Some people will stay away simply to stay away from the dangers of guns (still even if not completely true with commonplace guns). Others will have nostalgia for the 'older' fighting styles and stay true.
Personally I think the mechanics are such that melee will still have a prominent place and the casters aren't going to be bad off for it either.
It's simply a different crossbow/longbow/dagger/sling -- in my opinion.
Title of the thread is pretty explanatory. I am looking for what people perceive as the likely effect on the game of including revolvers with the rules for commonplace guns.
Obviously, I expect most characters to have one for use. That is fine. What I want to avoid is certain archetypes being made useless by their inclusion. Other than crossbows, which are poorly represented anyways.
Mostly just looking for people's thoughts on how it will affect the game.
I'd expect everyone to carry one to shoot before going into melee (Switch hitting).
Reload time/damage mechanic (roll a 1) limit common useage, but occasionally I expect everyone to attempt to use one.Ammo still is prohibitablly expensive unless you craft it yourself.
I'm playing in three games where blackpowder weapons are commonplace. All basically set in the same world, a High Fantasy Earth in the 19th Century.
We have pricing and weapon profficiencies for guns and ammo based on crossbows (though a little bit more expensive, and the handgun is a martial weapon). I can't remember all the details because guns in fantasy just hasn't caught my imagination.
In the campaign I am running set in Londinium the city is run by a very powerful Council who keeping guns out of the city, and out of the country as much as possible.
I'm a wizard in the Sky Pirates set in the Carribean, and the guns seem no different to a heavy crossbow, other than they are really loud, and people are more likely to take them then crossbows, but that has a lot to do with setting.
I'm a falchion-wielding rogue in an Australian Bushrangers campaign, but that has only just started as a PbP and we haven't even escaped the road-gang yet.
The difference comes in the setting. If the campaign is one in which guns are supported and commonplace then it will feel fine. When the PCs are being hit by guns then perhaps they won't think that they were such a good idea...? I think that their pricing should be reconsidered when the campaign supports them.
Nothing - bows and melee outdamage them anyways.
Nothing - bows and melee outdamage them anyways.
+1
Early historical firearms couldn't penetrate plate.
PF guns are not modern.
PF guns are not modern.
Um.
The Advanced ones are... They seem to be about 1880-1900 tech equivalent.
-Kle.
By "modern" I meant "current."
Ever read the Red Badge of Courage?
There's a reason rich people and officers wore breastplates in the Civil War. They protected you from bullets.
It's harder to get the damage bonus on guns (no option for Strength damage).
I'd imagine that it would be used as a switch-out weapon a lot, and for anyone who's not high on strength and wants to play a ranged fighter.
Unless you provide magical silencing options, the noise will likely cause problems for being stealthy (sniping or just plain sneaking into a place).
With the way hitpoints work.. someone charging at you with a melee weapon will still be a scary tactic, so guns aren't a complete replacement.
Also, running out of ammunition can be an issue (whether it's cheap or something you can make, "not having any on hand" is still a concern mid-combat). People will still have melee weapons as backup.
.
But overall, you can expect to see the game turn slightly more towards western film, or those tech + magica styles of world (I'm thinking of Final Fantasy 6 to 8-ish).
The problem is that 1 you are having revolvers be common place. A revolver is not a muzzle loader, it implies that there is a manufactured bullet to drop into the bullet slot. Sure you can use a full round to re-load the revolver, but a reload would mean 6 bullets, in general.
I have seen games where it has been written that the act of thumbing back the hammer and pulling a trigger can be done twice in 1 round in the same amount of time that it takes to swing a knife or sword at someone, especially if you use two hands on the gun.
Last I checked most games have guns do attack rolls as a ranged touch attack, and the damage is in general 1d10.
In short, black powder weaponry shouldn't influence combat too much except for the first shot fired, revolvers however would greatly change the way combat flows. Especially when the players figure out how to make a Gatlin gun.
One last thing, a black powder weapon will fail catastrophically on a 1, but a revolver, would likely just not fire, or misfire.
The problem is that 1 you are having revolvers be common place. A revolver is not a muzzle loader, it implies that there is a manufactured bullet to drop into the bullet slot. Sure you can use a full round to re-load the revolver, but a reload would mean 6 bullets, in general.
