You don't have to be proficient with a firearm to do well with one. You only have to hit touch AC, remember. :D
Good luck with that. That means the commoner's to-hit bonus is effectively -4 below a regular commoner. The highest he can roll, assuming a 10-11 Dexterity is 16, and averages 6.5 which is too low to hit an ox sitting stationary in a field (that's like AC 9).
At least on average a commoner proficient with a longbow or crossbow hits a 10.5 average, and can hit a 20. In fact, their foes would have to be AC +5 armor and in point blank range before the commoners would see any benefit to the guns at all. Also, range penalties.
Stuff like cover makes it even worse. A commoner firing at someone with a gun is firing at -4 to hit something with +4 (same if they're in melee), which means the commoner cannot even hit them without rolling a 20, if they're naked and in point-blank range.
Guns are horrible even in the hands of commoners, experts, warriors, adepts, aristocrats, and pretty much every other class.
That's why in my games I've been using the HoA gunslinger rules, where guns begin as simple weapons with effectiveness comparable to crossbows in terms of power, with the option to take the Exotic Proficiency to represent extra training with the guns, which provides faster reload times and better critical hit chances. Also, since ignoring armor is stupid, they don't.
|
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 can say that right up until someone hands the gunslinger a wand of cure light wounds and asks them to be the backup healer.
You don't have to be proficient with a firearm to do well with one. You only have to hit touch AC, remember. :DA 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.
GatFromKi is correct. You literally see NO improvement versus anyone that isn't wearing at least medium armor. Chain shirt at point blank is the only time that the gun-wielding commoner is on the same footing as a commoner with a crossbow, bow, or even sling. Studded leather, leather, padded, and naked completely favors the commoner with the crossbow/bow/sling, and they can shoot them from further away (since the moment they're not in the first range increment the commoner with the gun is taking more penalties for no gain).
So let's take some orcs who have no Dexterity bonuses. Most wear studded leather armor because it's cheap and effective and allows you to move quickly in it (which makes it ideal for raiders). Commoners with guns are 5% less likely to hit them at point blank range than commoners without, and 55% less likely to hit them at a range beyond the first increment.
Now if we take goblins, kobolds, or even hobgoblins, it's worse because those races have Dexterity bonuses, size modifiers to AC, or both. In virtually each case, the commoners cannot hit them on anything except a 20 until they close into near-melee with them, and then they still have to roll higher than the guy with the crossbow (using a goblin's AC 16, you'd have to roll a 16, while the guy with the gun has to roll a 17 to hit him in point-blank).
Also, guns in Pathfinder cannot be wielded by commoners because they are so stupidly priced. This isn't going to be a militia of townspeople with guns ready to defend. You'd have to have a very stupid and rich noble who wants to waste money on inferior weapons so his peasants can get slaughtered extra hard this season. Commoners would literally be more effective chucking rocks at people with slings in mass than they would shooting guns; and more cost effective too!
There is nothing about Pathfinder guns that is sensible, not for ease of play or for verisimilitude.
EDIT: That's also before any raiders realize their foes are using this dirt-poor weapons that are useless at distances you'd actually want ranged weapons, and decide to just hang back and shoot burning arrows at them, or throw slingshots at them from a distance. An orc warrior can chuck a rock (not even a bullet but a rock) for 1d3+1 damage (average 3) at a range of 100 ft. at a -2 penalty, while the guy with the gun hast to retaliate at a -8 penalty with a 1,500 gp musket for an average of 6.5 damage on a hit (but of course the average damage bottoms like crazy since you can't hit a barn at this distance).
You don't like Pathfinder guns. We get it. Heck, some of us might even agree with you. Either way, this thread is about the Holy Gun archetype not generic Pathfinder gun rules. Please, keep that in mind.
