|
I'm not gonna lie, this is by far one of the most BUSTED classes I have ever had to deal with in Pathfinder, and it really does make me ill that I ever allowed it in my campaign to begin with.
What I currently have issues with, specifically, is the Signature Deed ability combined with Lightning Reload, which effectively allows a gunslinger to reload their gun as a FREE action with a single barrel weapon that does NOT provoke attacks of opportunity. Combined with other crazy ranged feats like Rapid Shot (or joy...a -2 penalty on a range TOUCH attack...what a penalty), and the 'Deadly Aim' feat. I mean, sweet Jesus, I have never seen anything so stupid before in my life. And to add even MORE insult to injury, the archtype known as the Pistolero just makes things even more ridiculous (Up Close and Deadly and Pistol Training make the friggin damage of this class simply INSANE).
I have to ask, is there ANY errata, or is this class just that damn good?
Moreover, is anyone else having issues with this class (I mean, hell...imagine a Pistolero DUAL WIELDING their weapons...which only gives them a -4 penalty of course...but who cares...they are shooting with RANGED TOUCH ATTACKS with a FULL BaB AND they have an insane amount of DEX).
But yea...if anyone else understands this issues, please post your comments. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.
I had a gunslinger in my game. It was ok, but nothing special.
They still have to take the ranged feats to ignore shooting into melee, and soft cover. Well they don't have to, but they will miss more. They still have to deal with misfires.
They also only get to use touch AC within a certain range or they have to use grit points.
Being that close just make you can easy target. I am still more worried about the guy with a bow who is not always withing charging distance.
The close range is a serious issue.
Move is used to reload then Shoot. Oh bad guy is not adjacent to you. CRAP! Now move but no reload so no shoot.
I am going to put this in my list any repost it every time I see the "history" excuse used.
Now I am don't care if anyone allows rule/option X or not, but I would like to see if they stand by their initial reason.
What? I did my research, what I posted was sound. I suppose you could also disallow full-plate, glaives, falchions, morning stars, and a mess of other advanced weapons. I suppose you don't have to go for historical accuracy, but taking options away from your players because NOT MY FANTASY ROLEPLAYING GAME, is a terrible reason to do it.
Make no mistake: there are some good reasons to not allow guns, the Ultimate Combat book doesn't have an errata, it doesn't fit the setting you've created, where the players are going guns are incredibly hard to maintain, or any of a number of genuinely good reasons. However, the most common reason I have seen is because of the aforementioned reason, and that's a shame.
I am going to put this in my list any repost it every time I see the "history" excuse used.
Now I am don't care if anyone allows rule/option X or not, but I would like to see if they stand by their initial reason.
What? I did my research, what I posted was sound. I suppose you could also disallow full-plate, glaives, falchions, morning stars, and a mess of other advanced weapons. I suppose you don't have to go for historical accuracy, but taking options away from your players because NOT MY FANTASY ROLEPLAYING GAME, is a terrible reason to do it.
Make no mistake: there are some good reasons to not allow guns, the Ultimate Combat book doesn't have an errata, it doesn't fit the setting you've created, where the players are going guns are incredibly hard to maintain, or any of a number of genuinely good reasons. However, the most common reason I have seen is because of the aforementioned reason, and that's a shame.
I was not talking about you. I was saying that as a general statement. I was also just not referring to guns when I was using the word "excuse".
That is part of my bad luck of happening upon a post where option X is banned because of _____. _____ is proven to be false and the GM says he does not care or comes up with more excuses.
PS:I was saying I am going to use your research, not that it was not valid, by posting it. :)
Oh, sweet. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, it's been a very rough day for me, I had to walk 3 miles, and I got into a fight with a random drunken stranger while I was on that walk. I managed to get the guy to calm down, without having to punch the fight out of him.
Oh, sweet. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, it's been a very rough day for me, I had to walk 3 miles, and I got into a fight with a random drunken stranger while I was on that walk. I managed to get the guy to calm down, without having to punch the fight out of him.
I have done the same thing, not the fight the drunk guy, but misread a statement online. It's cool.
Okay, Golden-esque brings up a topic that has really been getting my goat for awhile, but I haven't said anything about it.
When do you guys think guns were invented?
When do you think Plate armor (specifically the full-plate presented to us in the core rulebook, the other suits of armor are much older, even thousands of years older) was invented?
Answer: around the same time, in Europe, in China, the gun predates plate armor by 600 years.
Now, there might be a few suits created earlier than that, but those appear to have been destroyed, as the oldest suits of armor we have found are circa 1300AD. The gun was created by China in 700AD, but it wasn't really a gun until later innovations were made.
