I am currently running a game and one of the members is playing a Gunslinger 1/Rogue X (in this case 2
rogue levels). A problem came up today when I told him that he would be taking an additional penalty to his stealth from the gun making a loud noise and a puff of smoke popping out (in addition to the regular -20 from sniping). He pointed out that there is nothing in the RAW to support this and after looking I found nothing.
My questions are this: Is there any penalty for sniping while using a firearm in the RAW? If not what would be a fair penalty? Would this be worthy of a FAQ?
If you wouldn't mind critiquing my calculations that would be great too.
Scenario is that the sniper is 40 feet away at level 3 shooting a musket at a target who is engaged in melee. The sniper hits and proceeds to make his stealth check.
Stealth Check: 15 (roll) + 5 (Dex) + 3 (Ranks) + 3 (Misc mod)
- 20 (sniping) = 6
The enemy (in this case a bugbear cleric) tries to notice him and so the DC is 6(total of the stealth check) + 4(+1 for every 10 feet) + 5(distracted due to fighting in melee) = 15
I would say that the book's -20 seems a fair penalty already. Yes, guns are louder. However, bows and crossbows are much slower, so it is much easier to figure out which direction the shot comes from.
A DC 10 check seems about right (not counting the distraction penalty). Those numbers look good to me.
Oh cool I had no idea that item existed (hadn't really looked that far into UC yet).
Thanks!
I would really dislike the idea of making him firing an autofail on the stealth check as it would nerf him even farther (it is difficult enough for him to compete with the switch hitter and the monk and without SA it will be impossible). I was thinking that a -10 would be fair for a gun (would diminish with space I was thinking like -1 for every 20 feet).
As the example from above just apply another -10 to the stealth roll bringing the DC to 5, but the enemy is 40 feet away so that reduces it to -8 for the penalty bringing the final DC to a 7. It is very low, but still possible to fail.
Naturally Penalties would change in areas like a dungeon where the sound would be bouncing off all of the walls, but the flash is much more prominent.
Iron kingdoms had a class called "Rifleman" he had a class ability called snipe, in addition to normal penalties the people looking for him got a cumulative +3 on their spot checks.
It just comes down to that he is using a flintlock weapon that is pretty noisy, and if that wasn't enough to announce that he is in the area, there is going to be a nice white decently sized cloud of smoke coming out of the end of that musket to be that neon sign pointing at where he is.
More I think about it the more I feel like the penalty would vary depending on the environment (the flash is super easy to see while in the dim light of a cave, but the ricochets of the gun noise would be indiscernible).
All things aside I have to give the guy a chance to make the stealth check he had a cool character concept and is fairly new so I will probably just do it on a case by case basis.
It's alarming to me that so many posts come up about players calling GMs out on specific rulings, demanding citation from a book for the most minor things. I admit I am old school; back in my early days many such things were not covered in the rules, so the DM/GM had to ad hock a lot.
In the end, though something else may cover this issue, I think you made the right call. The 3.5 GM Guide called +2/-2 "The DM's Best Friend," and encouraged DMs to use it in situations exactly like yours, where some unforeseen element or circumstance might call for a small adjustment to a normal DC.
I am not sure if such a note appears in the PF Core or the GameMastery Guide, but I still use it because it's still good advice. I recommend reminding your player that it is the GM's actual job to determine if circumstances merit some such adjustment. You are not a computer there to merely regurgitate the RAW word for word. If computers could imagine, anticipate, and adjust to the things human beings can, we wouldn't need human GMs.
the spell Invisibility is a great tool for snipers
Creating a command actiavated magic item with Silence spell is 10.800gp, continuos is 12.000gp.
A gm could maybe let it slide to 6.000gp by removing the area of effect, restricting it to the gun only.
Creating a command actiavated magic item with Silence spell is 10.800gp, continuos is 12.000gp.
A gm could maybe let it slide to 6.000gp by removing the area of effect, restricting it to the gun only.
oil of silence is a heck of a lot cheaper
Creating a command actiavated magic item with Silence spell is 10.800gp, continuos is 12.000gp.
A gm could maybe let it slide to 6.000gp by removing the area of effect, restricting it to the gun only.
oil of silence is a heck of a lot cheaper
Wasn't aware there was one :D
Wasn't aware there was one :DCreating a command actiavated magic item with Silence spell is 10.800gp, continuos is 12.000gp.
A gm could maybe let it slide to 6.000gp by removing the area of effect, restricting it to the gun only.
oil of silence is a heck of a lot cheaper
check the firearms section of Mastering Combat, it's in the magical items for your firearms. it costs 250 gp to make your 1/2-handed gun silent for 1 hour, for large siege guns it takes 5 doses and huge needs 10
The Stealth check for sniping isn't to prevent anyone from knowing where the shot came from; its to remain hidden.
So if the player fires his gun, the direction the shot was fired from (revealed by the auditory and visual effects of the gunshot) should be a given.
However, the Stealth check would allow the character to remain undiscovered or unseen.
