Holy Gun paladin archtype from Ultimate Combat...why!?


Product Discussion

151 to 200 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

PS. I am actually a game designer by profession, thanks. I'm quite qualified to criticize game design. Even if I weren't, playing the game that they are trying to sell me qualifies me to criticize it.

Stop trying to censor people. One, you don't have the authority. Two, you come off sounding like a yes-man or megaoverzealous fanboi.

EDIT: Now, I'm not saying Prof. Cirno isn't being a bit ... overly-aggressive with his postings. He's gone a bit off the deep end, IMO. But saying, "You can't criticize Paizo! You havn't ever made anything!" is A) not necessarily true, and B) stupid.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Blurg wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:
Why does everyone only want to compare the power of the archetypes at level 20? How about comparing the holy gun paladin at level 5 to a normal paladin using a gun at level 5? I know which one I'd take.
Is it normal paladin? Because for me, it's normal paladin at every level.

For me however it would be the Holy Gun, it may not be the "optimal" choice but not all of us try to cram every single point of damage into a build.

I like the Archetype, and I have fun playing it. In the end if I enjoy playing a character then it is a win in my book.

Sovereign Court

Blurg wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Well, to be blunt you're nether qualified nor experienced enough to pass judgment on them. When you publish something for the public to tear apart then you get to judge the attitudes of your fellow authors. When you try to give your defense of something you've spent hundreds of hours on only to be attack from all sides then you get to comment on another author being flippant. Your words are like so much vitriol in a vacuum of hate.
By this logic, I'm not allowed to point out that a table only has three legs because I'm not a carpenter.

I didn't say that. I didn't say you couldn't criticize the product. You do realize that there is a difference between a person and a product correct?

Sovereign Court

Maxximilius wrote:
Blurg wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
Well, to be blunt you're nether qualified nor experienced enough to pass judgment on them. When you publish something for the public to tear apart then you get to judge the attitudes of your fellow authors. When you try to give your defense of something you've spent hundreds of hours on only to be attack from all sides then you get to comment on another author being flippant. Your words are like so much vitriol in a vacuum of hate.
By this logic, I'm not allowed to point out that a table only has three legs because I'm not a carpenter.
Also, how could I dare say a movie is terrible if I'm not Steven Spielberg ? How is it even possible -or allowed !- to say a book is bad if you're not able to write something better ? Preposterous !

Again, I'm not saying you can't dislike the movie, what I'm saying is you can't cast aspersions on the character of Steven Spielberg because you saw one of his films. While the "I could have directed a better film them that" analogy is almost always pointless because the person making the remarks has no real understanding of movie making that is not my point. Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean that you get call Steven stupid or incompetent not only because those criticisms are childish and pointless, but because usually the person aiming those insults knows nothing of the craft and likely has no idea why the movie failed. What ProfessorCirno was doing, and what I objected to, was leveling personal attacks against the character of the people providing the game. If Steven Spielberg went into a movie site and had people critiquing his movie he might try to give some alternate view points that the author might not have considered. If he came into a movie site and saw people calling him (and each other) stupid and illiterate he probably wouldn't bother.


Guy Humual wrote:
Again, I'm not saying you can't dislike the movie, what I'm saying is you can't cast aspersions on the character of Steven Spielberg because you saw one of his films. While the "I could have directed a better film them that" analogy is almost always pointless because the person making the remarks has no real understanding of movie making that is not my point. Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean that you get call Steven stupid or incompetent not only because those criticisms are childish and pointless, but because usually the person aiming those insults knows nothing of the craft and likely has no idea why the movie failed. What ProfessorCirno was doing, and what I objected to, was leveling personal attacks against the character of the people providing the game. If Steven Spielberg went into a movie site and had people critiquing his movie he might try to give some alternate view points that the author might not have considered. If he came into a movie site and saw people calling him (and each other) stupid and illiterate he probably wouldn't bother.

But you have to admit that The War Of The Worlds wasn't THAT great.

Sovereign Court

Fozbek wrote:
PS. I am actually a game designer by profession, thanks. I'm quite qualified to criticize game design. Even if I weren't, playing the game that they are trying to sell me qualifies me to criticize it.

Again, I wasn't suggesting that people couldn't criticize the product. What have you published and where can I find it?

Fozbek wrote:
Stop trying to censor people. One, you don't have the authority. Two, you come off sounding like a yes-man or megaoverzealous fanboi.

This is basically what I'm talking about, I plead for civility and suddenly I become (in your eyes) a loyal toady of Paizo? I think criticism is good, I think any publisher would welcome constructive criticism even if they don't agree with the assessment because it shows them how their product could be received, but you do understand that there's feedback that just isn't useful correct? There's comments that just aren't constructive because they derail the entire discussion.

What I objected to was ProfessorCirno saying that the designers "just didn't give a damn", perhaps as a game designer you might see sloppy game design, and perhaps you might even be so bold as to cast aspersions on the designers themselves. However I doubt that anyone in the profession would be so bold based on one class or even one book.

