it just doesn't hold a lot of weight for me.
I'm not really interested in playing an "average" or "typical" member of a race while roleplaying. "Average" humans aren't sorcerers or lycanthropes either.
Then your better than average, you can do something that average halflings can not - wield larger weapons. Doing something special that normal halflings can not do is represented by you having some sort of special ability - in this case, a feat would do. Why change the rules so that all halflings get the ability when only the rare special ones should?
As for firearms being special... why? Anything you can say about firearms would apply just as well to crossbows. The hand crossbow is nothing more than a pistol. It just uses a bolt instead of power and bullet. Just look at their picture in the 3.5 PHB - they are basically pistols.
One point you seem to be missing is pound per pound STR, namely a halfling that weighs 33 pounds, with a 10 STR, could lift 150 lbs, which is 4.5 times his weight.
Which is completely and untterly ridiculous. Think about it.
I haven't MISSED the point, I got it completely - that a Gnome of Halfling can do that is beyond superhuman.
As with the 13-15STR dog, yeah dogs are awesome at bodybuilding all of a sudden and can benchpress like a boss? riiigght.
I'm not really interested in playing an "average" or "typical" member of a race while roleplaying. "Average" humans aren't sorcerers or lycanthropes either.
Then your better than average, you can do something that average halflings can not - wield larger weapons. Doing something special that normal halflings can not do is represented by you having some sort of special ability - in this case, a feat would do. Why change the rules so that all halflings get the ability when only the rare special ones should?
As for firearms being special... why? Anything you can say about firearms would apply just as well to crossbows. The hand crossbow is nothing more than a pistol. It just uses a bolt instead of power and bullet. Just look at their picture in the 3.5 PHB - they are basically pistols.
A) It should be clear by now that I disagree with the size bonus RAW, or at the very least find then incomplete. But I think that a "Wield Larger Weapons" feat is a good compromise. How about if Small Gunslingers got it as a bonus feat at 1st level? 2nd level? Or maybe if there was a Small Gunslinger archetype, and they had to cough something up for it?
B) You actually have to physically pull back the bowstring on a crossbow, and I guess there isn't a mechanism for doing this mechanically in PF (and if there was, it would probably take at least a move action anyway, and no one would want it). A firearm merely requires you to load the powder and bullet into your gun, which is not something that calls upon physical strength so much as dexterity.
Really makes me wonder how many people in this thread have used many/any firearms.
A) It should be clear by now that I disagree with the size bonus RAW, or at the very least find then incomplete. But I think that a "Wield Larger Weapons" feat is a good compromise. How about if Small Gunslingers got it as a bonus feat at 1st level? 2nd level? Or maybe if there was a Small Gunslinger archetype, and they had to cough something up for it?B) You actually have to physically pull back the bowstring on a crossbow, and I guess there isn't a mechanism for doing this mechanically in PF (and if there was, it would probably take at least a move action anyway, and no one would want it). A firearm merely requires you to load the powder and bullet into your gun, which is not something that calls upon physical strength so much as dexterity.
A) I wouldn't give it out for free to anyone. If it is not something the typical member would have, then it shouldn't be given to them. They would have to spend one of their feat slots on it. If you want something that gives you an advantage over others (and wielding larger weapons than normal is an advantage), you need to pay for it.
B) Doesn't matter how they are loaded. The point was, pistols and hand crossbows are shaped the same, held the same, aimed the same, and fired the same. Therefore, anything that makes a pistol easier to use should be available for crossbows too (or at least hand crossbows).