Please keep in mind that they are related. See, by the gun rules being horrible, it reflects on the Paladin archtype as well. See the core Paladin is just as effective at using guns since honestly there's not much to be gained from having them. Most of them are inferior from the standpoint of being ranged weapons (ALL of the pistols have ranges so short that you can face getting slapped with reach weapons as early as 1st level to try to take advantage of them), and because they are touch weapons within the first range increment, a standard core Paladin can actually make better use of them.
Here's why. A core Paladin at 1st level who's not even human can take Point Blank Shot and wield a 2-hander and carry a sling. Due to his base attack and Dexterity (let's say he has a 14 Str and 14 Dex) he has a +3 to hit with his melee and ranged attacks, and a +4 to hit with ranged attacks within 30 ft. Now let's say he acquires a firearm (like a pistol) for an ungodly amount of money (maybe he took rich parents or something, or picked a gun up off an enemy he killed from a distance with a real ranged weapon).
Now our Paladin is going to be using his sling for minor stuff, since being on the cusp of firearms technology the fantasy firearms are prone to exploding and being generally useless except under exceptional circumstances. So he does better than the guns pally at range because he can attack up to 50 ft away without penalties for an average of 4 damage with a free sling and some stones.
Later they actually encounter a foe that seems dangerous and has thick heavy armor. He also happens to be super-evil, so the Paladin decides it's Smitey-time! He draws the pistol, declares smite, and then proceeds to shoot the badguy every round at touch AC. Now if the Paladin's Charisma is 14 (a fair assumption), then he has a +5 to hit with the gun, or a +1 after non-proficiency, but he would use this vs something with a poor touch AC and lots of armor, and he gets a +1 to hit and damage within 30 ft so that's +2 vs touch AC. The Paladin also gets +2 to his AC vs the big nasty, and deals 1d6 + paladin level + 1 for point blank shot. At 1st level he's not really doing much better than with a sling, but at least he gets to ignore damage reduction.
Did I mention that the Paladin can actually tell that his target is Evil, so he knows he's not wasting smites against it? Did anyone forget that the Holy Gun loses Detect Evil at will to get a gun? Yeah that's a good trade. Let's give up a 60 ft cone that can pass through lots of barriers and detect the presence of our enemies and smite targets for a craptastic overpriced exploding piece of trash. Am I the only one that sees this as a big red flag?
Not to mention that you're stuck with your divine bond being a gun, so you actually get to watch your divine bond explode now and then. It's also not an option for the Holy Gun to grab a bonded mount and be a conquistador. But a regular Paladin or even a Ranger can do it and still use guns.
But seriously, guns and the holy gun are intermingled. Telling someone not to talk about guns when speaking of an archtype that revolves around them is like telling people to discuss two different types of firemen and ignore the fact the basic fireman gets to use firehoses and the archtype gets to use a garden hose.
Which rules are these, and where could I find them?*snip*
That's why in my games I've been using the HoA gunslinger rules, where guns begin as simple weapons with effectiveness comparable to crossbows in terms of power, with the option to take the Exotic Proficiency to represent extra training with the guns, which provides faster reload times and better critical hit chances. Also, since ignoring armor is stupid, they don't.
The HoA Gunslinger was created during the Alpha Playtest as an example of how the gunslinger could be built into a fluid and exciting class, after I wrote a review about the playtest. It includes the class, firearms (pistols, muskets, revolvers, rifles, bludgerbuss and scattergun, explosives, equipment such as quick-load cylinders, bayonets, ammo belts (bandoliers), rules for improvised shot (such as loading your blunderbuss with gravel and black powder and hoping for the best), as well as several new feats for gunslingers, multiclass gunslingers, and general characters (for example: the Bodyguard feat is good for any defender class, while Xylophone Cacophony is aimed at gun-wielding bards).
I have since been using the rules in my own games, and my group and players have received the class and rules very well.
However, these are not the only alternative firearm rules. Others have been created for the d20 system since 3E's conception. Honestly the firearms in the 3.5 DMG are better than these, and Paizo's first attempt at firearms (found in the 3.5 Pathfinder Campaign Setting) was better than the current iteration (still to expensive for their benefit but for some reason they want guns to be expensive to the point of shattering verisimilitude).