Fozbek wrote:
EDIT: Now, I'm not saying Prof. Cirno isn't being a bit ... overly-aggressive with his postings. He's gone a bit off the deep end, IMO.

And again, my comments weren't directed solely at Cirno, his was just the first post I saw when I jumped to the end of the discussion. I don't want people to stop evaluating products or comparing classes or builds, I want people to stop attacking each other. I want there to be some civility on these threads. I want this place to be the friendly open place it was some 4 or 5 years ago when I started posting here. Back then I had some concerns about an adventure published in Dungeon magazine and I was pleased that the author of said adventure was able to add his perspective to the discussion. Perhaps I'm being naive that people could return to a level of mutual respect, the 4e forums was the first breakdown in civility. People would go in there just to attack 4e because it existed. Some I suspected tried to assume that there was a war on between Paizo and WotC. Then when Paizo announced it's move into the RPG market this unrest spread to the design forums.

I don't want this place to turn into the old WotC forums. There were a lot of great people over there but there were a lot of nasty folks lurking in the deep end. One person could derail a thread and turn positive advice into pointless bickering in an instant. And often for no good reason. I don't want that here.

Sovereign Court

Pixel Cube wrote:
But you have to admit that The War Of The Worlds wasn't THAT great.

Never even bothered to watch it :P


Guy Humual, let me see if I fully grasp what you're intending to say.

You are saying that is acceptable to criticize an actual product, regardless of one's training, efforts, or profession. You are also saying that it is not acceptable to criticize the designers of that product in an aggressive, destructive, or oppressive manner. Criticism that is constructive, even if it's directed at the designers, is OK. Or, perhaps, the distinction between design and designer isn't the important part, but rather the constructive/destructive divide.

Is that your intent? If so, we do not disagree on this subject. I agree that Prof. Cirno's posts attacking the designers aren't helpful in any way, except to vent his frustration. I do have problems with some elements of Paizo's design and editing methodology, but I try not to comment on it too much or too aggressively, because I know it's not something that is likely to change, especially because one semi-anonymous forum poster said so.

Sovereign Court

Fozbek wrote:

Guy Humual, let me see if I fully grasp what you're intending to say.

You are saying that is acceptable to criticize an actual product, regardless of one's training, efforts, or profession. You are also saying that it is not acceptable to criticize the designers of that product in an aggressive, destructive, or oppressive manner. Criticism that is constructive, even if it's directed at the designers, is OK. Or, perhaps, the distinction between design and designer isn't the important part, but rather the constructive/destructive divide.

Is that your intent? If so, we do not disagree on this subject. I agree that Prof. Cirno's posts attacking the designers aren't helpful in any way, except to vent his frustration. I do have problems with some elements of Paizo's design and editing methodology, but I try not to comment on it too much or too aggressively, because I know it's not something that is likely to change, especially because one semi-anonymous forum poster said so.

I'm not sure how criticism directed at the designers themselves would be helpful, but yes that is what I'm say :D

I would never want to stifle criticism. If you have a problem with something I want this to be a place where you feel free to express that opinion and others feel free to offer opposing or supporting arguments. I like debates, I like criticism, Paizo is a company that I do like but they're completely human and can make mistakes. I don't want to create a bubble for them any more then I want them to feel unwelcome on their own boards.

I didn't mean to single Cirno out, I'm sure there are lots of people on the other side of the argument attacking his character as well. This is wrong. No good will come of this. While I don't approve of Cirno's tactics I don't know him so I won't speak ill of his character. He says he's a teacher so perhaps he is a truly supportive and nurturing person in his day to day life but becomes a bit overzealous when he's on the internet. I don't know. All I know is his comments directed at the designers wasn't helpful nor was it constructive and it was at this that I took exception.

Silver Crusade

Guy Humual wrote:
Again, I'm not saying you can't dislike the movie, what I'm saying is you can't cast aspersions on the character of Steven Spielberg because you saw one of his films. While the "I could have directed a better film them that" analogy is almost always pointless because the person making the remarks has no real understanding of movie making that is not my point. Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't mean that you get call Steven stupid or incompetent not only because those criticisms are childish and pointless, but because usually the person aiming those insults knows nothing of the craft and likely has no idea why the movie failed. What ProfessorCirno was doing, and what I objected to, was leveling personal attacks against the character of the people providing the game. If Steven Spielberg went into a movie site and had people critiquing his movie he might try to give some alternate view points that the author might not have considered. If he came into a movie site and saw people calling him (and each other) stupid and illiterate he probably wouldn't bother.

Actually, using Spielberg as an example wasn't to dismiss his movies, quite the contrary since my intent was to say "you don't need to be an awarded director to say if a movie sucks".