The gun is a lot older than people think it is, simply because the idea we have of it is the Wild West, meanwhile back in reality the gun was used back before full-plate became popular. The end result is that most complaints about the fluff of the gun in Pathfinder only amounts to one thing: NOT MY FANTASY ROLEPLAYING SETTING.
Huh, I didn't realize I brought that topic up at all.
Anyway, you can do a lot of fun stuff with firearms with other classes (I think I brought that much up at least). Fighters can use Firearms to great effect, as can Rogues. Surprisingly enough, if you select "Archery" as a Ranger, then you can get most of the feats you want as well. In my opinion, the biggest advantage to taking that level in Gunslinger (or a similar Firearms-focused class) is the fact that you get proficiency with ALL firearms; which normally takes up several feats, for free.
But yeah, personally, I run a Renassiance-era tech campaign, so my world has firearms in place already :).
It was one of your last sentences:Huh, I didn't realize I brought that topic up at all.
Anyway, you can do a lot of fun stuff with firearms with other classes (I think I brought that much up at least). Fighters can use Firearms to great effect, as can Rogues. Surprisingly enough, if you select "Archery" as a Ranger, then you can get most of the feats you want as well. In my opinion, the biggest advantage to taking that level in Gunslinger (or a similar Firearms-focused class) is the fact that you get proficiency with ALL firearms; which normally takes up several feats, for free.
But yeah, personally, I run a Renassiance-era tech campaign, so my world has firearms in place already :).
Your conventional tricks and standard monsters don't work well against a Gunslinger; this is true. It's a class that represents a completely different time period after all. However, it has its weaknesses and as a GM, your job is to exploit it.
The fact of the matter is that it is not a different time period at all.
Oh, sweet. I'm sorry if I misunderstood, it's been a very rough day for me, I had to walk 3 miles, and I got into a fight with a random drunken stranger while I was on that walk. I managed to get the guy to calm down, without having to punch the fight out of him.I have done the same thing, not the fight the drunk guy, but misread a statement online. It's cool.
Yeah, my life is an adventure, I am not amused by it. Thankfully, I am prepared for it.
The best reason not to use guns is that they have really awful rules.
The best reason not to use guns is that they have really awful rules.
Seconded. The 3.5 DMG gun rules were better.
The best reason not to use guns is that they have really awful rules.Seconded. The 3.5 DMG gun rules were better.
The rules where they were worthless? Why would anyone ever take a gun? They are the worst weapons in all of 3.5, which is saying something, they had some pretty terrible weapons. No one used 3.5 guns for a reason: they were utter garbage.
As someone who like pirates and steam punk, the inclusion of guns and gunslingers is something I like having as an option. One of the models I am using for my campaigns has firearms in it but I intend to use a combination of UC and what I saw in Tome of Secrets as I would be making the tech level Steam Punk. Among the inspirations I intend to keep in include Full Metal Alchemist, Wild ARMS, League of Extraordinary Gentleman and other movies/anime for that topic.
The rules where they were worthless? Why would anyone ever take a gun? They are the worst weapons in all of 3.5, which is saying something, they had some pretty terrible weapons. No one used 3.5 guns for a reason: they were utter garbage.The best reason not to use guns is that they have really awful rules.Seconded. The 3.5 DMG gun rules were better.
Yep. Just like the current guns are garbage. Just, the ones in the 3.5 DMG weren't as much garbage, because they at least didn't try to give them some sort of special (and stupid) quirks that made them worse than just being inferior weapons. The guns in Pathfinder are in fact so inferior, that there is frankly no reason to use one over a 0 gp sling.
EDIT: Not to mention they're the worst weapons ever for the price of a house. Like others in this thread have noted, they're a fashion statement, not weapons.
|
I have to ask, is there ANY errata, or is this class just that damn good?
Moreover, is anyone else having issues with this class (I mean, hell...imagine a Pistolero DUAL WIELDING their weapons...which only gives them a -4 penalty of course...but who cares...they are shooting with RANGED TOUCH ATTACKS with a FULL BaB AND they have an insane amount of DEX).
My two most recent PFS characters are....
1) a dwarf barbarian who fights without armor.
2) a samurai who will also eventually fight without physical armor because his DEX bonus will exceed +8 (he'll use Mage Armor or Bracers instead).
In both bases, Touch AC is the same as regular AC, and a gunslinger opponent has no advantage whatsoever.
The higher level you go, the percentage of a target's AC applicable versus Touch will climb significantly, and a gunslinger's advantage versus normally-armored opponents will begin to diminish. (He'll also be a ranged combatant within easy Pounce or move-and-Grab distance of incredibly vicious monsters if he attempts to always be within 30'.)