I'm pretty sure that if you're not fond of the HoA Gunslinger, you can find something else online somewhere that is worth your time.
If you need to find the link again, the latest version is posted on Heroes of Alvena.wikidot.com, which is an online campaign on OpenRPG. The site is under construction and lacks much of the campaign information; but I'm working on the campaign setting right now.
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.
But the question is, "Is that unrealistic in a world where Firearms are a new technology?" Whenever you have a new technology of any kind, it always finds its way into the hands of the elite before the masses.
Take swords for example; it might not have been this thread, but in another one someone pointed out that swords were one of the first weapons to actually have been designed as a weapon. Axes, maces, spears, and even scythes were all originally tools to help one survive and were improvised as weapons in times of war. Swords (and other weapons whose only function is war) were symbols of the elite; people who could afford to own a weapon that had no other purpose than stabbing someone, and I'm sure at that time, the sword would have been considered an exotic weapon too.
Then quality of life improved, people had more money, and swords became something of a fashion statement and BAM! Everyone can use one.
I don't think guns are too different, and there's even a level of Gun gameplay where guns become martial weapons; in that scenario of societal integration, your level 1 commoner most certainly use a gun!
Ah, good. I thought you were referring to your playtest revision to the gunslinger. It'd be nice if your Gunslinger/gun rules got published somewhere so there was a good excuse to add them to d20pfsrd.com.
Well I've had several people request that I do some more, including writing some prestige classes and such and then put it up on the Paizo store as a pdf sourcebook. I have been giving that some thought.
As for there being many systems out there, I've seen a fair number myself. For example, the Super Genius Games Enforcer Class has firearm rules which take extra care to point out that guns are not intrinsically any different in their capacity to maim and kill from other types of weapons (and hence don't follow any special rules). It's too bad Paizo chose to go with the inconsistent and clunky system they decided upon.
Agreed 100%.
But the question is, "Is that unrealistic in a world where Firearms are a new technology?"No.
I were responding to this statement:
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.
And that's actually why I quoted it in my first post.
I don't care at all if it is unrealistic or not. I just say the statement is false.
Anyway, I can't understand why guns require EWP to use efficiently. There's a part with a trigger, and a part you point in the direction of the thing you want to die. You can't imagine any easier-to-use weapon; then why EWP?
If the firearm were simple weapon, and a feat did remove the misfire, I would understand: the guns are easy to use, but they require special training to maintain; without this training, they explode eventually. But that's not how it works: gun are harder to use than bows, less efficient, more expansive, AND they can explode at any time. Why would anyone use this piece of crap?
ok sorry with my statement. I stand by the historical argument, and i think that if people are using the advanced firearm period rules, with a reduction to firearm cost. Then they would also be used.
I agree that the rules for the early firearm are horrible, and if you want to just remotely balance them to the rest of the weapons and chars, then you should use the advanced firearms and rules. That way you might actually see people use them, since they have more shots and can fire at touch at a longer range.
Supposing we had no problems with the gun rules, and everyone was happy with them, would the holy gun class be any good? I think that's the topic we're working on in this thread so lets try to stay on topic.
Not sure. It would be a good start since it wouldn't mean that you were giving up real class features for a broken 1,500 gp piece of excrement that is prone to blowing up. Worse yet, you will misfire more often than you will get critical hits, and once you misfire then your weapon gains the broken condition, resulting in -2 to hit and damage (bringing average damage to about 2.5) and reducing the critical hit multiplier from x4 to x2, and increasing the misfire chance by 4, meaning that you will auto-miss more often regardless of your BAB.
Now if the guns were at least on par with a real weapon, then...well the class would still suck. Why? Because the normal Paladin can use real weapons and doesn't give up his class features to do it. Plus the real Paladin can use different types of weapons effectively, which means he's not completely hosed if something happens to his gun. If some fool sunders a Paladin's longbow, he can pull his sling and keep laying the smite, or draw a melee weapon, or rush in with spiked gauntlets (1d4 + strength + paladin level per swing and ignores DR means that Paladins can beat down balors fisticuffs style).
