Anyway, back on topic.
Separatist
Concept: You are part of a heretical order to your god.
Where it went wrong: You essentially turn into a normal cleric minus. You lose the weapon proficiency which doesn't make sense since you're a heretic of the god not an unbeliever. Then you get a weaker domain. You're better off jsut being a cleric of another god to get the domains you want.
I don't really have a problem with the separatist. Yes, it's not terribly useful if your campaign has a god for every pair of domains. But otherwise, the ability to essentially cherry-pick any two domains you like is quite useful. And the stuff you give up is really quite minor.
As a point in favor of regular paladin is a better gunslinger type paladin than is holy gun, EWP (Firearms) is the choice, not one per firearm (which seems to only be a choice for certain gunslinger archetypes).
Firearm Proficiency: The Exotic Weapon Proficiency (firearms) feat allows you to use all firearms without penalty.
So while the Paladin does need to take a feat, he only needs to take one and then know how to use ALL firearms. This is a specific exception to the way that EWP normally works.
Also, a Holy Gun can NOT pick up the Signature Deed at any level (not sure where the lvl 17 things came from, it is available to gunslingers only at lvl 11). So the ability to smite at will never shows up. If the Holy Gun COULD take the feat at lvl 11, then it would be a crazy powerful choice if you were starting your campaign at a higher level and it would then be an almost broken good choice in those situations... but it doesn't allow it at all.
Sean Mahoney
Here's another one to consider. CR 1/3 orc with a glaive drinks a potion of enlarge person (well within the limits of a 1st level non-heroic NPC's wealth while keeping a full set of gear and other items), so now he's 10 ft tall with a 20 ft. reach.
Holy Gun decides to shoot him. If he is wielding a pistol or blunderbuss he must fire from outside its range increment to hit the orc without provoking. So he shoots at the orc with a -2 penalty and doesn't ignore the orc's studded leather armor. Or he moves up into range and takes the 2d8+6 attack of opportunity from the orc for shooting at him where his gun gets its special benefits.
Paladin decides to shoot him. If he is wielding a sling, he pops the orc from up to 50 ft away with no penalties to hit the orc. If he is wielding a bow, then he shoots the orc from outside the orc's charge-range with no penalties. If he's wielding a crossbow he does the same. If he's wielding a throwing dart, he has the same penalty as the gunslinger but deals as much or more damage because of strength modifiers.
Later Paladin and Holy Gun are met by the orc leader who is a CE 4th level warrior, who has also quaffed a potion of enlarge person and is wielding a glaive and armor spikes (or spiked gauntlet). He closes into combat with the Paladin and Holy Gun and misses with his first attack due to AC. The Holy Gun has to get out of his reach or suffer attacks of opportunity when he shoots, but getting out of his reach can mean death as well. He bites the bullet (no pun intended) and draws a melee weapon but wishes he could smite.
Paladin drops his sling, grabs his greatsword and declares smite. He adds his Charisma to his AC and his to-hit rolls, and begins slamming the big-bad for 2d6+3+level damage, and tries to stay on top of him.
Later still, the Paladin gets a divine bond and can choose between a mount, or the ability to buff his weapons - any of his weapons - as needed by the situation. The Holy Gun can only choose to do so with guns, so if using a gun is a bad idea at the moment, he's SoL.
The Paladin's smite also makes his combat maneuvers better due to adding his Charisma modifier to all his attack rolls versus the target, meaning he can grapple, disarm, trip, or sunder more effectively with these options.
He also uses Charisma for pretty much all of his abilities, making Wisdom an adequate dumpstat for a Paladin (who's class bonus and Divine Grace + Bestow Grace will so very much more than make up for it).
So the Holy Gun gives up all kinds of options and good abilities for a piece of trash weapon, gains more multi-ability dependency, loses the option for a mount (no conquistador style dudes for your paladin), and is capped at a standard-action attack, meaning that in many cases the normal Paladin will out-damage him in ranged combat from father away when not even using his smite ability!
Ugh, it makes me sick just thinking about it. Q.Q
I don't really have a problem with the separatist. Yes, it's not terribly useful if your campaign has a god for every pair of domains. But otherwise, the ability to essentially cherry-pick any two domains you like is quite useful. And the stuff you give up is really quite minor.
You can already cherry pick your domains. Just be a cleric of a concept.
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
EWP gives profieceny in one gun, not all of them. A Holy Gun can grab Signature Deed at lvl 17 and smite all day, everyday, endlessly. Your level 20 paladin can't. Every time a level 20 paladin smites an outsider, they save or die and the smite ends, same for the holy gun. However the holy gun can smite next round, because he didn't use any resources.
Has that been clarified, anywhere?
I'm pretty certain that the ability to end the smite, to attempt a banishment is intended to be an option, not a necessity.Many outsiders will easily pass the save, and there are times when the paladin actually wants to keep the enemy in the here and now, to ensure their death, not give them a free escape route.
I find it difficult to believe that the forces of Celestia grant their paladins the ability to smite their foes until death, for 19 levels, and then, as a capstone ability, decide to cripple it to worthlessness.
My opinion on the issue is that there are definitely some archetypes that are demonstrably worse than the core class or another archetype at doing what it is that archetype seems to be made to do (Holy Gun seems a poster child).