What you seem to be saying is that you can't criticize the designers in a rude and almost gratuitous way just because their work isn't always perfect. And on this, I agree wholeheartedly.
I greatly respect any designer out there who's working into something he likes, using references from culture he appreciates into a system as awesome as 3.x. I respect any designer here at Paizo who gave us the Pathfinder little miracle.

My take on this topic is that players are buying rulebooks because they want RULES. I don't mind homebrewing some details. I don't mind being less versatile than the vanilla class if I feel like a unique snowflake kicking asses and taking names my own awesome way.
But I do mind when we get options intended for PCs that are worst at their job than a vanilla option specializing the same way. I can't imagine an "armor fighter" with less AC, DR or HP than a vanilla one. And I do mind when we have to do so at a time where it isn't possible - to use my own situation as an example, my DM isn't the best when it comes to rules knowledge. Actually, he runs everything according to what I teach him and counts on me when it comes to what should be allowed/what he could do without running into a TPK. At a time, he didn't even want to use the APG because he considered the core rulebook as "well-enough". I had to deploy treasures of persuasion to make him reconsider his take. Since then, he DMPCed two great characters, an alchemist and an inquisitor, and he had a lot of fun with them. But balance is an important part of the equation, and the nerf-bat is well more welcomed than the buff one = if an option is bad, he prefers to ignore it rather than upgrading it. It's way to allow a supplement is to see how much people complain about the content.

What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be options so terrible that taking them becomes a "roleplay thing". I'm sick of balance being called a "4th edition fanbois thing".
We don't want complete balance. Just playable, clear archetypes (looking at you, Titan Mauler), and archetypes not overwhelmingly worst than the core or multiclassing characters.
Especially when all it needs is a simple errata ; and that there is a whole community proposing things that can legally be used anytime once it's posted on the forums.

Again, I respect the designers, and I don't ask for pure balance.
I ask for archetypes that can stand on their own, and I don't even ask for them to be in the first printing at all costs. This is also why new technologies and erratas are for.

Sovereign Court

And that is the sort of feedback I love reading on this site.


OffTopic War of Worlds:
Guy Humual wrote:
Pixel Cube wrote:
But you have to admit that The War Of The Worlds wasn't THAT great.
Never even bothered to watch it :P

Strangely, my parents love that movie and are stunned I have yet to see it.

*shrugs*

I thought Holy Gun was kind of a "why bother" choice, but after reading this thread, I wanna try it now. :P

Greg

Liberty's Edge

Fozbek wrote:
Sorry, wrong answer. The Rich trait lets you start with 900 gold. The cheapest gun is 740 gold, although there are four that are less than 900. You can start the game with a coat pistol with any character of any class using any archetype.

Ok, you can start with a gun. I was wrong.

Quote:
Where are people comparing at level 20, let alone only at level 20? Please stop throwing out blatant straw men.

They haven't said explicitly level 20, but my point wasn't about level 20. It was to point out that their objects start at mid levels. What objects do you see that are relevant to levels 1 - 6? That is a significant portion of the game being glossed over. (All of it, if you play E6. lol)

------

One thing I want to comment on is the statement:

The nerf bat is more welcome than the buff bat.

I whole heartedly disagree with this. Power creep is one of the reasons 3.5 got out of control. (Yes, wizards and druids were powerful without splats, but they were virtually unbeatable with them.) I'd much rather specialized options be equal to less powerful rather than equal to more powerful.

Silver Crusade

Guy Humual wrote:
And that is the sort of feedback I love reading on this site.

It seems to speak about what I wrote, but I can't put the finger on which part it praises ; or on where the irony could be.


Maxximilius wrote:

What I'm saying is that there shouldn't be options so terrible that taking them becomes a "roleplay thing". I'm sick of balance being called a "4th edition fanbois thing".

We don't want complete balance. Just playable, clear archetypes (looking at you, Titan Mauler), and archetypes not overwhelmingly worst than the core or multiclassing characters.
Especially when all it needs is a simple errata ; and that there is a whole community proposing things that can legally be used anytime once it's posted on the forums.

Again, I respect the designers, and I don't ask for pure balance.
I ask for archetypes that can stand on their own, and I don't even ask for them to be in the first printing at all costs. This is also why new technologies and erratas are for.

Hear, hear. I agree 100%.

ShadowcatX wrote:
They haven't said explicitly level 20, but my point wasn't about level 20. It was to point out that their objects start at mid levels. What objects do you see that are relevant to levels 1 - 6? That is a significant portion of the game being glossed over. (All of it, if you play E6. lol)

Level 3 Human Paladin with PBS, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim: 1d8+3 x 2 = 15

Level 3 Holy Gun with 18 Cha, PBS and Deadly Aim vs normal evil: 1d8+10 x 1 = 14

Level 3 Holy Gun as above, vs undead/fiend/chromatic dragon: 1d8+13 x 1 = 17

So the Holy Gun does 2 more damage on average if and only if he's fighting weak undeed, dretches, lemures, or wyrmlings.