So no, it wouldn't help. All you have to do is disarm, sunder, or shatter the Holy Gun's gun and he no longer functions. Whereas a normal Paladin can just grab another weapon and go. Likewise, you need to pay out the butt to get a new one if yours is broken, and you need to buy a new gun anyway so it can be masterwork to get it enchanted, so you're going to be paying an extra 1500 gp (or more) more than anyone else for your weapon.
And for this awesome suck, you give up Detect Evil (excellent first warning radar system, and allows you to find your marks for your smite, and useful in RP encounters as well), as well as Smite-till-you-drop smite which can be used with any weapon at any time.
Also, if you have to wait 'till 17th level before your class gets good, then it fails at 16/20ths of the game.
Good points but I'm hesitant to use sunder or disarm as excuse as why this archetype sucks, for one thing those maneuvers are usually pretty rare in published adventures, and for another we're talking about a ranged combatant here. It's not that the enemy can't, it's that the enemy shouldn't get much chance if the PC is avoiding melee. Also you can essentially say the same thing about any weapon reliant fighter type, sure they could sunder an archer's bow effectively wasting all those feats, but sunder and disarm should be a rare occurrence as they could ruin any melee or ranged fighter type's build.
There's a few major problems with this. Firstly, a fighter with heavy specialization is usually very difficult to sunder against because all those little weapon focus and weapon training bonuses add to his CMB/Defense when dealing with Sunders and Disarms.
Second, you SAY that he's a ranged Fighter but this is very questionable. Guns have the worst range in the game of all ranged weapons barring throwing weapons. A musket has a 40 ft range which means it's beat out by the slingshot. The only time the Holy Gun will have an advantage over the standard Paladin in terms of hitting anything will be if he is within his first range increment, which generally means within charge or even move + attack range, and can only be 10 x base range from them and still hit them (that is a maximum of 400 ft with a -20 penalty to hit with a musket) and then you lose your touch-AC targeting feature (the only thing that could be considered a benefit of wielding a gun).
Meanwhile, it sucks if the Paladin has his weapon broken or destroyed, but he can pick up a club and power attack with it just the same. 1d6 + str * 1.5 + Power Attack * 3 and smite with it. Or he can pull out one of a dozen weightless slingshots and go back to kicking butt. Inflicting the broken condition on the Holy Gun's gun increases the misfire chance by 4 in addition to the -2 to hit and damage, and if it is actually busted then he loses all his class features that he would want.
It's kind of like if a wizard was waving his spellbook around in his hands and casting spells from it. The wizard would never put the item his class hinges on in harm's way, but the Holy Gun has to. Meanwhile, if the wizard was to have his spellbook chopped to bits, they can literally go buy spellbooks (see premade spellbooks and their values in the SRD) for cheaper than it would be to replace your gun (a pistol is like 1,500 gp and a musket costs more than a +1 weapon).
Likewise, for the archer to care as much he would need a bow worth at least 1500 gp. A masterwork +4 strength composite bow isn't even that expensive (800 gp). So for about the same price as the Holy Gun would have to spend to find a basic replacement, the archer can carry a spare. The archer could also actually shoot for a distance, then draw a melee weapon and continue the butt-kicking when the foe closed range since archers can just carry a 2 hander (seriously all you need for success is Power Attack, Point Blank, and Precise Shot, and you can really put a hurt on enemies. At higher levels you can pickup Rapid Shot, Many Shot, and Deadly Aim if desired).
Regular smite is good against the BBEG, especially if he is evil, but it's seldom used on the mooks on the way to the BBEG, but the divine deed is self regenerating if you can take out a mook with a single shot. I agree that loosing the ability to smite the BBEG to death is a big loss but I'm thinking that you'd use the deed more often then the smite which most players hold onto till the end. The deed would see more use and thus would likely be more useful to the average player. You're not going to one shot the BBEG so why bother holding onto all the grit? I suspect that Clustered Shots would be more useful in a boss fight anyways.