This is not an issue of flavor vs mechanics. The flavor, or ideas, of many of these archetypes (again, like the Holy Gun) are fantastic... it is the execution that is poor. My thought is that someone other than the initial designer needs to do a review of the archetype and ask "Does this do what it intends to do?" (i.e. make an archetype of the Paladin that uses guns effectively) and "Does this maintain the class for what it is?" (i.e. Is the Holy Gun Paladin still a Paladin in flavor or does messing with the smite too much change the class too much... in this case if the new smite shot thing was as useful as the original smite, I think it would be in keeping... but it is so much less effective as to make the class not useful for long in comparison to other classes including a standard Paladin).
If I can do a quick review of an archetype to determine if, in whole, it is objectively worse than the original class... then so can a designer who knows this game better than I do.
Again, the concepts are great, but if the mechanics don't help reflect that concept into the game, then the archetype does not help you be that concept... and so your roleplaying of that concept is hollow. There is no reason the mechanics can't reflect and support the role-playing concept.
Sean Mahoney
|
If the idea is to play a paladin who uses a gun in Pathfinder with the rules we are given, the holy gun is arguably-but-probably better than the straight paladin at level one, unquestionably better at levels 2-4, and at least as good at levels 5-9. After that things get harder to judge, but I highly doubt you'd ever truly find yourself worse off playing one, especially if your campaign doesn't include advanced firearms.
And if you don't understand why this is true, then I can absolutely guarantee that you have never actually tried to build a gun-using paladin at the low or mid levels (or did and were breaking rules, intentionally or otherwise), nor played through any encounters at those levels with a holy gun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the idea is to play a paladin who uses a gun in Pathfinder with the rules we are given, the holy gun is arguably-but-probably better than the straight paladin at level one, unquestionably better at levels 2-4, and at least as good at levels 5-9. After that things get harder to judge, but I highly doubt you'd ever truly find yourself worse off playing one, especially if your campaign doesn't include advanced firearms.
And if you don't understand why this is true, then I can absolutely guarantee that you have never actually tried to build a gun-using paladin at the low or mid levels (or did and were breaking rules, intentionally or otherwise), nor played through any encounters at those levels with a holy gun.
None of which changes the fact that Mysterious Stranger 1/paladin X is worlds better than either, right?
None of which changes the fact that Mysterious Stranger 1/paladin X is worlds better than either, right?If the idea is to play a paladin who uses a gun in Pathfinder with the rules we are given, the holy gun is arguably-but-probably better than the straight paladin at level one, unquestionably better at levels 2-4, and at least as good at levels 5-9. After that things get harder to judge, but I highly doubt you'd ever truly find yourself worse off playing one, especially if your campaign doesn't include advanced firearms.
And if you don't understand why this is true, then I can absolutely guarantee that you have never actually tried to build a gun-using paladin at the low or mid levels (or did and were breaking rules, intentionally or otherwise), nor played through any encounters at those levels with a holy gun.
Ninja'd.
You can already cherry pick your domains. Just be a cleric of a concept.
I don't really have a problem with the separatist. Yes, it's not terribly useful if your campaign has a god for every pair of domains. But otherwise, the ability to essentially cherry-pick any two domains you like is quite useful. And the stuff you give up is really quite minor.
Concept clerics don't exist in Golarion or in Pathfinder Society play. Hence my comment about "if your campaign etc."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the idea is to play a paladin who uses a gun in Pathfinder with the rules we are given, the holy gun is arguably-but-probably better than the straight paladin at level one, unquestionably better at levels 2-4, and at least as good at levels 5-9. After that things get harder to judge, but I highly doubt you'd ever truly find yourself worse off playing one, especially if your campaign doesn't include advanced firearms.
And if you don't understand why this is true, then I can absolutely guarantee that you have never actually tried to build a gun-using paladin at the low or mid levels (or did and were breaking rules, intentionally or otherwise), nor played through any encounters at those levels with a holy gun.
I actually would like to see this build out at 1, 4 ,6 & 9 as it sounds like you have played through those levels with one to see where my in head math might be differing from what is actual if you would please.
Concept clerics don't exist in Golarion or in Pathfinder Society play. Hence my comment about "if your campaign etc."You can already cherry pick your domains. Just be a cleric of a concept.
I don't really have a problem with the separatist. Yes, it's not terribly useful if your campaign has a god for every pair of domains. But otherwise, the ability to essentially cherry-pick any two domains you like is quite useful. And the stuff you give up is really quite minor.
Then you're still better off picking the cleric of a different god. OR you can just as easily claim to be a separatist and keep everything the original class gives you. The archetype is not a requirement for the concept after all.
@ the OP - yeah, I feel the same way.
Unlike a lot of other people though, I love the crunchy bits that come from prestige classes and from other things, and would love to see them come in to play in a way that I don't have to sacrifice my right arm in order to receive them.
One thing that's always driven me nuts about a lot of the content, is that it all comes in to play by taking away from the original class. I don't want to lose bloodline things or familiar advancement to take a prestige class. I don't think that anything that is a specialized style should limit something that is at the core of what your original class is. I understand limiting things that you get that haven't happened yet, but stopping something that already is progressing to me is silly.
Wizards and Fighters wouldn't continue to gain feats from their classes, but progressive things that are already going would continue. Yes, this makes characters more powerful, but it's also more logical.
Archetypes are silly when you get to the point that multiclassing outperforms them, and this is true for quite a few of the newly presented archetypes.