"The shot came from over there! The shooter has to be over there! But I don't see him!"
Creating a command actiavated magic item with Silence spell is 10.800gp, continuos is 12.000gp.
A gm could maybe let it slide to 6.000gp by removing the area of effect, restricting it to the gun only.
oil of silence is a heck of a lot cheaper
It's also single use (x50gp). Tyki11 was referring to a continuous item (x2000gp). That's a factor of x40 in price difference.
Since the oil only works on the gun, you can just multiply the 250gp cost by 40 to get a continuous item's cost: 10k gp.
There ya go.
It's also single use (x50gp). Tyki11 was referring to a continuous item (x2000gp). That's a factor of x40 in price difference.
Since the oil only works on the gun, you can just multiply the 250gp cost by 40 to get a continuous item's cost: 10k gp.
There ya go.
This is most likely what I will do seems like the most fair alternative to me. The guy is trying to carry around 3-4 rifles and just keep dropping them, but unless he wants to get them all silenced he will have to live with one.
Krispy that is an excellent point I will try that one out and see how it goes over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Oil of Silence is a broken (dumb), pointless item. There is nothing in the rules suggesting/demanding that firearms are more easily detected than any other ranged weapon. One of the developers thought to him/herself, "I'm going to make a sniper-rifle!". The Oil of Silence was born, but that developer didn't bother to look if there were any rules about firearms and stealth, there are not.
To impose a stealth penalty for the use of firearms is a house-rule; some may argue that it is RAI and point to the Oil of Silence for justification, but that's like using an error to prove the rule.
As others have pointed out, it doesn't matter if one knows where the shot came from (the bang and smoke), the person shot still has to see the shooter. Logically a person shot by a sniper for a longbow knows what direction it came from, but he still has to find the archer. A -20 penalty is already enough.
Lastly, firearms are already rather sub-par, requiring greater feat and monetary investment for less return than a simple longbow. To further penalize them for "realism" is asinine.
The Oil of Silence is a broken (dumb), pointless item. There is nothing in the rules suggesting/demanding that firearms are more easily detected than any other ranged weapon. One of the developers thought to him/herself, "I'm going to make a sniper-rifle!". The Oil of Silence was born, but that developer didn't bother to look if there were any rules about firearms and stealth, there are not.
To impose a stealth penalty for the use of firearms is a house-rule; some may argue that it is RAI and point to the Oil of Silence for justification, but that's like using an error to prove the rule.
As others have pointed out, it doesn't matter if one knows where the shot came from (the bang and smoke), the person shot still has to see the shooter. Logically a person shot by a sniper for a longbow knows what direction it came from, but he still has to find the archer. A -20 penalty is already enough.
Lastly, firearms are already rather sub-par, requiring greater feat and monetary investment for less return than a simple longbow. To further penalize them for "realism" is asinine.
The Oil of Silence is a broken (dumb), pointless item. There is nothing in the rules suggesting/demanding that firearms are more easily detected than any other ranged weapon. One of the developers thought to him/herself, "I'm going to make a sniper-rifle!". The Oil of Silence was born, but that developer didn't bother to look if there were any rules about firearms and stealth, there are not.
To impose a stealth penalty for the use of firearms is a house-rule; some may argue that it is RAI and point to the Oil of Silence for justification, but that's like using an error to prove the rule.
As others have pointed out, it doesn't matter if one knows where the shot came from (the bang and smoke), the person shot still has to see the shooter. Logically a person shot by a sniper for a longbow knows what direction it came from, but he still has to find the archer. A -20 penalty is already enough.
Lastly, firearms are already rather sub-par, requiring greater feat and monetary investment for less return than a simple longbow. To further penalize them for "realism" is asinine.
I do not know if you meant to sound condescending, but that is certainly how I interpreted it. Secondly, I like to have realism in my game (Requiring players to clean their clothes and bathe so they don't take penalties when talking to the nobles, Keeping track of their trail rations, carrying a huge pile of loot out of a dungeon, etc.). There are rules for the "realism" aspect of the game and I include them in my games. I feel that adding a sense of realism helps the players connect with the game more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not know if you meant to sound condescending, but that is certainly how I interpreted it. Secondly, I like to have realism in my game (Requiring players to clean their clothes and bathe so they don't take penalties when talking to the nobles, Keeping track of their trail rations, carrying a huge pile of loot out of a dungeon, etc.). There are rules for the "realism" aspect of the game and I include them in my games. I feel that adding a sense of realism helps the players connect with the game more.
I did mean to be condescending, but not in an offensive way (no personal offense intended). I know that sounds strange, but take a step back and look at what you're doing.
Pathfinder is already "unrealistic". With the right feats and items (paper cartridge), a character can load, aim and fire a musket 6 times in 6 seconds. Likewise, an archer can fire 6 arrows in 6 seconds. It's absurd from a realistic perspective. You're not being realistic with this, you're being selectively realistic. You're ignoring the absurd in certain situations, and the applying penalties for not washing your clothes? Do you make spell casters roll a % to see if they grab the wrong spell components from their pouches, cuz that's realistically going to happen too?