Possibly, but most of the time you're not going to need to smite every mook you come across. See, warrior classes excel at dealing damage by default. If you're popping people for 1d8+4 damage from up to 110 ft. away and then when your foe closes range (or you do) then you whip out your greatsword and start smackin' a **** for 2d6+6 points of damage, you tend to notice things like mooks dropping like flies. And this sort of damage works against all enemies - not just smite-able enemies.
Just to compare: An 800 gp masterwork composite (+4) longbow lets you inflict an average of 8.5 damage on enemies up to 110 ft. away with no penalties. You can even slather it with an oil of gravity bow (50 gp) to increase the damage to 2d6+4 damage for 10 rounds. A musket deals 1d12 damage or 6.5 damage average and you have to be within 40 ft. to avoid taking penalties or losing your special feature. So 5-16 damage up to 110 ft away vs 1-12 damage at 40 ft.
If the Paladin isn't fighting evil foes (there are a lot of animals, magical beasts, and NPCs who you can encounter and fight who aren't Evil-aligned) he doesn't lose all his options because he still has the virtue of options. And the Paladin can use smite evil and begin bombing enemies with alchemical weapons, which means the paladin gets to laugh at touch-AC on bosses too! Plus he could even dual-wield or get iterative attacks with them!
Alchemist fire for 1d6 + paladin level + 1d6 on the following round as a ranged touch with the same distance as your average gun with a bonus to hit equal to his Charisma modifier? Heck yes! You can even repeat with Acid, Alchemist Frost, and that electrical one if it suits your fancy.
The regular misfire chance and the standard action cost of activating this deed are the sticking points for this archetype in my mind. If this deed ignored misfire and/or didn't require a standard action, I'd be quite pleased with this archetype. If it got both I'd call this a good archetype.
Detect evil is no loss if you ask me, this is an ability that usually goes against role playing in my experience, and like most alignment based thing holds the potential to derail the game. I'd love to see alignments removed from the game almost completely, but that is another topic for another thread, in the mean time I'll say that detect evil is something I'm happy to see replaced if I'm the DM or player. It is a shame that you loose the ability for skills and abilities that...
I can agree with the alignment thing to a degree. However I had a Paladin and Hellknight in a recent game who both used Detect Evil and Detect Chaos respectively and sensed that the NPC they were dealing with was radiating a powerful aura of chaos and evil, despite her honeyed words. Turns out the NPC was actually a succubus trying to get them to do her some favors, and they whispered to the other players that something was not as it seemed. The encounter went in a different direction than it would have, and that was amusing for me.
Detect Evil however has many utility uses in your typical dungeon crawl. If you are encountering evil foes then you have a 60 ft cone radar that can seep a certain distance (or completely) through many barriers, which means that you can get a heads up warning when something is amiss. You can even pinpoint the location and strength of the auras from the other side of a door. That means a Paladin can stop at a door, focus for a moment and realize there are 3 evil hobgoblins on the other side, and 1 of them happens to feel like he's an evil cleric because of his aura strength. It also allows him to roughly follow an evil invisible creature (such as an imp) and can actually pinpoint its exact location in the area after a couple of rounds; which means he can point out to the party's mage where that glitterdust spell needs to be centered.
3/ and the horrible firearms rules. "Variant wizard: if an opponent rolls a 20 on a save, your spellbook explode. This ability replace your ability to add your Int to the DC of your spells".
I laughed so hard at this because it's so true. ^.^"
Regular smite is good against the BBEG, especially if he is evil, but it's seldom used on the mooks on the way to the BBEG, but the divine deed is self regenerating if you can take out a mook with a single shot.
Please re-read that last statement. Ponder it awhile. Then explain to me why that in no way makes the fact you can only smite as a standard action WHILE expending a finite resource good.