Liberty's Edge

Fozbek wrote:

Level 3 Human Paladin with PBS, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim: 1d8+3 x 2 = 15

Level 3 Holy Gun with 18 Cha, PBS and Deadly Aim vs normal evil: 1d8+10 x 1 = 14

Level 3 Holy Gun as above, vs undead/fiend/chromatic dragon: 1d8+13 x 1 = 17

So the Holy Gun does 2 more damage on average if and only if he's fighting weak undeed, dretches, lemures, or wyrmlings.

Assuming both the pure paladin's attacks hit. And of course, that's a big assumption without proficiency, and taking -2 with rapidshot and -1 with deadly aim. Thanks, but for +1 to damage, I'll skip the -7 to attack. Oh, and since the holy gun is down a feat, let's give him precise shot and make it -11 to attack.


ShadowcatX wrote:
Fozbek wrote:

Level 3 Human Paladin with PBS, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim: 1d8+3 x 2 = 15

Level 3 Holy Gun with 18 Cha, PBS and Deadly Aim vs normal evil: 1d8+10 x 1 = 14

Level 3 Holy Gun as above, vs undead/fiend/chromatic dragon: 1d8+13 x 1 = 17

So the Holy Gun does 2 more damage on average if and only if he's fighting weak undeed, dretches, lemures, or wyrmlings.

Assuming both the pure paladin's attacks hit. And of course, that's a big assumption without proficiency, and taking -2 with rapidshot and -1 with deadly aim. Thanks, but for +1 to damage, I'll skip the -7 to attack. Oh, and since the holy gun is down a feat, let's give him precise shot and make it -11 to attack.

You're right, I forgot proficiency (in my defense, I'm neck-deep in preparing for a campaign where all guns are simple weapons). Moving the level up to 5, though, doesn't significantly change the numbers, and it's still within E6.

It's also ignoring a point I've made multiple times now and has yet to be addressed: halving your ability to be effective against the strongest enemies in order to slightly increase your effectiveness against the weakest enemies isn't a good tradeoff.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

The need to buy proficiency is a serious problem for the feat-starved paladin to begin with - in addition, there's the very real issue of how you're managing to get two shots off with a weapon that requires a move action to reload (and that's assuming you're using alchemical rounds, not something I'd guarantee at 3rd level).


Yeah, forgot about reload times too. OK, I cede the pre-level 6 superiority. I still maintain my main objection, though, which as still to be addressed.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Fozbek wrote:
It's also ignoring a point I've made multiple times now and has yet to be addressed: halving your ability to be effective against the strongest enemies in order to slightly increase your effectiveness against the weakest enemies isn't a good tradeoff.

It's an almost impossible scenario to theorycraft, however, which is probably why it isn't getting addressed.

Let me present an example, nonrandom inasmuch as it is from the session of Kingmaker I ran my home group through last night. It was the encounter against the BBEG of the first book, an encounter that is rife with mooks who are of CRs much lower than the party, a couple lieutenants of CRs close to the party's level, and a BBEG who is well over the party APL. My home group has an archer who likes to stay fairly close to the fight to take advantage of PBS, so I can fairly easily work through how the encounter likely would have gone if I "replace" her wth either a holy gun or a gun-using paladin.

The truth is, a 3rd level paladin would have been fighting evil opponents (and would have known they were evil) all throughout the encounter, but would have only been able to smite once, probably saving it for use against the BBEG. (That's certainly what the ranger did - she's a guide, and so has a smite-like ability.) By contrast, a holy gun would have been using Smiting Shot like there was no tomorrow, because PBS + Deadly Aim + Smiting Shot means just about every attack is going to drop a mook and get that grit back. Once she hit the BBEG, she'd've probably had all her grit left and still gotten off as many smite attacks as the paladin would have - two, to be precise - because that's how long it took the BBEG to drop. Neither would have likely been smiting the lieutenants. And the paladin would've been a feat short to boot.

This is of course a specific example, not a theoretical one - but that's precisely the point. This is an actual event at an actual gaming table, focusing on an actual encounter not written to give the advantage to any particular build. So claims that it is inherently weaker against stronger foes are making theoretical assumptions that are not necessarily going to be borne out in play.

Sovereign Court

Maxximilius wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
And that is the sort of feedback I love reading on this site.
It seems to speak about what I wrote, but I can't put the finger on which part it praises ; or on where the irony could be.

No irony. A reasoned argument. The sort of thing that I like to read. I'm not sure which side of the debate I'm on at this point, my thoughts are a ranged smite seems pretty darn useful and if a paladin can replenish grit the way a gunslinger can then you could have multiple uses of smite in a day, especially if the smite shot drops the bad guy. This class is very much out of the paladin's norm though. I really don't like the detect evil spells as written so I don't mind the paladin having to give them up.

I haven't read too much into this class however, I'd just jumped to the end to see how the debate had unfolded and saw the comments that made me cringe.