Give me crunchy options to make my characters unique, and remember that even a character that knows all the spells and has all the feats in the world can still only take a certain number of actions in a round. Remember that not everyone thinks that just because they're 20th level that they should have maxed out their casting stat. I hate that I can't have crunch because other people min max their abilities.
Just to chime in real quick to defend the Crusader, there are a few corner cases where that bonus feat at level 1 can save you a lot of headache when going for a specific build.
FOR EXAMPLE, a Calistrian cleric focused on a whip/control build using the new Whip mastery series. Being able to 'cheat' and get Weapon Focus at level 1 means you can pick up base whip mastery at level 3 instead of having to wait till 5, without diluting by dipping into another class. Which translates into earlier less stressful entry into other requisite feats as well. Level 5 bonus feat though... whew, not a lot of good options there are there?
But for a general beaty cleric? I can see the issues.
Just to chime in real quick to defend the Crusader, there are a few corner cases where that bonus feat at level 1 can save you a lot of headache when going for a specific build.
FOR EXAMPLE, a Calistrian cleric focused on a whip/control build using the new Whip mastery series. Being able to 'cheat' and get Weapon Focus at level 1 means you can pick up base whip mastery at level 3 instead of having to wait till 5, without diluting by dipping into another class. Which translates into earlier less stressful entry into other requisite feats as well. Level 5 bonus feat though... whew, not a lot of good options there are there?
But for a general beaty cleric? I can see the issues.
Or if you just want to dip for crusader's flurry. Flurrying with a dervish dancing scimitar is awesome.
Or if you just want to dip for crusader's flurry. Flurrying with a dervish dancing scimitar is awesome.
Oooh, yeah, right, that too. Another Crossblood sorcerer, where 1 level is the place to bail?
In and of itself, thats another thing that Archetypes I think may have gone wrong with; when an archetype makes dipping viable, that may be a problem of the opposite spectrum.
If the idea is to play a paladin who uses a gun in Pathfinder with the rules we are given, the holy gun is arguably-but-probably better than the straight paladin at level one, unquestionably better at levels 2-4, and at least as good at levels 5-9.
Not that I can tell.
And if you don't understand why this is true, then I can absolutely guarantee that you have never actually tried to build a gun-using paladin at the low or mid levels (or did and were breaking rules, intentionally or otherwise), nor played through any encounters at those levels with a holy gun.
Please take the time to explain how and in what scenarios the Holy Gun is better than the Paladin in levels below 10.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
the holy gun is arguably-but-probably better than the straight paladin at level one, unquestionably better at levels 2-4, and at least as good at levels 5-9.
Perhaps you could explain WHY it is unquestionably better? Perhaps you could enlighten us poor souls who have not had the opportunity to roll one up and play it? Just stating something is unquestionable when there has been a whole thread questioning seems... well, like you really don't have any respect for the people you are talking to... you seem to think we are missing something... help us understand WHY.
And if you don't understand why this is true, then I can absolutely guarantee that you have never actually tried to build a gun-using paladin at the low or mid levels (or did and were breaking rules, intentionally or otherwise), nor played through any encounters at those levels with a holy gun.
Ok. Perhaps you can enlighten us then. Is having played one of these an exclusive club and you can't give away the secrets except to those who have played one? Really?
Let's look at what you say here and you can help me understand, because I am not seeing it.
Lvl 1 - Holy Gun loses the Paladin's detect evil ability and gets Amateur Gunslinger, Gunsmithing and a broken weapon. If it stopped here I would be happy to say Holy Gun at level 1 is better than a standard Paladin.
However, since the archetype itself says that at level 2 you get an ability that makes you lose Smite Evil (in the Divine Deed section, under Smiting Shot), does that mean you don't have it at level 1?
I would contend that if at 1st level you get the gunslinging stuff, but are losing both Smite evil and detect evil (ok, the second isn't a big deal), that it would not be as useful as a human Paladin who did not take an archetype and just shot a bow (couldn't afford a gun at first level).
Like other have pointed out if instead he dipped one level of Gunslinger at 1st he would be even better, but not much of a Paladin at 1st.
So, you seem to think the rules are extremely clear and that you have a handle on all them (and any one else is doing it wrong), so how about it? Does a 1st level Holy Gun have Smite?
Lvl 2 - Now you have the smiting shot and most definitely don't have the ability to smite normally. Instead you get to smite a number of shots per day equal to the number of times that you kill something or get a critical + 1. With the amateur gunslinger feat you start the day with a single grit. You can take extra grit and the you start the day with that much more grit, so that is a bonus, but each feat you take gets you two extra shots per day... not sure that is worth it, but you have to smite somehow, right?
If your party member gets the killing hit on a creature you don't get a grit... you have to have the killing shot or score a crit. Unless those things happen you only get to Smite on a single shot per day... make it count!
But this is the level where you say the Holy Gun is unquestionably better than a straight Pally who shoots guns. I can't see it at all... but like you said, I haven't played one yet, so I am not in the club. Please enlighten me. How is this better than the Pally who can smite for an entire combat?
The only argument I can think of while pouring over this is that the Holy Gun gets a firearm for free where as the normal Pally has to pay for one and so can't be an effective fire-arm user until he ponies up the cash to get a firearm to use. Is that what you meant? If so, how does this get better at 2-4?
Sean Mahoney
I am offering you the choice of two things. Your favorite food or a punch in the face. How can you know the punch in the face is worse?
But what if his favorite food is a knuckle sandwich?