And good luck wasting that finite resource on mooks you can't guarantee are evil.
Undead, demons, and devils are always evil, cultists, goblins, orcs, kobolds, and drow are almost always evil, there are lots of things in D&D that are evil. That's not the problem. It's the standard action cost of using the smite and the misfire chance that destroy this archetype.
Also, when you refer to a "finite resource" are you talking about the incredibly over priced ammo or the grit points? Because the grit does replenish itself if you kill someone with your gun or if you manage a critical hit with your firearm. Also seeing as this archetype is for home games only the GM might want to use the daring act optional rule.
The obvious problem is that you can't bank much grit as the maximum you can have is based on your WIS till you hit level 11 (and then the max is based on your CHA). Basically if you have a WIS of 14 and 2 grit, there's no reason why you shouldn't spend your grit, if you're down to 1 then I might spend it on a smite if I were shooting at some low level undead, demons, or devils or something like that, but otherwise I might hold onto till I got back up to 2 grit again. Assuming your main weapon is your gun, all you need is a crit or a kill to regain grit.
Barring the fact ghosts aren't always evil, what does this Holy Gun do against enemies who aren't evil? I mean the normal paladin is still a competent fighter and can swap his weapons as the need arises (grab a reach weapon, grab a sword & board, grab a ranged weapon, grab an alchemical weapon, grab a bludgeoning weapon, grab a slashing weapon, grab a trip weapon, grab a disarming weapon, grab a tripping reach weapon, grab a disarming reach weapon, grab some sovereign glue and slather it onto an arrow that your cleric casts silence on and shoot some fool before the next round, etc).
What good is he with his dinky pretend weapon against anyone he's not set up specifically to kill?
|
|
And good luck wasting that finite resource on mooks you can't guarantee are evil.
Oh c'mon, man. How many times do you really fight mooks that aren't evil that you can't tell just by looking aren't evil (because they're animals, vermin or constructs, mostly)? You're a heck of a lot more likely to miss targets that you *could* smite than waste it on ones you can't.
The obvious problem is that you can't bank much grit as the maximum you can have is based on your WIS till you hit level 11 (and then the max is based on your CHA). Basically if you have a WIS of 14 and 2 grit, there's no reason why you shouldn't spend your grit, if you're down to 1 then I might spend it on a smite if I were shooting at some low level undead, demons, or devils or something like that, but otherwise I might hold onto till I got back up to 2 grit again. Assuming your main weapon is your gun, all you need is a crit or a kill to regain grit.
So you need to land the killshot. I suppose you could go with the (admittedly stupid sounding) tactic of having your cleric cast Death Watch and try to let you get the last shot on enemies who are near death, or those who are fleeing the battlefield and/or straggling, or surrendering (oh wait, nevermind if an enemy surrenders before he dies no grit for you unless you like fallsville).
Also, in a 4 person party you only have a 25% chance base on action economy that you'll get the last hit in. That's off a bit since plenty of folks will probably deal a crapload more damage than you will in the same situations - especially if it's not against someone you can spend grit on to deal more damage - and only gets worse for every animal companion, cohort, minion, or hasted ally in the group. Gotta love sacrificing feats to do basic stuff like shoot more than once in around while the party's Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, or even Bard is tossing off more and stronger attacks than you.
And good luck wasting that finite resource on mooks you can't guarantee are evil.Oh c'mon, man. How many times do you really fight mooks that aren't evil that you can't tell just by looking aren't evil (because they're animals, vermin or constructs, mostly)? You're a heck of a lot more likely to miss targets that you *could* smite than waste it on ones you can't.
Actually the odds are pretty good. Mercenaries and minions are probably just soldiers or hirelings of bad guys, so they're probably Neutral. Even celestial and fiendish creatures can be neutral (seriously, check the summon monster spells) and lack the good or evil subtypes, which means neutral fiendish creatures can smite your kiester but not the other way around.