Fozbek wrote:


Level 3 Human Paladin with PBS, Rapid Shot, and Deadly Aim: 1d8+3 x 2 = 15
Level 3 Holy Gun with 18 Cha, PBS and Deadly Aim vs normal evil: 1d8+10 x 1 = 14

Level 3 Holy Gun as above, vs undead/fiend/chromatic dragon: 1d8+13 x 1 = 17

So the Holy Gun does 2 more damage on average if and only if he's fighting weak undeed, dretches, lemures, or wyrmlings.

I agree that the holy gun is a bad archetype if it is worse than the original paladin is every way.

So lets make a level 7 human paladin, and a level 7 holy gun, and see how they compare with DPR. If the paladin isnt better by level 7 which is 60% of the PFS levels, then i think the holy gun would be atleast good enough to use at PFS, and thus a reasonable archetype. This is just a rough draft though.

normal paladin 6 gunslinger 1: 18 dex 18 cha, feats: rapid reload, PBS, deadly aim, rapid shot. if we decide to make him human to make up for the feat starving, we could give him precise shot. But a class that only is better if you play human, is not really better in my book. assuming a pistol +2.

attack rutines:

normal attack: +10/+10/+5 for 1d8+4(DA)+2(wp)+1(PBS)=11.5 avg
with soft cover or into melee: +6/+6/+1 for 1d8+4(DA)+2(wp)+1=11.5
soft cover and melee: +2/+2/-3 for 11.5

while smiting:
normal attack: +14/+14/+9 for 1d8+4(DA)+2(wp)+6+1=17.5
with soft cover or into melee: +10/+10/+5 for 1d8+4(DA)+2(wp)+6+1=17.5
soft cover and melee: +6/+6/+1 for 17.5

while smiting super evil stuff:
normal attack: +14/+14/+9 for 1d8+4(DA)+2(wp)+12+1=23.5
with soft cover or into melee: +10/+10/+5 for 1d8+4(DA)+2(wp)+12+1=23.5
soft cover and melee: +6/+6/+1 for 23.5

holy gun paladin: 18 dex 18 cha, feats: PBS, deadly aim, rapid reload, precise shot. if we decide to make him human to make up for the feat starving, we could give him precise shot. But a class that only is better if you play human we take extra grit, is not really better in my book. assuming a musket +2. He also has quick clear as a grit ability in case he should misfire.

attack rutines:

normal attack: +12 for 1d12+4(DA)+2(wp)+1=13.5 avg
with soft cover: +8 for 1d12+4(DA)+2(wp)+1=13.5

while smiting, and he can do that loads of times:
normal attack: +12 for 1d12+4(DA)+2(wp)+7+4+1=24.5
with soft cover: +8 for 1d8+4(DA)+2(wp)+7+4+1=24.5

while smiting evil stuff:
normal attack: +12 for 1d12+4(DA)+2(wp)+14+4+1=31.5
with soft cover: +8 for 1d12+4(DA)+2(wp)+14+4+1=31.5

so calculating in everything except misfire (and that should actually favor the holy gun more if we did), we let them fire against a cr 7 opponent, that has 20 ac. Lets make a guess and say thats 15 touch ac. And we get the following DPR.

Holy gun vs Paladin DPR
normal: 14 vs 28.3
soft cover: 10.9 vs 20.3
soft and melee: 10.9 vs 12.6

smiting:
normal: 25.4 vs 53.3
soft cover: 19.7 vs 43.3
soft and melee: 19.7 vs 31.2

evil smiting:
normal: 32.6 vs 59.8
soft cover: 25.4 vs 48.8
soft and melee: 25.4 vs 35.3

Keep in mind this is without buffs. They would benefit the normal paladin more. The important thing to remember, is that the normal paladin can only smite 2 times a day. While the holy gun can do it atleast 3 times + the number of kills and crits he make in a day.

But doing the numbers, i still wouldnt say the holy gun is inferior. 10.9 DPR vs 12.6 when attacking a guy in melee (he also has soft cover ofc) is really not that huge. Combine that with the ability to attack further away (duble range of the pistol), that he can do it with a blunderbuss to get an aoe on top of that, makes him atleast situationally better.


I had to make the paladin multiclass gunslinger, so he could get the weapon proficiency for free.

Its a fact that you have to multiclass the normal paladin with the gunslinger to have enough feats to be viable and also be human.

So i think my conclusion is this. The archetype is not a waste of space. You might be able to make a better paladin with a gun, but then you also have to make him a human gunslinger 1 paladin X. And that is quite a restriction. Atleast if we use level 7 as the baseline.

So in PFS with a level 12 cap, the holy gun is way better between levels 1-6, atleast as good from level 7 (little worse if you want to play human), and worse between 8 and 12. So i wouldnt claim that the holy gun archetype is useless. Combine that with the fact that he can ignore damage reduction, pretty much at will, have longer range, 1 level higher paladin spells, 1 level better in LOH and bounded weapon.