Then you're still better off picking the cleric of a different god. OR you can just as easily claim to be a separatist and keep everything the original class gives you. The archetype is not a requirement for the concept after all.Concept clerics don't exist in Golarion or in Pathfinder Society play. Hence my comment about "if your campaign etc."You can already cherry pick your domains. Just be a cleric of a concept.
I don't really have a problem with the separatist. Yes, it's not terribly useful if your campaign has a god for every pair of domains. But otherwise, the ability to essentially cherry-pick any two domains you like is quite useful. And the stuff you give up is really quite minor.
I don't know what to tell you. There's no published Golarion god of glory and darkness, for instance. So if I want to make a Golarion character with those two domains, "just pick a different god" isn't going to cut it, particularly not in Pathfinder Society play. You campaign may vary (obviously).
|
|
None of which changes the fact that Mysterious Stranger 1/paladin X is worlds better than either, right?If the idea is to play a paladin who uses a gun in Pathfinder with the rules we are given, the holy gun is arguably-but-probably better than the straight paladin at level one, unquestionably better at levels 2-4, and at least as good at levels 5-9. After that things get harder to judge, but I highly doubt you'd ever truly find yourself worse off playing one, especially if your campaign doesn't include advanced firearms.
And if you don't understand why this is true, then I can absolutely guarantee that you have never actually tried to build a gun-using paladin at the low or mid levels (or did and were breaking rules, intentionally or otherwise), nor played through any encounters at those levels with a holy gun.
Worlds better than the straight paladin, without a doubt. I'd need to play one to be sure about being better than the holy gun; my initial reaction is that it would be better as well, but I'd need to actually game out how the grit expenditure would best work to be sure. (And I personally would really, really miss quick clear. It's a bloody lifesaver.) At the same time, though, a mysterious stranger/holy gun would also be pretty good, since you'd be rocking 5 grit at level 2, and that's a lot of smiting shots right off the bat...
Worlds better than the straight paladin, without a doubt. I'd need to play one to be sure about being better than the holy gun; my initial reaction is that it would be better as well, but I'd need to actually game out how the grit expenditure would best work to be sure. (And I personally would really, really miss quick clear. It's a bloody lifesaver.) At the same time, though, a mysterious stranger/holy gun would also be pretty good, since you'd be rocking 5 grit at level 2, and that's a lot of smiting shots right off the bat...None of which changes the fact that Mysterious Stranger 1/paladin X is worlds better than either, right?If the idea is to play a paladin who uses a gun in Pathfinder with the rules we are given, the holy gun is arguably-but-probably better than the straight paladin at level one, unquestionably better at levels 2-4, and at least as good at levels 5-9. After that things get harder to judge, but I highly doubt you'd ever truly find yourself worse off playing one, especially if your campaign doesn't include advanced firearms.
And if you don't understand why this is true, then I can absolutely guarantee that you have never actually tried to build a gun-using paladin at the low or mid levels (or did and were breaking rules, intentionally or otherwise), nor played through any encounters at those levels with a holy gun.
Just so we are all clear. You don't need Grit to Smite with a gun as a normal Paladin; everyone's got that right?
Worlds better than the straight paladin, without a doubt. I'd need to play one to be sure about being better than the holy gun; my initial reaction is that it would be better as well, but I'd need to actually game out how the grit expenditure would best work to be sure. (And I personally would really, really miss quick clear. It's a bloody lifesaver.) At the same time, though, a mysterious stranger/holy gun would also be pretty good, since you'd be rocking 5 grit at level 2, and that's a lot of smiting shots right off the bat...
In the PF game I'm currently in (game started lv 3), the (MS)Gunslinger/Pal 2 does like it, but that is mostly because MS gets Cha to damage. He just got a blunderbus (can't wait to smite in 15 cone); so we will see how he fares.
I'm a (MS) Gunslinger 3 in that game. Losing quick clear has been a issue once (2nd combat I rolled a misfire with my revolver, so I switched to my blunderbus till I repair it. Sadly, we got attwaked before we got back to the city so I'll have to make do).
I removed some posts. Don't be a jerk. Cool down and step back from the thread if necessary.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I actually would like to see this build out at 1, 4 ,6 & 9 as it sounds like you have played through those levels with one to see where my in head math might be differing from what is actual if you would please.
I can explain half of it - the half about not having built a gun-using straight paladin. The other half really comes down to seeing how the class actually gets played at the table.
The reasons why a straight paladin sucks, especially at low-levels, relative to the holy gun are feats and crappy firearms. (It also helps to keep in mind why people say smiting shot is terrible: it's a standard action and it costs grit.) The thing is, using a firearm is a ludicrously resource-expensive proposition, especially in terms of a resource paladins don't have much of: feats.
At first level, a human or half-elf paladin can swing both EWP (firearms) and one other feat. This feat pretty much has to be either Rapid Reload (because wasting a standard action to reload pretty much bites) or Point Blank Shot (you're going to want to be that close anyway, and all the feats you really want build off of it). You also have to come up with a gun from somewhere - this requires the use of traits at the minimum (likely but not guaranteed). Assuming you want to actually be able to attack every round, if you went for PBS you're also rocking a 10% misfire chance. Meanwhile, the holy gun already has EWP and a gun (a better one than you can afford regardless, mind); assuming they're human (and really, you're going to be) that means they've got two feats and a trait to play with. It also means they've got Gunsmithing, which means they're paying 1/10 the cost you are every time you fire. For various reasons, I would suggest getting PBS and Precise Shot - your melee buddies will be getting in your way, and at this level, touch attacks won't help that much. The holy gun is thus also dealing with a 10% misfire chance, but unlike the straight paladin, she also has Amateur Gunslinger and chose quick clear as her deed; a misfire won't ever cost her more than a standard action, whereas the straight paladin has to hope someone has mending handy if she doesn't want her gun to just explode outright in the near future.