I have seen games where it has been written that the act of thumbing back the hammer and pulling a trigger can be done twice in 1 round in the same amount of time that it takes to swing a knife or sword at someone, especially if you use two hands on the gun.
...Uh, you do know archers can eventually pump out something like six attacks each round, right? And that a round is six seconds? That's pretty extraordinary!
Last I checked most games have guns do attack rolls as a ranged touch attack, and the damage is in general 1d10.
In short, black powder weaponry shouldn't influence combat too much except for the first shot fired, revolvers however would greatly change the way combat flows. Especially when the players figure out how to make a Gatlin gun.
In the real world revolvers changed war quite a lot, I don't doubt.
In Pathfinder, firearms do less damage then bows and swords, and as such no, they don't.
The problem is that 1 you are having revolvers be common place. A revolver is not a muzzle loader,
Actually revolvers were still muzzle loaders for a very long time. Colt's revolvers were originally muzzle loaders, and pepperboxes are revolvers too while still being muzzle loaders.
Perhaps I misspoke.
What I meant to say is that for every attack you get as an archer, a revolver would provide you with 2 shots.
So the six shots as an archer that you speak of would be 12 shots, for someone with a revolver. (Ya I know, a normal revolver holds 6-8 shots)
Perhaps I misspoke.
What I meant to say is that for every attack you get as an archer, a revolver would provide you with 2 shots.
So the six shots as an archer that you speak of would be 12 shots, for someone with a revolver. (Ya I know, a normal revolver holds 6-8 shots)
Well as few as two on really early revolvers, though there are plenty with 5 rounds too.
Then there's the later options, which can hold up to 9 (plus one shotgun shot!).
"Getting the shots off" and actually lining up and hitting moving targets are two different things. Having the option to blast extra shots and just "spray and pray" might be a neat feat option, but mostly Pathfinder limits the number of attacks you get per round based on the assumption you are actually aiming your shots and trying to hit something lethally on purpose.
This 2 shots for every shot is no where in UC from what I can tell, if it is, point me out where because that would be a worrisome effect. I'm not worried about esoteric house rules, though.
Gatling Gun is pretty easy to handle, provided it were allowed at all as it also is not available in any book. Give it a decent range and scatter. Hits a lot of clumped up things, but still not too many shots on a single target. Crowd control for non-magic users, hmm. . .
All in all, keep the thoughts coming!
It was in a 3rd party 3.5 compatible book.
This 2 shots for every shot is no where in UC from what I can tell, if it is, point me out where because that would be a worrisome effect. I'm not worried about esoteric house rules, though.
He means because you must reload your gun (using up an action) while the bow man keeps firing.
The problem is that 1 you are having revolvers be common place. A revolver is not a muzzle loader,Actually revolvers were still muzzle loaders for a very long time. Colt's revolvers were originally muzzle loaders, and pepperboxes are revolvers too while still being muzzle loaders.
Revolvers weren't exactly muzzle loaders really ever. They do have individual chambers which have to be loaded from the front, but you didn't have to ram the charge all the way down a barrel. This meant that loading the cylinders was quicker and you could still have a rifled barrel without a cost in reloading time.
Now I've been through the reloading process of a percussion revolver (pre-metallic cartridge type). It's tedious certainly, but nowhere near as slow as a full on muzzle loader. In fact revolvers used to have interchangeable cylinders where you could pop out a loaded cylinder and pop in a fresh one with six ready loads.
My beef with the Pathfinder rendition of firearms is the touch AC business. While I could see them punching through a lot of armor just fine (chain mail- pshaw), some things should still work. This is something I think should be especially true for magic or adamantine armor. Were I running firearms in a home game, I would houserule that for a bullet to have the touch AC effect on an armor, it would have to have a superior enhancement bonus.
Revolvers weren't exactly muzzle loaders really ever. They do have individual chambers which have to be loaded from the front, but you didn't have to ram the charge all the way down a barrel. This meant that loading the cylinders was quicker and you could still have a rifled barrel without a cost in reloading time.Now I've been through the reloading process of a percussion revolver (pre-metallic cartridge type). It's tedious certainly, but nowhere near as slow as a full on muzzle loader. In fact revolvers used to have interchangeable cylinders where you could pop out a loaded cylinder and pop in a fresh one with six ready loads.