@Cirno

I hope this will satisfy your theorycrafting requirement of actual usable data. And an argument based in the mechanics of the game. If anyone has any suggestions regarding changes to the 2 paladins, please make them.


@nicklas Læssøe
iirc all gun archetypes (except gunslinger ones) are banned from PFS.

Thank you for your analysis it is really helpfull but let's keep in mind that if your wizard throws around a haste (at 7th level this isn't something we shouldn't except) the situation really favors the normal paladin.


Ok i had no idea they were banned from PFS as i dont really play that. But i cant see why they wouldnt be allowed sometime in the future.

Anyway my point still stands. In any campaign with a level ceiling at lvl 12 or under. The holy gun is going to be better than the normal paladin for half the levels, and worse at the other.

But you also need to keep in mind that the normal paladin really cant do anything untill level 5 and not really untill level 7, becouse of the very high feat tax for him to actually work.


I'm still waiting for someone to remember that normal paladin smite gives you extra AC and lasts until the target is dead, rather then in a single attack.

Edit: That's not even going into questions like "How the heck does Aura of Justice even work with this?"


ProfessorCirno wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to remember that normal paladin smite gives you extra AC and lasts until the target is dead, rather then in a single attack.

Yes as i haev stated above the smite from the regular paladin works till the target is dead, and you gain an AC bonus, against the target of the smite. Especially that last part is important, because why would your paladin be in combat with the target of the smite, the one he is shooting at. Since the paladin is ranged you shouldnt even be the target in the first place. So that bonus is kinda bad.

You should also keep in mind that the pure paladin is one level lower regarding the daily spells, and heals for less with LoH. He cant just waste the smites, which he has 2 of each day on every opponent. While the holy gun can use it on all opponents that has DR.

If we give an opponent DR 5/-, evil or anything like it. We reduce the normal paladins damage with a lot more than the holy guns.

I am not contesting that the paladin gunslinger is better when he gets to a high enough level. Just that he isnt better in the earlier levels.

At the first coupple of levels the normal paladin has to save that smite for the BBEG, while the holy gun can give that damage out many times.

I do have a question for you Cirno. Do you think that having to play human, multiclassing to gunslinger/paladin and having no other feat choices than these ones until level 9. Is that such a small sacrifice that every person shuld make it. And because everyone should make it, the Holy gun is "useless", atleast after level 5.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Edit: That's not even going into questions like "How the heck does Aura of Justice even work with this?"

It doesn't work, since the holy gun hasn't any "smite evil use" to pay the cost.


GâtFromKI wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Edit: That's not even going into questions like "How the heck does Aura of Justice even work with this?"
It doesn't work, since the holy gun hasn't any "smite evil use" to pay the cost.

I think there is a misprint in the book. Holy grit is supposed to replace the aura of justice i think. That should be under errata, otherwise it seems to wierd. And he gets an ability that dosnt replace anything, that also seems wierd, so im guessing its an oversight.


The gun rules are horrible anyway. I don't know why anyone would want to use them in the first place.


Ashiel wrote:
The gun rules are horrible anyway. I don't know why anyone would want to use them in the first place.

But I do. Maybe because of roleplaying?

*CUE A MILLION COMMENTS ABOUT THE SAME STUFF*


I'm not very fond of mechanics that are useless for anything except trying to fake filling a roleplaying niche. There are better firearm rules available outside of Ultimate Combat. As written the guns are horrible from a roleplaying standpoint. If you actually wanted to get into the verisimilitude of them, they wouldn't exist at all since they are generally inferior to existing weapons in virtually every way (unless you have the advanced firearms, in which case they're arguably OP) and cost excessively more.

I have firearms in my own games and have since before UC came out. I like them from a flavor aspect, and for some reason I can't help but to imagine them as an excellent choice of weapon for alchemists, bards, and wizard as far as pure flavor goes (alchemist and wizard strikes me as having natural inclinations to tinker with gunpower technology and bards just make wonderfully flashy gunslingers).

However, current firearm rules are pretty bad and aren't used in my games. The Paladin archtype to use the guns is even worse, being demonstrate-ably worse than a core Paladin in most situations.

Plus, I dislike the gun rules because they're just stupid. Metal armor did protect against gunfire - at least plate mail did. Ever heard the term "bullet proofing"? Well it came from armorsmiths who would fire a pistol at their armor from close range to prove it could withstand gunfire and stop the shot. The worst it did was put a little nick in the armor.

Anyway, the core Paladin is better even when using guns. Smite evil is far superior to the gun version, and having smite on every attack until your foe is dead, as well as a deflection bonus to your AC equal to your Charisma vs that foe, and piercing all damage reduction, is just strait up far more awesome than the alternative.


I dont think the gun rules are bad, even if they are generally inferior to the bows.