So why do I care? Why am I condescending on the Internet? Because it's a game, it's about you and your player having fun. So lets go back to your original post. Your player sniped and you wanted to add a penalty. Your player objected, saying there is nothing in the rules about it. He's right. It would be one thing if he had accepted your house-rule penalty, but the fact that he made an objection (which brought you to the forums looking for support for your point of view) proves that he was not cool with it. In my humble opinion, he has every right to be upset about it. If it were me, I'd say eff-it and give me a longbow if your going to apply such penalties.
Bottom line, don't get so bogged down about mundane "realism" that it ruins the heroic fantasy. I'm sorry if my tone is too blunt/rude but I believe you're being incredibly unfair to this player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh boy, the "if it's not a rule, it can't be done" arguemnt is a slippery slope indeed. There are a lot of things the rules don't cover. Does that, therefore, mean that they cannot be done?
"I'm going to jump off the balcony, swing from the chandelier-"
"Sorry, can't do that."
"Why not?"
"The rules don't say you can."
Personally, I think the "Bang" of a gun is at least as loud as "sound of battle", which is covered by Perception...oh, what's that? The rules don't say that firearms make noise when fired? So that means they're already silent, making that Wondrous Item superfluous? Oh...well in that case I suppose my barbarian won't get in trouble for belching while in polite company. After all, the rules don't cover that, and the system isn't realistic, so it's unfair to the player to penalize him for belching in front of the nobles. That shouldn't have any affect on the party's attempt to be diplomatic...
Oh, and trail rations, meals, and the like; they're in the rules. But that takes away from the herocis right? Yeah, why should the party bring food and water with them to the desert? That's tedious realism that gets in the way of the game, right? Heroes don't need to eat or drink, do they?
You're accusing me of logic fallacies? Pot, meet kettle.
You're accusing me of being some evil rule lawyer that won't allow anything unless it is codified, but that's not true. I would totally let a player swing off a chandelier even though it is not in rules, but what I won't do is penalize his attempt because he's wearing the wrong kind of shoes.
That's what this is, penalization for a specific style choice. The player in questions is Gunslinger 1/Rogue X. He only took one level of Gunslinger and I'm guessing it's because he thought it'd be cool (and possibly touch attacks). If he had chosen a longbow, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the OP feels a -20 is enough for a bow but not for a gun because of "realism". This player can't pull off his shtick because he chose a gun and not a longbow (or he can pay some magic item tax)
The developers didn't write any stealth rules for guns (aside from one weird item that references no rules). Maybe that's because they didn't to further penalize guns (which are already subpar in most circumstances).
And here's the thing about rations and such, they're present in the rules but without consequence. There's no famished, starved or hungry conditions. A character does not actually need to sleep. You need rest to gain HP and spells, but nothing requires sleep. They're total fluff to simulate realism with no penalty for noncompliance.
This has gotten a little out of hand and I apologize because it is your game(s), rule 0 and what not. However, you are penalizing this guy for his choice of fluff. It's in your rights to do so, but don't be surprised if he decides it's not worth the effort and wants to contest the rule or change the character. I would.
The bait and switch can be an issue, yeah. The player started the game with a certain set of assumptions (what's in the core rules), which means he built his character with those assumptions in place.
A significant change later on down the road that limits or partially invalidates his selections can burn the player's fun.
The sense of realism added might be worth it (so the player's overall fun is still okay), but for some people it's not worth it.
.
Regarding sniping, it's just like KrispyXIV stated. The sniping action is about not being found after shooting, not about not being known to shoot at all.
If you want to shoot without being heard or noticed at all, then you'd go for silence.
Although, as per the rules, without invisibility, you'll still have to use the sniping rules anyways. Like Cibulan said, there's not really any rules support here for this.
I know there was something about blackpowder not working when it's wet (right?), was there supposed to be rules in Ultimate Combat about the noise a gun makes?
The player in questions is Gunslinger 1/Rogue X. He only took one level of Gunslinger and I'm guessing it's because he thought it'd be cool (and possibly touch attacks). If he had chosen a longbow, we wouldn't be having this conversation because the OP feels a -20 is enough for a bow but not for a gun because of "realism". This player can't pull off his...
Pretty much nailed the reason he picked it (he is also having an in character feud with the ranger over whether bows are better than guns or not). I believe guns are superior in sniping to a longbow (bigger damage dice, mostly touch attacks so far, can fire from prone). A crossbow is still probably better for sniping, but I did tell him that I admire his choice of fluff and all the work he put in to make it as competitive with the other classes as possible.
I have been trying to find a way to reward him for picking the fluff over mindlessly optimizing another longbow damage fanatic and even though it is a little off topic some more advice would be nice. The gun mastery ability at 5th level lets the gunslinger add his Dex to damage with one type of firearm, I was thinking of converting this to a rogue talent or advanced talent. In your opinion which would be more fair (asking everyone)?