Of course, all is not doom and gloom for the straight paladin - she does have both detect evil at will and smite evil 1/day. Detect evil really is pretty nice - if you're rolling for stats and you go for a holy gun, you might want to look for a chance to pick up Unsanctioned Knowledge at some point. (You won't be able to afford the Int 13 unless you have a truly ridiculous point buy.) Smite evil of course, is a decent attack bonus, a minor (at this level) damage bump and a moderate AC bump against a single target. If you can keep your allies out of melee with whoever you are smiting, you wind up slightly ahead of the holy gun in one fight each day. Of course, you're a Dex-focused ranged attacker, so that AC bump isn't as useful as it would be if you were a regular melee-focused paladin, but hey! It's free!
So at this level, it's arguable. I'd still rather play the holy gun, but smiting is nice when you can do it.
But then we get to second level, and the holy gun gets smiting shot. And then it's all holy gun all the time. Here's why:
CR <2 enemies drop really easily.
Yes, smiting shot takes a standard action. However, because firearms take so frickin' long to reload, you're not going to be getting off more than one shot in a round for a long, long time anyway. And yes, smiting uses up a resource. But it's a resource that is insanely easy to recover at this level. Even without smiting, if you hit a target, you're likely to get grit back. Particularly if you pick targets that are already wounded.
So while the straight paladin didn't pick up another feat, or another smite/day, a holy gun is likely to be able to use smiting shot at least once per combat.
At level three, it gets even worse - because while the paladin can use her shiny new feat to get whichever of Rapid Reload, Precise Shot and PBS she needs next, the holy gun just got Deadly Aim. (This is the point at which I have seen a holy gun use smiting shot 5 times in a single fight, against 4 different enemies.) This is also the point at which touch ACs start being truly noticably lower than regular ACs, which increases the reliability of getting something out of a smiting shot.
At 4th level, the straight paladin picks up a second smite/day. I rarely manage to get more than one off a day at this level, but it's still nice to have. The fundamentals haven't changed much, however. The biggest difference is that even mooks don't typically drop in one shot now; the end result, however, is that the holy gun just goes for targets of opportunity to finish off wounded bad guys. The grit continues to flow. (Like the spice!) Also at this point, both characters have a spiffy +1 gun. This becomes relevant next level.
At 5th level, the straight paladin has an interesting puzzle. It is possible at this point to get two attacks off per round: this requires EWP (firearms), Rapid Reload, PBS and Rapid Shot, as well as the use of paper alchemical rounds. This is the best way to maximize smiting damage, but it comes with some hefty drawbacks: namely, a 10% misfire chance (still!) and no Precise Shot, so you're still dealing with the shooting-into-melee penalty. The -2 from Rapid Shot's irrelevant, since you're getting it back in your smite to-hit easily, and maybe more besides. Nevertheless, going after touch attacks through a melee is not guaranteed. You can establish a divine bond with your gun, however, which can help a little.
Buuuuuut... the holy gun also has a divine bond. And it has two properties that the straight paladin would really like to have but can't afford; distance and reliable. No misfire chance? Sounds good to me! Touch attacks out to 40 feet? Awesome! Or, since the holy gun also has a feat this level, she can also pick up Rapid Shot and maximize her damage on her non smiting attacks, should she choose, using reliable to keep her misfire chance at the same 5%. (And she still has Deadly Aim...) Other fun toys like Weapon Focus or, if you prefer, Extra Grit might also be options. If you've been getting into melee more than you would like, Weapon Finesse is a possibility (with an eye toward getting an agile weapon as quickly as possible).
I actually think the straight paladin is better off taking Precise Shot at 5th level and waiting for 6th to start making two attacks. Rapid Shot will still be there at 7th. For the next several levels, both builds do all right - the biggest advantage the holy gun has is the ability to get reliable and/or distance for free, which means the holy gun's weapon will generally either have the benefits of those abilities while the straight paladin doesn't or a slightly better enhancement bonus (or keen. Or whatever). Conversely, the straight paladin's got a decent number of smites now, and will likely be using them regularly. The holy gun's smiting shot becomes a finishing move - effective and brutal, but not an every-time-I-pull-the-trigger thing. Her standard shots are still much, much better than the straight paladin's are, however.
|
|
As an aside to all this, the straight paladin does have a substantial advantage in point-buy terms. A 20 pt build (after racial adjustment and without insane stat dumps) for a straight paladin might be Str 14, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 14. A holy gun is more likely to look like Str 10, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 14. The straight paladin won't really hesitate to get into melee, while the holy gun's going to really wish she were a bit further from the fight.
Stuff
I repeat my request to see a build how much damage its doing and the like I am still not convinced of the math and you didn't show any. Please show me the build and the math to support your claim.
|
|
I repeat my request to see a build how much damage its doing and the like I am still not convinced of the math and you didn't show any. Please show me the build and the math to support your claim.
Stuff
(sigh) What more than statline and feat choices are you expecting me to show you? What magic do you think exists in the formatting?