The reason why they took over instead of the longbow historically, was that it required far less practice to actually use well, and thus very nice to provide a peasant army with.

if you begin using low level 1 commoners, then i think the guns do their job. They just arnt better in the long run of fantasy awsomeness, because they have chosen to use rules comparing to the real life version of guns. While the super cool lvl 20 fighter, can fire 6 arrows per turn, aka 1 every second, something that should be impossible. In low level "realistic" games, i think the gun has its place. Just like in the real world.

It also seems like im talking for deaf ears regarding the prestige class, since people only seem to be interested in doing a lot of damage against the BBEG and therefore the 2 smites a day is enough. In my gaming group we usually do 4-6 encounters a day, meaning your smites will get really thin really fast, if you feel like using them. In a game like that, it seems way more awsome to be able to smite 3+crits+kills times a day. Possibly even saving up some grit for the boss, so that he can smite on all the attacks.


Let's not get off topic about the viability of gun rules. This talk is about the Holy Gun specifically. Leave out general gun rules and your opinions on those here, please.


Seraphimpunk wrote:
why would you ever want to give up persistent smite until said creature is dead, with +cha to hit, +level to damage, in order to get a grit deed that you can use, is dependent on another ability score (wis), and costs 1 grit to use, and doesn't give a bonus to hit, just slightly more damage, each time you spend a grit??

Because the Holy Gun is one of two Paladin Archetypes that can regenerate its uses of Smite each day; while Oath of Vengeance can do it as well, your number of uses are limited by your Lay on Hands uses, which is to say, maybe two extra Smites a day. A Gunslinger with a Keen firearm has a 10% chance per attack to regenerate a grit point, and thereby regain a use of their smiting shot. It's RNG, but it's pretty good.


While I don't like holy gun and think it's pretty bad, it does allow you to use smite on every enemy every round after 11th level if you take signature dead smiting shot. So maybe in a game full of mook undead and demons, or one with little to no rest time between fights it could be useful but ultimately it seems very very niche.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:
While I don't like holy gun and think it's pretty bad, it does allow you to use smite on every enemy every round after 11th level if you take signature dead smiting shot. So maybe in a game full of mook undead and demons, or one with little to no rest time between fights it could be useful but ultimately it seems very very niche.

Sadly, you can't. Signature Deed specifically says you need a Gunslinger level of 11th as a Prequisite. So if you took one level of Holy Gun and then 11 levels of Gunslinger ... then it would work. But that's about it.


Golden-Esque wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
While I don't like holy gun and think it's pretty bad, it does allow you to use smite on every enemy every round after 11th level if you take signature dead smiting shot. So maybe in a game full of mook undead and demons, or one with little to no rest time between fights it could be useful but ultimately it seems very very niche.
Sadly, you can't. Signature Deed specifically says you need a Gunslinger level of 11th as a Prequisite. So if you took one level of Holy Gun and then 11 levels of Gunslinger ... then it would work. But that's about it.

Crap you're right, that makes me a very sad panda.


Golden-Esque wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:
While I don't like holy gun and think it's pretty bad, it does allow you to use smite on every enemy every round after 11th level if you take signature dead smiting shot. So maybe in a game full of mook undead and demons, or one with little to no rest time between fights it could be useful but ultimately it seems very very niche.
Sadly, you can't. Signature Deed specifically says you need a Gunslinger level of 11th as a Prequisite. So if you took one level of Holy Gun and then 11 levels of Gunslinger ... then it would work. But that's about it.

iirc the holy gun can take the signature deed at level 17.


Golden-Esque wrote:
Seraphimpunk wrote:
why would you ever want to give up persistent smite until said creature is dead, with +cha to hit, +level to damage, in order to get a grit deed that you can use, is dependent on another ability score (wis), and costs 1 grit to use, and doesn't give a bonus to hit, just slightly more damage, each time you spend a grit??
Because the Holy Gun is one of two Paladin Archetypes that can regenerate its uses of Smite each day; while Oath of Vengeance can do it as well, your number of uses are limited by your Lay on Hands uses, which is to say, maybe two extra Smites a day. A Gunslinger with a Keen firearm has a 10% chance per attack to regenerate a grit point, and thereby regain a use of their smiting shot. It's RNG, but it's pretty good.

Regarding the oath of vengeance paladin:

two more times per day? seriously?
the oath of vengeance can (at 4th level) spend two lay on hands uses for an extra smite. a paladin has paladin levels/2 + CHA lay on hands per day. a paladin can take the extra lay on hands feat which gives him two more times per day (meaning 1 extra smite per day).
So no, i don't think that it is two more time per day, maybe at level 4 but not at levels 10+.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
Fozbek wrote:


Level 8 Paladin with Deadly Aim, Point Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot: 1d8+7 damage x 3 attacks = 35 average damage
Level 8 Holy Gun with 20 Cha, Deadly Aim, and PBS, smiting an evil foe: 1d8+20 x 1 attack = 24 average damage
Level 8 Holy Gun as above, smiting an undead foe: 1d8+28 x 1 attack = 32 average damage

For comparison's sake, level 8 Paladin as above smiting an evil foe: 1d8+15 damage x 3 attacks = 58 average damage
As above, smiting an undead foe: 1d8+23 damage x 1 + 1d8+15 damage x 2 = 66 average damage

???