Loud gun shots often create an echo effect. That would make it hella-hard to find a hidden sniper.
Not sure what one would do about the smoke though.
I am currently running a game and one of the members is playing a Gunslinger 1/Rogue X (in this case 2
rogue levels). A problem came up today when I told him that he would be taking an additional penalty to his stealth from the gun making a loud noise and a puff of smoke popping out (in addition to the regular -20 from sniping). He pointed out that there is nothing in the RAW to support this and after looking I found nothing.My questions are this: Is there any penalty for sniping while using a firearm in the RAW? If not what would be a fair penalty? Would this be worthy of a FAQ?
If you wouldn't mind critiquing my calculations that would be great too.
Scenario is that the sniper is 40 feet away at level 3 shooting a musket at a target who is engaged in melee. The sniper hits and proceeds to make his stealth check.Stealth Check: 15 (roll) + 5 (Dex) + 3 (Ranks) + 3 (Misc mod)
- 20 (sniping) = 6The enemy (in this case a bugbear cleric) tries to notice him and so the DC is 6(total of the stealth check) + 4(+1 for every 10 feet) + 5(distracted due to fighting in melee) = 15
As gm circumstance bonuses are your friend. You are firing a loud firearm, the enemy has a +5 circumstance bonus to hear you. also he can't sneak attack from outside 30 feet typically.
|
I do not know if you meant to sound condescending, but that is certainly how I interpreted it. Secondly, I like to have realism in my game (Requiring players to clean their clothes and bathe so they don't take penalties when talking to the nobles, Keeping track of their trail rations, carrying a huge pile of loot out of a dungeon, etc.). There are rules for the "realism" aspect of the game and I include them in my games. I feel that adding a sense of realism helps the players connect with the game more.I did mean to be condescending, but not in an offensive way (no personal offense intended). I know that sounds strange, but take a step back and look at what you're doing.
Pathfinder is already "unrealistic". With the right feats and items (paper cartridge), a character can load, aim and fire a musket 6 times in 6 seconds. Likewise, an archer can fire 6 arrows in 6 seconds. It's absurd from a realistic perspective. You're not being realistic with this, you're being selectively realistic. You're ignoring the absurd in certain situations, and the applying penalties for not washing your clothes? Do you make spell casters roll a % to see if they grab the wrong spell components from their pouches, cuz that's realistically going to happen too?
So why do I care? Why am I condescending on the Internet? Because it's a game, it's about you and your player having fun. So lets go back to your original post. Your player sniped and you wanted to add a penalty. Your player objected, saying there is nothing in the rules about it. He's right. It would be one thing if he had accepted your house-rule penalty, but the fact that he made an objection (which brought you to the forums looking for support for your point of view) proves that he was not cool with it. In my humble opinion, he has every right to be upset about it. If it were me, I'd say eff-it and give me a longbow if your going to apply such penalties.
Bottom line, don't get so bogged down about mundane "realism" that it ruins...
Going that route you get to "the rules don't say I can't move around when dead, only when unconscious, so I go my merry way now."
The developers think that there is no need to give out a rule for something that is self evident and a normal life experience, but apparently you need them spelled out. Why?A early age gun make a noticeable noise and leave a cloud of smoke pinpointing exactly the location from which you have fired. That make detecting your initial position almost automatic and way easier than if you are using a bow.
If you or one of your friends is hit by an arrow you know the direction from which it come and the shooter can be almost anywhere in a arc of 60°-90° and at a variable distance.
If he is hit by a firearm you know the general direction and have a easy to spot smoke cloud pinpointing the original position of the firer.
Sniping: If you've already successfully used Stealth at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack and then immediately use Stealth again. You take a –20 penalty on your Stealth check to maintain your obscured location.
...
Action: Usually none. Normally, you make a Stealth check as part of movement, so it doesn't take a separate action. However, using Stealth immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.
So if your guy use his move action to hide in the same position after firing his gun my ruling would be that he hasn't any chance to hide as his position is clearly pinpointed.
If he use a move action to change his location and hide again at the same time he should get a stealth attempt but he need to broke line of sight (or have hide in plain sight) for it to work, as he is observed while hiding.
As gm circumstance bonuses are your friend. You are firing a loud firearm, the enemy has a +5 circumstance bonus to hear you. also he can't sneak attack from outside 30 feet typically.
He was a Gunslinger 1/Rogue 3 at the time and took the sniper archetype. It has an ability that replaces trapsense in order to sneak attack at 10 feet farther than usual (10 additional feet for every additional +1 the trapsense would get).
Pretty much nailed the reason he picked it (he is also having an in character feud with the ranger over whether bows are better than guns or not). I believe guns are superior in sniping to a longbow (bigger damage dice, mostly touch attacks so far, can fire from prone). A crossbow is still probably better for sniping, but I did tell him that I admire his choice of fluff and all the work he put in to make it as competitive with the other classes as possible.