As for the math - that's the bit where I said you have to see it in play. Because I can do the math, but any math I do will involve assumptions, assumptions that I guarantee the theorycrafters will cry foul over, even though they are exactly how the class works out in play. Things like the actions of allies, the number of enemies and their CR relative to the character, and so on. This is the part where the math fails, because it can't model grit recovery. Crits are the smaller part of it, in my experience, but crits are the only part the math can handle. So you set up a variety of scenarios and the assumptions for each, and I will show you the math. But without those assumptions, the math doesn't exist.
More Stuff
Stuff
No, you can provide builds attack and damage mods (IE the baseline whereupon the other variables adjust) people do this all the time in the DPR Olympics threads. What happens at the table conglomerated where numbers of tables in play and rolls taken yields the core %'s given in the DPR Olympics as the statistical distribution is more than large enough to account for the outliers. To claim otherwise is not factual.
Its really simple to lay out level one these feats this to hit this damage
level 2 this to hit this damage this with smiting shot
level 4 this stat pump this to hit and damage
etc.
You are not going to convince folks in this thread that your claim, I believe your words were "absolutely guaranteed", without showing the basic math whereupon table specific modifers (bards inspire, haste, heroism, cat's grace, eagles seplendor, etc can then be accounted for). Like it or not this game uses a lot of math.
But then we get to second level, and the holy gun gets smiting shot. And then it's all holy gun all the time. Here's why:
CR <2 enemies drop really easily.
No they don't. Here's why: As soon as you hit 2nd level, you can't regain grit for fighting creature's with 1 HD. Which includes any 1st level NPCs, creatures with simple templates, and a number of creatures. So really what you mean is that that "CR < 2 enemies with at least 2 HD drop really easily" which is both true and a lie at the same time.
See, sure they drop easy, but not by guns. A musket deals an average of 6.5 damage and has to hit them. Now a wolf (CR 1) has 2 HD and about 13 hit points. It's not even as strong as a riding dog, but it is more than likely to survive your attack, since even on your best roll (a 12) you won't drop it. So that's great. Meanwhile, when you're mobbed by 8 kobolds or 6 goblins, you ain't gettin' no grit back at all, even if your average damage could kill them.
EDIT: You can easily go entire adventures at 2nd-4th level without running into creatures with more than 1/2 your HD. Just NPCs are the most common. Wanna know what's scarier than 3 goblins? 6 goblins! Wanna know what's scarier than 4 kobolds? 12! Plus, every 2 levels you gain, you're losing a new subset of creatures that it can no longer work against.
"Oh boy, I just hit level 4. Time to wipe riding dogs, wolves, goblin dogs, hyenas, imps, rams, horses and warhorses, 2nd level NPC classed characters, boars, gnolls, and every other 2 HD creature off the list of things I can regain grit from killing."
GM decides to throw a giant riding dog at the group to represent some sort of killer hound that his hobgoblin group has trained into a man-eating killing machine? That's a CR 2 encounter you gets no grit from if you land the finishing shot on the creature. It's also Neutral, so nyah nyah on your Smite Shot.
Meanwhile the real Paladin gets to whip out a real weapon and tear the creature apart, and doesn't have to compete with his friends for the kill shot. "Damnit Johnny, that was my kill! Now I have to walk around with no grit! How am I going to keep my damage up!?"
|
|
No they don't. Here's why: As soon as you hit 2nd level, you can't regain grit for fighting creature's with 1 HD. Which includes any 1st level NPCs, creatures with simple templates, and a number of creatures. So really what you mean is that that "CR < 2 enemies with at least 2 HD drop really easily" which is both true and a lie at the same time.But then we get to second level, and the holy gun gets smiting shot. And then it's all holy gun all the time. Here's why:
CR <2 enemies drop really easily.
I don't know about you, but my copy says fewer Hit Dice than half the gunslinger's character level. So you can waste 1 HD creatures at level 2 all day long. You can't do it at level three, but at that point, Deadly Aim makes up a fair amount of the difference. PBS, Smiting Shot, Deadly Aim and pistol against a 2 HD warrior (average around the same 13 hp you mentioned)? 50/50 odds of dropping it in one shot. But as I also said, you start transitioning to a tactic where you target enemies your allies have already damaged. The same logic that makes it trickier for you to drop them in one shot makes it harder for your friends to do it as well; I find my grit-users overall delaying a lot.
But are you starting to see why I said modeling grit recovery is a pain?
|
|
No, you can provide builds attack and damage mods (IE the baseline whereupon the other variables adjust) people do this all the time in the DPR Olympics threads. What happens at the table conglomerated where numbers of tables in play and rolls taken yields the core %'s given in the DPR Olympics as the statistical distribution is more than large enough to account for the outliers. To claim otherwise is not factual.
Its really simple to lay out level one these feats this to hit this damage
level 2 this to hit this damage this with smiting shotlevel 4 this stat pump this to hit and damage
etc.
You are not going to convince folks in this thread that your claim, I believe your words were "absolutely guaranteed", without showing the basic math whereupon table specific modifers (bards inspire, haste, heroism, cat's grace, eagles seplendor, etc can then be accounted for). Like it or not this game uses a lot of math.
You have everything you need to do that in what I gave you. It's feats, equipment modifiers and ability scores. Which you have in the two posts above.