All very true -- I was speaking more of the *technical level* where they are 'muzzle loaders' even if no where near as problematic.
I do like your idea for the house rule -- however we stuck with the 3.5 pathfinder model.
You know, I can think of a very reasonable rule objection to the touch AC ability against magic armor. Think about mechanically what is occurring. The bullet is basically sundering a hole right through the armor. However if you are trying to sunder magical equipment, you have to have an enhancement bonus equal to or greater than that of the target. By that logic, I think my rule simple follows naturally.
I will have to put up with gunslingers at PFS tables, but I imagine I'd either discourage them in a home game or make sure that house rule was followed.
You know, I can think of a very reasonable rule objection to the touch AC ability against magic armor. Think about mechanically what is occurring. The bullet is basically sundering a hole right through the armor. However if you are trying to sunder magical equipment, you have to have an enhancement bonus equal to or greater than that of the target. By that logic, I think my rule simple follows naturally.
I will have to put up with gunslingers at PFS tables, but I imagine I'd either discourage them in a home game or make sure that house rule was followed.
What way are you buffing Gunslinger see as it is balanced as hitting touch AC thr any armor.
When you nerf them without any signifiant buff: you are weakening them.At least give them a bonus if you are nerfing them.
Unfortunately, by RAW you only need an equal enhancement bonus to sunder magic weapons. Magic armor +5 can be sundered by a chair leg.
Cool.
What way are you buffing Gunslinger see as it is balanced as hitting touch AC thr any armor.
When you nerf them without any signifiant buff: you are weakening them.At least give them a bonus if you are nerfing them.
I guess Gunslingers in my home game will just have to suck then. Maybe I saw a bad sample, but after experiencing a Gunslinger using TWF and dual revolvers, I can't really think they would be all too put out.
You know, I can think of a very reasonable rule objection to the touch AC ability against magic armor. Think about mechanically what is occurring. The bullet is basically sundering a hole right through the armor. However if you are trying to sunder magical equipment, you have to have an enhancement bonus equal to or greater than that of the target. By that logic, I think my rule simple follows naturally.
I will have to put up with gunslingers at PFS tables, but I imagine I'd either discourage them in a home game or make sure that house rule was followed.
Unfortunately, by RAW you only need an equal enhancement bonus to sunder magic weapons. Magic armor +5 can be sundered by a chair leg.
Well that's certainly an odd inconsistency.
I guess Gunslingers in my home game will just have to suck then. Maybe I saw a bad sample, but after experiencing a Gunslinger using TWF and dual revolvers, I can't really think they would be all too put out.What way are you buffing Gunslinger see as it is balanced as hitting touch AC thr any armor.
When you nerf them without any signifiant buff: you are weakening them.At least give them a bonus if you are nerfing them.
If revolvers are allowed then it won't be as bad.
But I was assuming standard rules (pistols, muskets, blunderbust, etc, and advanced firearms rare).If you are givingthem free access to advanced firearms then the nerf will be offset so sure.
I guess Gunslingers in my home game will just have to suck then. Maybe I saw a bad sample, but after experiencing a Gunslinger using TWF and dual revolvers, I can't really think they would be all too put out.What way are you buffing Gunslinger see as it is balanced as hitting touch AC thr any armor.
When you nerf them without any signifiant buff: you are weakening them.At least give them a bonus if you are nerfing them.
If revolvers are allowed then it won't be as bad.
But I was assuming standard rules (pistols, muskets, blunderbust, etc, and advanced firearms rare).If you are givingthem free access to advanced firearms then the nerf will be offset so sure.
Certainly with the primitive firearms, I would be nerfing too much, I agree, but if revolvers are in the rules, I imagine people would expect them. Personally, I'd probably just counsel people not to run Gunslingers in my home game. I think the presence of such tech breaks too much of a fantasy world.
To the OP's original question: If you include common firearms -- especially advanced weapons -- in your game, expect everyone to take them. Then expect a lot of people to take at least a one level dip (and usually more) in Gunslinger to maximize the potential of the pistol they're carrying.