I have been trying to find a way to reward him for picking the fluff over mindlessly optimizing another longbow damage fanatic and even though it is a little off topic some more advice would be nice. The gun mastery ability at 5th level lets the gunslinger add his Dex to damage with one type of firearm, I was thinking of converting this to a rogue talent or advanced talent. In your opinion which would be more fair (asking everyone)?
That is what I suspected. Part of the reason I overreacted in my tone (which I apologize for) is because I am personally upset by the fact that firearms are inferior to longbows. I'm a big crossbow fan as well. I'd like to see longbows, crossbows, and firearms all be equally as viable, although different. But that is definitely not the case. In every category the bow wins: damage, range, speed, feat requirements.
So I give mad kudos for your player wanting to step out of the longbow box. Likewise I didn't want to see him punished for doing so. And although it is controversial to admit it, this is a case of selective realism. There are dozens of unrealistic things baked into the core rules of the game that are not being altered, but this part is being singled out. That irks my sense of justice.
I would also disagree about guns being superior for sniping from a mechanical perspective. It has less range than a comp. bow, the slightly higher damage dice (4.5 v 6.5 average damage) is easily negated by a strength rating on the bow, the gun requires more feats (your player had to take that one level of Gunslinger to get proficiency and gunsmithing right?), the gun is more expensive (gun and ammo), it has a chance to misfire (and explode), and now there is a realism penalty. The gun's one advantage is firing from prone. Look at the pros and cons.
So I guess what I'm saying is, you and the player both know he made an unoptimized choice in choosing a firearm over a bow, so why punish him further?
Starvation and Thrist, Page 444
Sleeping in Armor: A character who sleeps in medium or
heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. Page 150 (why would this rule exist if nobody in the Pathfinder universe needed to sleep? Is it then a pointless rule by a thoughtless developer?Wizard need 8 hours of sleep to prepare spells. Does that mean the only living creatures that require sleep are those that decide to be wizards?
Perception: Creature making the check is asleep +10 (Another pointless entry in the rulebook)
Hustle: A character can hustle for 1 hour without a
problem. Hustling for a second hour in between sleep
cycles deals 1 point of nonlethal damage, and each
additional hour deals twice the damage taken during
the previous hour of hustling. Page 171 (Huh, sleep cycles. Well, the rules don't specify what a sleep cycle is, so it must be pointless fluff)...all other activities except those necessary for day-to-day survival
(such as sleeping, eating, and so forth). Page 274 (Hey look, sleeping is necessary for day-to-day survival. Who knew?)Character must sleep twice as much as normal. (relating to cursed item effects) Page 537. (Another pointless addition by your interpretation)
Sleep is a basic necessary function of living creatures and the rules shouldn't have to tell you that. Just because the rules don't say, "If you don't sleep for X hours, X happens", doesn't mean living things don't need to sleep.
You got me on the starvation and thirst, I did a quick search last night and didn't find anything.
As for sleep, it is a well known loop hole in the rules. Besides that sentence in the Wizard's section, there is nothing that tells a player how often or for how long a character needs to sleep. So yea, there are penalties for sleeping in heavy armor, but the good thing is the character never has to actually go to sleep. A character can sleep 8 hours each night or one second a year, it's up to them and the DM.
Certain things can cause sleep, like the Sleep spell or Drow poison, but there are no hard fast rules. They give you a few little fluff rules for if you are asleep (like the perception check), but nothing to require one to sleep. It is technically a house-rule to require 8 hours asleep, except for Wizards.
I apologize for tone as well. I set the mood, you just followed in my foot steps.
So here's the point I was trying to make about the house-ruled realism (hopefully with out the condescending attitude); like sleeping, there are no rules for firearms and stealth. That is significant because it means there is no automatic, go to penalty (or advantage). This gives the GM latitude to apply GM judgement as appropriate, which is the point you and Pipedramsam are making. However, I am arguing that this power should be handed out sparingly because it is a subjective penalty. I'm beating a dead horse here, but once again, you are adjudicating one violation of realism while ignoring dozens of others. To me, it seems like an arbitrary application of GM power.
You are absolutely right that some things should go without being codified, like sleep. I think your "house-rule" is more than fair. In my games, we require sleep because it is intuitive and because it is part of the GM's narrative power (things happen at night all the time). But there are no rules for sleep, so if the story demands the players getting very little sleep, we don't have to apply a punishment (unless that is part of the challenge). For example, if the human ranger, dwarf fighter, and elven archer have to run for many days straight to rescue the halflings :). If sleep penalties were hard-coded into the rules, that scene might not happen because Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas would become too exhausted to finish the chase.
Because there are no hard rules for sleep, the rule of cool can be followed. That scene in LoTR was cool so it happened. Likewise, this player thinks that sniping with a firearm is really cool, and he's in luck because there's no hard rule that hurts him for it. In contrast, if he though "a fighter who fights laying on the ground" was cool, he'd be screwed by default because of the prone penalties. Attaching a stealth penalty onto firearms is violating the rule of cool. The player follows the rule of cool, Pipedreamsam follows the rule of realism, the result is conflict.