Lots of fey aren't evil but can cross the party in a combative way. Anyone who just doesn't try to appear evil and nasty might be evil but you wouldn't know because you don't even have detect evil.
the Holy Gun does what a gunsling does what he does with every enemy he meets: he shoot them in the face. The smiting shot really isn't very good past level 6 because you miss out on multiple attacks, but if you're in the middle of a fight, taking a move anyways, and have 2 or more grit you might as well smite as you know the attack will bypass DR.
Also the smite always works on undead regardless of alignment.
That's a lie. It specifically requires the target to be evil. If you target a dragon, evil outsider, or undead then the damage is increased to 2 per Paladin level. However, a Holy Gun gets diddly for attempting to shoot a neutral ghost.
Detect evil isn't something that you're going to be using in combat.
but you wouldn't know because you don't even have detect evil.
As a move action a paladin can use detect evil on a specific target, so you could totally use it in combat, however it would leave you with only a standard action....
Smiting Shot (Su)
A holy gun can spend 1 grit point to make a smiting shot with a firearm attack as a standard action. If the target is evil, the holy gun adds her Charisma bonus and her paladin level to the damage of the firearm attack. If the target of the smiting shot is an outsider with the evil subtype, an evil-aligned dragon, or an undead creature, the bonus to damage increases to the Charisma modifier plus 2 points of damage per level the paladin possess. Regardless of the target, smiting shot automatically bypasses any DR the creature might have.
So if the dragon or undead creature is not evil then you get no smiting shot.
As a move action a paladin can use detect evil on a specific target, so you could totally use it in combat, however it would leave you with only a standard action....
So basically a Paladin can pop detect evil during a surprise round, or as a move action while attacking with his weapon, which puts him on no worse footing than the Holy Gun in terms of combat actions except he now knows the difference between Evil, Hostile, and Scary. Detect Evil is also useful for eyeballing where a glitterdust or faerie fire should be placed when fighting imps or other invisible evil creatures.
Then of course he still has the option use it while just walking around randomly. Some evil goblins up ahead hiding in the bushes? You know something evil is lurking in the bushes 60 ft. ahead of you. Something on the other side of a wooden door waiting to ambush you? Well you sense it first, and deny them a surprise round.
The Holy Gun? He gets a busted piece of junk that if brand new and not busted and beat up would still be a piece of junk.
Let's not forget...
You lose access to having a mount (no mounted gunman for you), you lose access to the option of enhancing any weapon with the mount alternative, which again means if you are disarmed of your weapon or for some reason your weapon is not feasible to the situation then you are SOL.
Good point on the evil intent thing. Yeah, that blows for all Paladins. T.T
As for the eyeballing a spot to use glitterdust or whatever, waiting 3 rounds provides the most accurate information since you can actually pinpoint the location of the aura. However, when I said "eyeballing" I meat that you could get a rough estimate. For example, if you're a room with an imp (cheeky invisible little sucker that he is) and you pop detect evil and see that the evil is coming from "that corner/side of the room" then your wizard has a better idea as to where to toss his glitterdust or your druid's faerie fire.
Now if you actually have the opportunity to home in on the signal then that's great, but it's still a fairly useful tool for rough estimation.
actually with one round you only get to know if there is an evil aura in your detect cone. So you wont know if the imo is starting directly in front of you, or is hugging the back wall. so unless the room is very small, then hitting with glitterdust is only marginale easyer.
actually with one round you only get to know if there is an evil aura in your detect cone. So you wont know if the imo is starting directly in front of you, or is hugging the back wall. so unless the room is very small, then hitting with glitterdust is only marginale easyer.
Depends on your surroundings. For example, if you're inside a dungeon and the room is roughly 20 ft wide and 40 ft long, and you use detect evil and it pings evil in the cone, then you have a pretty decent idea that the imp is invisible and yet somewhere in the cone. You can try to encase as much of the cone as possible in the glitterdust spell's 10 ft radius spread. Eyeballing. Of course, you can also focus for 3 rounds and be 100% certain where he is.