The rules where they were worthless? Why would anyone ever take a gun? They are the worst weapons in all of 3.5, which is saying something, they had some pretty terrible weapons. No one used 3.5 guns for a reason: they were utter garbage.The best reason not to use guns is that they have really awful rules.Seconded. The 3.5 DMG gun rules were better.Yep. Just like the current guns are garbage. Just, the ones in the 3.5 DMG weren't as much garbage, because they at least didn't try to give them some sort of special (and stupid) quirks that made them worse than just being inferior weapons. The guns in Pathfinder are in fact so inferior, that there is frankly no reason to use one over a 0 gp sling.
EDIT: Not to mention they're the worst weapons ever for the price of a house. Like others in this thread have noted, they're a fashion statement, not weapons.
What are you talking about? 3.5 guns were infinitely worse than Pathfinder guns, for starters, they shoot like normal ranged weapons, I would gleefully have all of my weapons roll 1 die smaller (d8 becomes d6 et cetera) if they all hit touch. They are also a lot slower than Pathfinder weapons tend to be.
Though I do admit they misfire a little too often, if I ever run a game again, I'm going to have guns only misfire if you roll a 1 and then roll under the misfire number, if your misfire number goes below 1, for any reason, I'm going to have the player reroll, if they manage to roll another 1.
I do agree they are massively overpriced, though if you give them the "guns are everywhere" prices they aren't so bad.
Though I do admit they misfire a little too often, if I ever run a game again, I'm going to have guns only misfire if you roll a 1 and then roll under the misfire number, if your misfire number goes below 1, for any reason, I'm going to have the player reroll, if they manage to roll another 1.
This is one of the major reasons. This combined with the whole touch-AC thing. Neither makes any sense at all in the context of D&D/Pathfinder, and feels like a poorly tacked on subsystem. There is no similar mechanic for existing weapons to break, even though bowstrings snap, and weapons can chip and break.
Secondly, the idea that they ignore armor is pretty stupid. Nothing ignores armor in D&D, and it's not even realistic as the entire term "bullet proof" actually comes from plate-mail armor which bullets couldn't penetrate. In fact, it would put a little ding in the armor and that was it. Consumers of the armor would look for this tiny dent to see that bullets couldn't pierce it (showing it was quality armor).
Likewise, there is no penetration system for any other weapon, despite the fact logically bows and crossbows should stab strait through many light armors. Likewise, if you wanted to be really realistic, slashing weapons would be nigh useless versus chainmail or plate armor.
Let's not also forget it's pretty stupid that a lead ball is going to penetrate adamantine armor like it's not there. Or hell, steel or iron armor.
So it fails in both in regards to realism and in regards to verisimilitude and system compatibility. So, it failed two for two here.
I do agree they are massively overpriced, though if you give them the "guns are everywhere" prices they aren't so bad.
This is just insult to injury.
EDIT: There's also the fact that guns are supposed to be simple to use. Large groups of soldiers could quickly be trained to fire them in volleys. Guns should be simple weapons so that warriors, experts, and adepts (and the odd commoner) can use them if desired. As it is, you have to expend a feat (Exotic Weapon Proficiency) just to use a weapon that sucks, has a terrible range, and costs more than it would cost to stock an entire platoon with weapons that don't suck.
The rules where they were worthless? Why would anyone ever take a gun? They are the worst weapons in all of 3.5, which is saying something, they had some pretty terrible weapons. No one used 3.5 guns for a reason: they were utter garbage.The best reason not to use guns is that they have really awful rules.Seconded. The 3.5 DMG gun rules were better.
*scratches head*
Renaissance WeaponsPistol 250gp 1d10 X3 50ft 3 lbs Piercing
Musket 500gp 1d12 x3 150ft 10lbs Piercing
Modern Era Weaons
Automatic Pistol 1d10 x3 150ft 5lbs Piercing
Revolver Pistol 1d10 x3 100ft 3lbs Piercing
Automatic Rifle 1d12 x3 250ft 12lbs Piercing
Repeater Rifle 1d12 x3 200ft 10lbs Piercing
I'd say they beat the hell out of the UC ones in terms of balance. The flint-lock pistol has more range than the UC one and the musket has more range than any non-siege weapon in the game!
The 'advanced' pistols beat out the range of the UC's ones by a landslide, and the rifles are just plain radical! If you had put the Distance enchantment on it and had the old Far-Shot feat you could rack up a maximum range of 7500ft.
They’re certainly not horrible, although I can see how some of the new Pathfinder feats can be used to up their damage potential. Most people didn’t use them for (mostly) the same reasons they don’t now: “No-gun Fantasy” “Potential to Break Game” “Because I Said So!”; and because it was located in a non-magic item location in the GM Guide, so most people that had DM’s that didn’t let them see the whole book wouldn’t know they existed.