As for firearms themselves, I really, really, wanted to like them. I was very excited when I heard they were making them because I was working on a Wild West campaign, but I am very disappointed in the execution.
The touch mechanic is not realistic at all. Plate armor could stop early bullets (hence the term "bullet-proof") and a bullet should not go through dragon hide like butter. But that's another conversation. As a mechanic, touch is neat, but the costs are too high.
Firearms absolutely require two things: heavy monetary cost and a 2 (plus proficiency) feat investment. You must have rapid-reload if you're going to use the gun a lot, and you must have paper cartridges to do full attacks. Gunsmithing is mandatory. It allows half priced guns, but more importantly, it allows half priced ammunition AND to repair the broken gun. Ammo is expensive, 12 gold (6gp with gunsmithing) per paper cartridge, and that gun is going to break at some point. I'm not sure whether you can craft ammo and repair without the feat (using only craft skills). You might be right, or it might be like Craft Wondrous Item where you must have the feat. Even if the craft skills can simulate the feat, they'll take far longer (days/weeks). That's why the Gunslinger 1 dip is so attractive (almost mandatory), for the free proficiency and Gunsmithing feat.
I didn't meant to suggest guns are useless, they're just really subpar for anyone but a full Gunslinger, and even then they don't out damage an archer and have built in penalties.
I can understand the desire to want to make firearms more easily detected when sniping, but I just don't think it's fair. When compared to all of the little things we gloss over, why must this one stand out? It is just as easy to rationalize the fact that battle is chaotic, that the fact you were just shot (shot at) has rattled you so you can't think straight, etc. The -20 penalty is already sufficient.
Interesting about the crafting, but I still think Gunsmithing is a near requirement for anyone serious about firearms.
A lot of people don't seem to like the Touch AC bit. When firearms were first invented, there wasn't a lot that could stop that much power, as armor wasn't designed to stop that much force. If a hammer was used to crush in platemail, why can't a bullet, which has a much greater ammount of force applied to a much smaller area, be able to punch through it? Medieval armor was by no means bulletproof in it's construction. Now, things like dragon scale and adamantine golems and such...I got nothing other than the designers didn't want to stack a crap tone of exceptions and restriction to the mechanic.
Going by real world history, the medieval longbow and crossbow were capable of penetrating the thickest armor of the time when fired directly (not at an arc). For example, see the English longbow at Agincourt. Why do only firearm bullets ignore AC when bows and crossbows could do the same?
Likewise, plate armor and firearms were not medieval fair, they were early renaissance. Chainmail was the armor of choice in the medieval period. Plate armor evolved to protect against melee weapons, and the answer was more ranged weapons and specialized melee weapons (pike,etc.) It did not become common place until the deployment of firearms. The classic picture of an armored knight of the medieval period is one of full-plate because of the romanticism of the renaissance area fiction. Guns and plate armor went hand in hand, in a constant evolution of an arms race. A firearm would gain more penetration, the armor would get thicker, and so on, tit for tat. Plate armor was used all the way to WWI (as breastplates for tank commanders). The full-plate associated with knights was finally abandoned because of cost: it was cheaper to buy a bunch of muskets and train peasants than to fully armor a single knight.
Even to this day, arrows and crossbow bolts have more penetrating power than bullets because the arrow/bolt has more mass. An arrow will go through a Kevlar vest where a bullet will displace its energy more rapidly. So, if in Pathfinder an arrow/bolt cannot bypass AC, a bullet should not either.
See, I told yah it was a whole other conversation ;).
Going by real world history, the medieval longbow and crossbow were capable of penetrating the thickest armor of the time when fired directly (not at an arc). For example, see the English longbow at Agincourt. Why do only firearm bullets ignore AC when bows and crossbows could do the same?
You stated before that it is unrealistic that a person could fire an arrow a second and I agree. You also state that bows should be able to attack touch AC as they were able to punch through plate mail (when fired ten times a minute or once every six seconds). In my mind by firing so many extra arrows the archer is unable to attack touch. Plus the soldiers at Agincourt were highly trained with the use of the longbow from age 12 (training just meaning feats or special abilities). So using realism the archer should be able to fire at touch by getting extensive training and by making one attack per round right?
You can target the weak points in your opponent's armor.
Prerequisites: Dex 19, Improved Precise Shot, Point-Blank Shot, Precise Shot, base attack bonus +16.
Benefit: As a standard action, make a single ranged attack. The target does not gain any armor, natural armor, or shield bonuses to its Armor Class. You do not gain the benefit of this feat if you move this round.
This is basically attacking touch AC and the archer is limited to a shot as a standard action (Not six seconds, but hey close enough for me). I do not have an adequate example comparable to this one for crossbows, but since a longbow would be the first alternative this is good enough.