Are you simply adding up the average damage per hit and saying that's average damage per round? By doing so, you're automatically assuming that the probability of all attacks hitting is 1. And that's not true.


Bill Dunn wrote:

???

Are you simply adding up the average damage per hit and saying that's average damage per round? By doing so, you're automatically assuming that the probability of all attacks hitting is 1. And that's not true.

This is a good point. Touch Attacks means that the one Smiting Shot will probably never miss; especially with the Paladin's BAB. I wouldn't mind seeing a comparision between a regular Paladin who just used their a feat for Firearm Proficiency.

Liberty's Edge

A straight DPR comparison isn't going to prove much of anything because its hard to factor in the ability to regain smiting shot into DPR. And he's already admitted his example is significantly flawed, there's no reason to belabor the point.

Can anyone put forth any arguments as to why, from levels 1 - 6 a standard paladin with a gun would be better than a Holy Gun?


One thing to note is that if you are playing in a "guns everywhere" campaign classes that give gunsmithing instead give firearm training so this would provide an edge for a holy gun vs a pali with firearm prof.
Im playing in one such campaign and I talked my DM into house ruling Smiting Shot to being a swift action lasting the round still using a grit. This makes smiting shot much prettier while still limiting it. I dont think it will be abusive till I get to 15 and get signature deed. I did my first level as Mysterious Stranger then I have gone Holy Gun ever since. Its not optimized but it is alot of fun. I really only worried about dex and cha.


Obsidian wrote:

One thing to note is that if you are playing in a "guns everywhere" campaign classes that give gunsmithing instead give firearm training so this would provide an edge for a holy gun vs a pali with firearm prof.

Im playing in one such campaign and I talked my DM into house ruling Smiting Shot to being a swift action lasting the round still using a grit. This makes smiting shot much prettier while still limiting it. I dont think it will be abusive till I get to 15 and get signature deed. I did my first level as Mysterious Stranger then I have gone Holy Gun ever since. Its not optimized but it is alot of fun. I really only worried about dex and cha.

Good houserules to make a bad class work does not mean it's not a bad class as written.


Bill Dunn wrote:
Fozbek wrote:


Level 8 Paladin with Deadly Aim, Point Blank Shot, and Rapid Shot: 1d8+7 damage x 3 attacks = 35 average damage
Level 8 Holy Gun with 20 Cha, Deadly Aim, and PBS, smiting an evil foe: 1d8+20 x 1 attack = 24 average damage
Level 8 Holy Gun as above, smiting an undead foe: 1d8+28 x 1 attack = 32 average damage

For comparison's sake, level 8 Paladin as above smiting an evil foe: 1d8+15 damage x 3 attacks = 58 average damage
As above, smiting an undead foe: 1d8+23 damage x 1 + 1d8+15 damage x 2 = 66 average damage

???

Are you simply adding up the average damage per hit and saying that's average damage per round? By doing so, you're automatically assuming that the probability of all attacks hitting is 1. And that's not true.

Further up this post you can see a DPR comparison between the holy gun and the normal paladin.

The main thing that goes against the normal paladin, is that he is too feat heavy, which makes him almost useless at the lower levels.

I still havent heard any argument why the paladin at lower levels should be better. And to require the normal paladin to play human to just minimize the disadvantage early is also very limiting. Meaning the holy gun is definately better before level 7 if you for some reason would like to play something other than human, which should be an rpg choice, and not an optimization choice.


nicklas Læssøe wrote:

The reason why they took over instead of the longbow historically, was that it required far less practice to actually use well, and thus very nice to provide a peasant army with.

if you begin using low level 1 commoners, then i think the guns do their job.

... Except that Pathfinder's firearms are harder to use than longbows. A level 1 commoner can be proficient with bows, he can't be proficient with firearms.


nicklas Læssøe wrote:
I had to make the paladin multiclass gunslinger, so he could get the weapon proficiency for free.

A level 1 holy gun has no smite, no detect evil, and nothing special, so whatever: a level 1 gunslinger has as much "pally-flavor" as a level 1 holy gun.


You don't have to be proficient with a firearm to do well with one. You only have to hit touch AC, remember. :D


Umbral Reaver wrote:
You don't have to be proficient with a firearm to do well with one. You only have to hit touch AC, remember. :D

A level 1 commoner fight more often goblins or kobolds than dragons. Not to mention the whole "touch AC" thing is only at a range in which you generally have another -4 (soft cover) and another -4 (shot in melee): shooting a goblin at -12 penalty is very hard, even if you only need to hit touch AC.

151 to 200 of 265 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Holy Gun paladin archtype from Ultimate Combat...why!? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.