Here, I'll even do the 1st level one for you:
Straight paladin: BAB +1, Dex +4
Normal attack: +5, damage 1d4/x3, misfire chance 5%
Smiting attack: +7, damage 1d4+1/x3, misfire chance 5%
Holy gun: BAB +1, Dex +4
Normal attack: +5, damage 1d8/x4, misfire chance 10%
Within 30 ft: +6, damage 1d8+1/x4, misfire chance 10%
See? It's all there.
The reason why I'm not doing the actual DPR is that DPR requires an AC, and there's little standard for touch ACs. Also, my entire point is that how well the grit users do depends greatly on how many of what kind of enemy they face, as well as how the actions of their allies work out, both of which DPR calculations ignore entirely.
Yes, your allies have to take an active part in not killing the opponent. That won't work well.
This might work ok at level 1, maybe 2. Then what happens when you are facing multiple enemies with 20-30HP? Good luck getting your Grit back. Maybe you will crit, but given the infrequency that I ever see that happen, don't bet on it. The Grit mechanic is only slightly better than the bad 3.5 Cleave mechanic in that it also works on a critical.
Instead, the Paladin can take less Dex, but will have more armor and more Charisma and can find someone Smite will work on and go beat them to death.
Straight paladin: BAB +1, Dex +4
Normal attack: +5, damage 1d4/x3, misfire chance 5%
Smiting attack: +7, damage 1d4+1/x3, misfire chance 5%Holy gun: BAB +1, Dex +4
Normal attack: +5, damage 1d8/x4, misfire chance 10%
Within 30 ft: +6, damage 1d8+1/x4, misfire chance 10%See? It's all there.
So in other words, you have no practical experience and are engaging in hyperbole, OK and have refused to provide the burden of proof no way of backing up your claims.
|
|
Yes, your allies have to take an active part in not killing the opponent. That won't work well.
This might work ok at level 1, maybe 2. Then what happens when you are facing multiple enemies with 20-30HP? Good luck getting your Grit back. Maybe you will crit, but given the infrequency that I ever see that happen, don't bet on it. The Grit mechanic is only slightly better than the bad 3.5 Cleave mechanic in that it also works on a critical.
My practical experience says otherwise. Once again, you have to play the class. Unless your GM only gives you single monsters of higher-than-your-APL to fight, you should be able to stay grit-neutral or positive while smiting at least once in every fight it could realistically apply.
And Cleave's problem was never dropping people - it was having people adjacent to hit. People drop in combat all the time. Grit works much, much better than Cleave did.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Yes, your allies have to take an active part in not killing the opponent. That won't work well.
This might work ok at level 1, maybe 2. Then what happens when you are facing multiple enemies with 20-30HP? Good luck getting your Grit back. Maybe you will crit, but given the infrequency that I ever see that happen, don't bet on it. The Grit mechanic is only slightly better than the bad 3.5 Cleave mechanic in that it also works on a critical.
Instead, the Paladin can take less Dex, but will have more armor and more Charisma and can find someone Smite will work on and go beat them to death.
Aw, c'mon Carty, you can do better than that. He explained what happens at higher levels (hint: shoot the guy already damaged).
Someone more vested in this argument than yours truly, might note that the pallie with the guns doesn't need better armor since they also have the advantage of not being in melee range with their opponents.
Seems like maybe there are pros and cons to the choices available.
My practical experience says otherwise. Once again, you have to play the class. Unless your GM only gives you single monsters of higher-than-your-APL to fight, you should be able to stay grit-neutral or positive while smiting at least once in every fight it could realistically apply.And Cleave's problem was never dropping people - it was having people adjacent to hit. People drop in combat all the time. Grit works much, much better than Cleave did.
At level 3, I'm having to do "Mother May I" a lot about Grit. Did my Crit get Grit? Did that kill count?
Many times it seems no, it was lower Lv (1) when I get those Crit/kills.
Maybe my DM is interpreting it wrong. 1/2 of lv 3 should be lv 1 right?
|
|
So in other words, you have no practical experience and are engaging in hyperbole, OK and have you refuse to provide the burden of proof no way of backing up your claims.
Dude. I'm not going to type up 8 different builds and work through DPR calculations for each of them, in a vacuum no less, just to satisfy your curiosity, particularly when it is completely tangential to my point.
My point - well, points, actually - are these:
1) Smiting shot being limited by grit is not anywhere near the problem the holy gun's critics claim it is.
2) The standard action required to use smiting shot isn't as gret a cost as it is often made out to be, bcause getting multiple attacks with a firearm is kind of a pain anyway.
3) The paladin is a terrible platform to build a gun-user off of without the holy gun (or, I suppose, multiclassing as a gunslinger), because it simply lacks the feats to make use of the weapon effectively.
See how none of that really involves DPR?
|
|
At level 3, I'm having to do "Mother May I" a lot about Grit. Did my Crit get Grit? Did that kill count?
Many times it seems no, it was lower Lv (1) when I get those Crit/kills.
Maybe my DM is interpreting it wrong. 1/2 of lv 3 should be lv 1 right?
At level 3, 1 HD opponents don't get you grit. 2 HD+ opponents do.
My practical experience says otherwise. Once again, you have to play the class. Unless your GM only gives you single monsters of higher-than-your-APL to fight, you should be able to stay grit-neutral or positive while smiting at least once in every fight it could realistically apply.
You do realize that is the definition of anecdotal evidence right? Your evidence may be true, you may see a lot of crits and/or killing blows, but the evidence does not warrant the conclusion.