That is what I suspected. Part of the reason I overreacted in my tone (which I apologize for) is because I am personally upset by the fact that firearms are inferior to longbows.
Apology accepted :). I get really defensive about some stuff too (sorcerer<wizard, grrrr).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game covers the rules by RAW nicely already: circumstance penalties and bonuses are a normal part of the game. In fact, the Perception skill write-up even has a hard set modifier to the DC for "favorable" conditions. This easily covers the white plume of the shot. And allows the perception check vs the sniping-stealth check.
The noise from the gun is handled as well: basic DC to hear the sound of battle is DC = -10. An acute noise from a gun could very well be a DC of -15 or -20 (but you can determine that for yourself). Let's work with -15 for the sake of this example. To pinpoint something from a basic perception check requires beating the DC by 20 (see page 443 in Core). So with a DC -15 + 20 = DC 5 check the target can pinpoint the square from which he was sniped with a gun. Remember to adjust for distance, but factor in favorable circumstance again (still the white plume). This does not necessarily reveal the sniper himself (if he's in cover/concealment and can thus stealth), but his exact square becomes known.
I think this covers the gun sniping nicely.
The game covers the rules by RAW nicely already: circumstance penalties and bonuses are a normal part of the game. In fact, the Perception skill write-up even has a hard set modifier to the DC for "favorable" conditions. This easily covers the white plume of the shot. And allows the perception check vs the sniping-stealth check.
The noise from the gun is handled as well: basic DC to hear the sound of battle is DC = -10. An acute noise from a gun could very well be a DC of -15 or -20 (but you can determine that for yourself). Let's work with -15 for the sake of this example. To pinpoint something from a basic perception check requires beating the DC by 20 (see page 443 in Core). So with a DC -15 + 20 = DC 5 check the target can pinpoint the square from which he was sniped with a gun. Remember to adjust for distance, but factor in favorable circumstance again (still the white plume). This does not necessarily reveal the sniper himself (if he's in cover/concealment and can thus stealth), but his exact square becomes known.
I think this covers the gun sniping nicely.
Favorited, thanks!
Again, not pathfinder rules, but Iron Kingdoms Rifleman had a class feature with a bonus to the spotters to find him.
Rifleman[/url]]Sniping Shot (Ex): Starting at 2nd level, a rifleman gains the signature ability to do a sniping shot. This full-round action can only be done with a long gun, and requires the rifleman to be outside point-blank range (over 30 feet away). Most importantly, a sniping shot can only be made if the target has no idea of the sniper's location. Most snipers use the Hide skill and concealment to gain a first shot against an unsuspecting target. An initial sniping shot allows time to aim, providing a +2 to hit bonus. A successful hit with a Sniping Shot is automatically treated as a critical hit threat (as if the sniper had rolled 19 or 20) and if the critical check succeeds the hit does critical damage per the sniper's level-based multiplier. (This supersedes the weapon's regular critical multiplier for purpose of this ability. If the attack roll actually was a 19-20, the weapon multiplier can be used if it is higher than the level based multiplier.)
If the sniper is firing from a location with concealment and manages to remain hidden, he may try subsequent sniping shots. The target and any other allies are given a chance to Spot the sniper in an opposed roll at a +3 bonus against the sniper's Hide skill. If the sniper remains hidden and the target is still unaware of his location, another sniping shot can be executed. Each shot forces another opposed Spot check with a cumulative +3 bonus to Spot. The sniper can attempt to Move Silently and Hide at a different location to negate the cumulative bonus, providing they have not yet been spotted. Given reload time, trying to do several sniping shots in a row is not practical unless the rifleman has more than one loaded rifle at the ready. A team of snipers working in tandem and alternating loading, hiding and firing can take a heavy toll when ambushing an opposing force. Once the target knows the location of a sniper, this ability cannot be used although the rifleman can continue to fire regularly at the target.
Sorry if this threatens threadjacking, but I am curious Cibulan, as to how you would have designed firearms. Thus far, the people I've talked to who said "The way firearms are handled is stupid, I would have done it this way", had weapons that looked like little more than reflavored crossbows that weren't simple weapons. Bows, crossbows, and slings are distinct from one another in multiple ways, so how would you have made firearms to make them distinct from what was already there, and make people want to use them instead of those other options?
Well for one, you have to decide what era of firearms we're talking about. Anything 1860's and beyond should leave bows and crossbows mostly obsolete except for a few specialists; for example, an archer specialist ala Green Arrow or Hawkeye. I made a homebrew wild west campaign for me and my friends and firearms left everything else in the dust, but they were meant to.
I'll assume we're talking early era firearms like arquebus, muskets, and pistols.
-Target normal AC. These firearms did not have the penetrating power most people attribute to them.
***If this is too dull for you, have the target flat-footed AC. Flat-footed is more "realistic" because plate armor should be able to withstand a shot, but one should not be expected to be able to dodge even a musket shot. In the present system, this is backwards where metal is no protection but someone can grab a bullet out of mid air (Snatch Arrow).