That's a lie. It specifically requires the target to be evil. If you target a dragon, evil outsider, or undead then the damage is increased to 2 per Paladin level. However, a Holy Gun gets diddly for attempting to shoot a neutral ghost.Please read the holy gun's smiting shot again. Unless this gets errata-ed the holy gun always smites undead. No "evil" qualifier in there at all.
Also please don't accuse someone of lying. It really doesn't help in anyway. We're having a calm discussion here, we might not agree, but I do respect your opinion.
That's probably because James Jacobs, Pathfinder's Creative Director, made a post some time ago saying that there wouldn't ever be non-evil Undead in Pathfinder, so under that model it's kind of redundant.
That's probably because James Jacobs, Pathfinder's Creative Director, made a post some time ago saying that there wouldn't ever be non-evil Undead in Pathfinder, so under that model it's kind of redundant.
There's an oracle mystery that allows the creation of neutral undead.
|
That's probably because James Jacobs, Pathfinder's Creative Director, made a post some time ago saying that there wouldn't ever be non-evil Undead in Pathfinder, so under that model it's kind of redundant.There's an oracle mystery that allows the creation of neutral undead.
Or even good!
Also, neutral lich in The Great Beyond.
That's probably because James Jacobs, Pathfinder's Creative Director, made a post some time ago saying that there wouldn't ever be non-evil Undead in Pathfinder, so under that model it's kind of redundant.There's an oracle mystery that allows the creation of neutral undead.Or even good!
Also, neutral lich in The Great Beyond.
Also ghosts.
I know this thread is about what the class is currently.
But as I said before I had houseruled that Divine Deed is a swift and lasts one round. This worked great last session.
Im still not entirely sold on the archtype but its a good starting point. As I was reading through this post I had a genius Idea that I want to pitch to my DM but y'all tell me if its too overpowered. What if a Holy Gun gave up his spell casting and Divine Bond in exchange for a weapon that functioned in the same way as a Black Blade. In order for the properties (one of which is no misfire thanks to indestructible property) to function a HG must have one grit point. This gives him a better gun but also makes his use of grit points aka Smite, something much more valuable. At low levels I would be hard pressed to use smiting shot (even as its houseruled) at the risk of not getting a grit point back and not having my gun function at its best.
|
|
Also ghosts.That's probably because James Jacobs, Pathfinder's Creative Director, made a post some time ago saying that there wouldn't ever be non-evil Undead in Pathfinder, so under that model it's kind of redundant.There's an oracle mystery that allows the creation of neutral undead.Or even good!
Also, neutral lich in The Great Beyond.
And that sidebar in the Walking Dead section of Classic Horrors Revisited.
I'm also fond of the archlich and baelnorn from D&D lore. Archliches are powerful good spellcasters who became undead to continue promoting good in the world, or to oversee some grand machination of awesomeness, or just to continue doing their thing. Baelnorn are the elven version of archliches who usually become liches to guard families, sacred sights, or act as defenders of their people.
There's even a Baelnorn that gets kidnapped in the Icewind Dale computer game. It's been a while since I've played that game though, but it's a wonderful one.
My brother played a sorcerer who became a lich to watch over his people. During our campaign that ran from 1st-25th level, he gathered people who had been displaced by the big bad evil guys throughout the campaign and put together a new village, which the party helped them to build. It was their home. He became a lich because he realized that he could easily be killed during their adventures and then the people would be at risk of being abused again without his protection; so he went on a quest to find the secret of becoming a mighty archlich.
Honestly, the idea that all undead should be evil 'cause they're undead is about as contrived as saying that all living creatures should be evil because most of them in D&D are (demons, devils, most magical beasts, plenty of dragons, the majority of the humanoids, etc). It kind of cheapens the opportunity for roleplaying, and just turns the game into a hack & slash borefest.
Archlich and baelnorn are from forgotten realms right?