Cartigan is right, the odds of either a crit (20x4) or a killing blow are low. So low as to be unreliable.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So in other words, you have no practical experience and are engaging in hyperbole, OK and have refused to provide the burden of proof no way of backing up your claims.
Straight paladin: BAB +1, Dex +4
Normal attack: +5, damage 1d4/x3, misfire chance 5%
Smiting attack: +7, damage 1d4+1/x3, misfire chance 5%Holy gun: BAB +1, Dex +4
Normal attack: +5, damage 1d8/x4, misfire chance 10%
Within 30 ft: +6, damage 1d8+1/x4, misfire chance 10%See? It's all there.
Not sure how the guy who's actually playtested the class and found it consistent with the way it's written has the "burden of proof." Seems to me that, as the person asserting the poor balance and general terribleness of the class, the "burden of proof" falls on you.
Or, you could just continue on your current path of insulting and attacking someone who spelled out how he tested the class, how the class could be further tested, and even provided you with the basic tools to check his results at 1st level. I, for one, am always impressed by someone who hasn't done the work, demands someone else do it for them, and then cries when they have to do anything themselves, but, seriously?
|
|
See this? This right here? This is what I meant about the math not applying:
Cartigan is right, the odds of either a crit (20x4) or a killing blow are low. So low as to be unreliable.
This is important, so pay attention:
You have no way to know that.
Tell me how you can know what the odds of getting a killing blow are. Tell me how you might even get close to knowing.
I freely admit my evidence is anecdotal. It is nonetheless entirely superior to simply making stuff up, which is what you just did, whether you are aware of it or not.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
You do realize that is the definition of anecdotal evidence right? Your evidence may be true, you may see a lot of crits and/or killing blows, but the evidence does not warrant the conclusion.
Cartigan is right, the odds of either a crit (20x4) or a killing blow are low. So low as to be unreliable.
You do realize that anecdotal evidence (aka playtesting) is how rpg "balance" is achieved, right?
This is hilarious. Someone has actually played the class and shown the practical ways that the pallie + gun compares to the holy gun which, prior to those posts, have not been discussed or considered, and his experience, backed up with analysis, and is dismissed because his actual observations and experience don't conform to abstract predictions?
See this? This right here? This is what I meant about the math not applying:
Cartigan is right, the odds of either a crit (20x4) or a killing blow are low. So low as to be unreliable.This is important, so pay attention:
You have no way to know that.
Tell me how you can know what the odds of getting a killing blow are. Tell me how you might even get close to knowing.
I freely admit my evidence is anecdotal. It is nonetheless entirely superior to simply making stuff up, which is what you just did, whether you are aware of it or not.
You just proved our point by admitting that a killing blow cannot be quantified. I cannot and do not need to calculate the likelihood of a killing blow to prove my point. However, you assert that one can remain "grit-neutral" through crits/kills. So the burden is on you to prove that kills are common. It cannot be proven by either of us (I'm not that great at probability math myself) so it must fall under anecdotal.
It is a fallacy to state a conclusion based on anecdotal evidence, so both parties must throw out killing blows (since we cannot quantify them) and rely on the other half of grit: critical hits. We can mathematically prove that crits with firearms are not reliable. It is safe to deduce that regaining grit is not reliable. It most surly occurs, but it is not reliable.
As another argument, beyond levels 1-3, I find the notion of the HG pally aiming or the weak to score a kill ludicrous. Other than a spell, how is one to know whether the enemy is close to death? You can guess and infer from what you and the party has done to the enemy, but it is once more an unreliable tactic. You may very well leave the enemy with 1 HP and your ally gets the kill. Assuredly the situation will sometime be reversed, but it is a big gamble.
Not sure how the guy who's actually playtested the class and found it consistent with the way it's written has the "burden of proof." Seems to me that, as the person asserting the poor balance and general terribleness of the class, the "burden of proof" falls on you.
Or, you could just continue on your current path of insulting and attacking someone who spelled out how he tested the class, how the class could be further tested, and even provided you with the basic tools to check his results at 1st level. I, for one, am always impressed by someone who hasn't done the work, demands someone else do it for them, and then cries when they have to do anything themselves, but, seriously?
Actually all I have seen form him is a bold claim that its was absolutely better than the core pally at these levels I would have gladly taken his actual played character if he would provide it. I would assume if He has in fact played one he could have laid out when he got what, what gear he has, etc. But yea I suppose since you appear not to have read his original post you might not see where my question began. But i'm sure you are aware of all that right?
You do realize that is the definition of anecdotal evidence right? Your evidence may be true, you may see a lot of crits and/or killing blows, but the evidence does not warrant the conclusion.
Cartigan is right, the odds of either a crit (20x4) or a killing blow are low. So low as to be unreliable.
You do realize that anecdotal evidence (aka playtesting) is how rpg "balance" is achieved, right?
This is hilarious. Someone has actually played the class and shown the practical ways that the pallie + gun compares to the holy gun which, prior to those posts, have not been discussed or considered, and his experience, backed up with analysis, and is dismissed because his actual observations and experience don't conform to abstract predictions?
A) Not all balance is achieved via play-testing. That is part of the process but I'm willing to bet far more effort goes into mathematical testing and prediction.
B) His experience and analysis is no way definitive either way. His experiences are due to variance/chance and so judgement cannot be drawn from such a small sample. Another "play-tester" could just as easily conclude that the grit-mechanic sucks because he played for 7,000 hours and never got a crit or killing blow. Both posters fail to prove anything.