IMO, the gunslinger is the single worst designed class in the entire PF system. Fort and Refl are both good saves and there's a bonus for making Wis a minimum secondary stat which bounces Will. A full BAB progression, a d10 Hit Die, the equivalent of two feats *and* a minimum 1000 gp (250 gp if guns are commonplace) item with a built in safety at first level. To me, that borders on obnoxious. What's the safety you ask? No one in their right minds would pick up a gunslinger's gun if he drops it. You don't have to worry about it getting stolen or used against you because it it likely to blow up if it is. Paizo might see that as a drawback, I see it as a benefit.
Your bad guys will have to take in to account the fact that armor is useless for the most part. Your treasure hauls will consist of a lot of things that add to touch AC like Rings of Protection. It doesn't take much for the one range increment to become all five; it's either a feat or a class ability, I forget which off the top of my head.
Also, you and the party have to completely re-think party roles. As I recently told one of my players, you can have your tank but tanks tend to be the focus of artillery. Someone is up front with a high AC? Cool, shoot him. Got an advanced revolver? Shoot him six times before reloading.
At mid-to-high levels, expect that crit multiplier to become a real issue. Take a look at this thread for some ideas on what you may see from a gunslinger then magnify it for the advanced firearms.
It's not all bad, though. Every sorcerer, wizard, druid and witch the party encounters will have a full load of the Damp Powder spell [level 1 for all]. Gunslingers are very unhappy at that point. However, I do not personally like having to design encounters that specifically target a single character's ability. YMMV
Hopefully this is of some help
--JD
I'm playing in a 2-player game as a rogue with a gunslinger friend. My rogue has taken the charlatan archetype (UC) and put her high scores into Cha (20), Int (18), and Dex (14) (I rolled well). Else, she's very weak. She fails hardcore at perception and has less than half the gunslinger's HP at level 4.
She uses a light crossbow generally. So far, she's out DPR'd the gunslinger and has about twice the kills. Six bandits jumped us on a trade road, and my rogue killed 4 of them with her crossbow, though I admit that I made some clever use of the wagon to weasel some sneak attacks in.
The gunslinger pumped his Dex and Str. The DM allowed him to have a revolver and a coat pistol (coming into the game at level 3). He has misfired his revolver no less than 4 times so far.
Thus far, we're not convinced that the gunslinger is going to break our game, even with a revolver at low levels.
Don't you think there would be a lot of spells in a setting with guns just to interact with them? Damp Powder. Damp Powder 100' Radius. Protection from Damp Powder. Magic items like "Bottle of Dry Powder." There are luck spells. What about, "Curse of Exploding Chambers."
Could get a little silly.
Uh oh.. getting some flashbacks.
Guns are the new 3.0e Psionics. Great.
|
I've played a wizard using a flintlock. Although we were leary at first, it really wasnt bad. The combo of spells and pistol made me just as effective as an archer. Flame Arrow, Arcane Strike and rapid reload made for steady damage. But it was nothing insane. I personally wont use the pistol just cause it ruins the flavor of PF for me. That might change if we play and Alkhenstar campaign. At the very most Id use single shot rifle or double barrel flintlock. Firearms are just like any other resource: controlled to keep from abuse. Like a Magus with spell/wand combat fighting with a wand with true strike. Alternating attacks with True Strike means you never miss (barring 1).
You know, I can think of a very reasonable rule objection to the touch AC ability against magic armor. Think about mechanically what is occurring. The bullet is basically sundering a hole right through the armor.
What? That makes no sense whatsoever.
How would a bullet sunder armor when you don't make a sunder attack? Clearly the bullet isn't sundering a hole in the armor, it's hitting the armor and the force of the impact is hurting the person wearing it. Even a modern bullet-resistance vest can't prevent all the harm from being shot, it can stop the bullet from penetrating.
And since HP is an abstract measure of how well you can avoid lethal damage... the heavy bruising and pain that would cause is perfectly reasonable as HP loss.
Early revolvers were still ball-and-charge, which is how I imagine them to be in Pathfinder.You imagine them differently than Paizo does, then. They are clearly stated to be metallic cartridge arms with integral primers in UC.
-Kle.
Agreed, only early ones are ball and charge.