-High damage, low rate of fire. Something like Vital Strike or Dead-shot, but actually good. Instead of full-attacking resulting in multiple shots, a full-attack results in one very large shot. As if he had pooled all damage into one shot. This would give firearms an advantage over DR, something mechanical and fluff pleasing.
-Explosive damage dice. If you roll the maximum number of a dice, reroll it and add them together. Continue with that dice until you don't roll max.
-Simple weapon proficiency. If a wizard, cleric, etc. can learn to aim and shoot a crossbow, they can do it with a gun. This was a very important characteristic of real world firearms, a no talent peasant could aim, shoot, and kill a knight who spent 20+ years training with a sword.
-Large critical multipliers. This is something they got right.
Here's an example, a level 6 Gunslinger with 20 dexterity. His full attack (simplified) would be +11/+6 for 1d12 + 5 damage. He shoots at touch AC and practically never misses. He will do an average of 24 damage a round (7.5+5 x 2).
My system, same stats (dex to damage from Gunslinger), he makes one shot that round as a full-attack against normal (or FF) AC. Lets say he does 2d12+10 on a hit (the same as saying both attacks hit and added together) for an average again of 24, but if he rolled max on the dice, he'd have more.
This is not a whole lot different than a normal full-attack action, but working within the 3.X system, there's not a lot of freedom to play. I think the idea of one, all or nothing, big shot per round is different enough from the longbow-machine gun. It's also more "realistic" because iron golems and dragons are more likely to live than Neo, the bullet snatching monk (touch AC system).
I'd also make the Dex mod to damage thing standard across all classes, or make it built into the gun's cost like a composite longbow. But I also allow my players to add a strength rating to crossbows for the same reason.
I have no clue if the big, massive shot idea would work in reality. I have not play tested it, you asked and that's what I came up with on the fly. I made sure to say that it targets FF, not that the opponent is FF because that would be huge for Rogues and Ninjas and the like. To help balance it out, I'd leave misfires in. These misfires would not damage the gun or require any fixing, instead they would just mean the gun failed to fire. Like expanding the rule of natural 1 to include natural 2, 3, 4 or whatever. That would help reenforce the all or nothing nature.
I also feel that the big, full-round shot needs its own action name. Something like "Aiming Shot", which is a special full-round action available to anyone wielding a firearm.
The exploding dice idea was actually in Paizo's original gun rules in their campaign setting (3.5?) book. This is their second incarnation of firearms and the exploding dice were dropped.
I would say that the reason to keep using crossbows instead of firearms, even as simple weapons, is that crossbows get iterative attacks, firearms wouldn't. For some classes, this wouldn't matter, but for others it'd be more advantageous to gain extra attacks. For example, an Inquisitor's bane ability would be better served with more attacks and so would a Rogue's sneak attacks. In contrast, a Cleric would probably want one big shot from a gun.
Lastly, to negate things like Rapid Shot, one could either bake that into the firearm's ability (let the extra damage RS would result in combine with the big shot), or solve it by firearms reload really slowly, meaning Rapid Shot can't be performed.
Here's what I'm thinking (just off the top of my head), make it a full-round action to reload any firearm. Rapid Reload would reduce this to a move action. This way there would be no possible way to get iterative attacks. You could then use paper cartridges to reload a firearm as part of an Aiming Shot attack. That's not very elegant, but it's not terrible either.
Or the simplest way of all is to put a special note that Rapid Shot, Haste, etc. cannot be combined with a firearm's full-attack action.
So I'm assuming what you mean is to eliminate any combination chains like this so that it becomes impossible to get itterative attacks with a single shot firearm?
Correct. My thought was to make firearms a new class of weapon where the full-attack action is modified. It makes it unique, and in theory, balanced. If a player wanted iterative attacks, the bows and crossbows would be available. In a way it's like spell casting, one potent action (spell) versus multiple less potent actions (full-attack).
I would not have included pepperboxes in this system. If for some reason they were judged essential, I'm sure some solution could have been found. As for revolvers and the like, I left them out of the equation.
I mentioned in my first post of this that 1860's+ firearms are moving into a whole new category of power. In my wild west game, I had revolvers and lever action rifles. They hit hard and made iterative attacks. Naturally, they made bows and crossbows obsolete except for a few archetypes I made for specialists of those weapons. Maybe you wouldn't agree but I'm of the opinion that once we start moving into, and past, the 1860's, firearms have advanced to a point it is logical to assume they should be the weapons of choice and render most armor useless.
If you're curious, for my WW game, guns attacked normal AC. Full-plate of fine steel could help deflect those period weapons but it would be super expensive, hot (classic WW desert), heavy, etc. It (and all forms of armor) were there as an option but firearms added the shooter's dex mod to damage so most characters were high dex based and so didn't wear heavy armors. Even the simple chain shirt protected the user because there was a chance, although slight, it could deflect a near hit (turn away a grazing bullet).