Personally my problem with the gunslinger is the firearms rules (and the mechanics the class uses in adding those rules) and its as ProfessorCirno says the ‘special rules’ are just stupid. It also goes against the whole Exotic Weapon Nerf that Pathfinder has going on (firearms are the only exotic weapon with truly ‘special’ game-altering rules, while everything else gets hit with the Nerf Hammer of Justice!?)
Honestly I found that the firearms are weak in the hands of PC’s but become broken in the hands of NPC’s, the damage is small but get enough Dakka and even level 20 tanks go down in one round. Advanced Firearms are worse because in Golarion at least, having an army with low-end magic weapons isn’t all that far-fetched ironically, meaning that ‘civilized’ races can literally drive creatures like dragons (that rely on their ultra-high normal AC and DR to protect them) to extinction with just raw numbers…this feat can not be performed with any other weapon, that’s why its bad to me.
…That and the logic just doesn’t add up, is like saying a flint-lock can shoot through the hull of King Tiger Tank, at least the 3.5 ones (despite range advantages) still require the character to hit the normal AC everyone else, so no is complaining about feeling invalid because the can only reliably hit once or twice (at max) and get still get hit by people less than half the level they are.
But Your Mileage May Vary However
EDIT: Blast ninja'd by a sorcerer, I shall commit seppeku!
Nothing ignores armor in D&D,Nothing mundane anyway...
Touche salesman. :P
EDIT:
EDIT: Blast ninja'd by a sorcerer, I shall commit seppeku!
Don't feel bad. At least you're not a rogue. *sillyface*
Oh man, Fridge Logic just set in.
Touche salesman. :P
I hate Ninjas and Samurai.
The concept or the classes?
@Magus Black:They were garbage, range isn't everything, it's important, it helps, but you get no bonuses to hit, no bonuses to damage, at all, and that was 3.5, where ranged combat was only good in a select number of paths, none of which worked with guns.
They didn't even have a Deadly Aim equivalent, unless you took the feat from the D&D cartoon show booklet, which even that doesn't say it's a new option for players, it's just an ability that the archer had.
@Ashiel:They had to give the gun something that would make it superior to other weapons, what would you propose? Guns weren't really viable in any form of actual combat, until the invention of the repeater rifle, yes a lot of the time they used them anyway, but they really weren't better than crossbows or regular bows, they took too long to load, simple as that.
I'd rather have to train a guy for a few weeks than have to put up with losing tons of soldiers because they spent 5 minutes between every incredibly inaccurate, short-ranged shot.
Fact of the matter is that if they want to get people to play the class, instead of wasting all their time and efforts like the creators in 3.5 were notorious for doing, they had to give it a mechanical advantage to the new class to make it appear at least somewhat interesting, and guns weren't advantageous, or even interesting, until the repeater was invented.
|
I too feel dread every time I open a D&D book and see that it will contain guns. Not because of fluff reasons but because they always feel the need to give guns their own extra special awful fiddly rules that never work well.
I already favourited this but I still felt the need to quote it and take my hat off to you sir.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel:They had to give the gun something that would make it superior to other weapons, what would you propose? Guns weren't really viable in any form of actual combat, until the invention of the repeater rifle, yes a lot of the time they used them anyway, but they really weren't better than crossbows or regular bows, they took too long to load, simple as that.
And in reality slings were faster firing than bows, and had a much more impressive range. Likewise, as you have pointed out, they weren't superior to other weapons. In fact, many natives slaughtered American soldiers during conflicts because they had advantages over their primitive firearms compared to the native american's bows.
I'd rather have to train a guy for a few weeks than have to put up with losing tons of soldiers because they spent 5 minutes between every incredibly inaccurate, short-ranged shot.
If only leaders in reality had looked at it like that. Warfare with guns was pretty lame for a long time. Just a bunch of morons standing around shooting at each other in open fields.
Fact of the matter is that if they want to get people to play the class, instead of wasting all their time and efforts like the creators in 3.5 were notorious for doing, they had to give it a mechanical advantage to the new class to make it appear at least somewhat interesting, and guns weren't advantageous, or even interesting, until the repeater was invented.
Believe me when I say it's not the only option. I've been using firearms in my games since before the Pathfinder Gunslinger was out, and presented a free alternative to the Pathfinder gunslinger which I even said Paizo could have if they wanted it during the playtest if they wanted it. It had firearms that are on par with existing weapons, not innately overpowered, awaken their superiority in the hands of a trained professional (IE - you take the exotic proficiency and you can reload it faster and fish for criticals fiercely). It actually considers how guns might actually be used in realistic ways and lends itself well to a swashbuckler setting as well.
You don't have to create stupid rules to try and make people want to play a class that already has issues. Seriously, why do you have to have a special class to use firearms anyway? Is every member of a militia in a firearms nation a 1st level gunslinger? Seriously?
Alternate Gunslinger. For sake of conversation, let's compare this to the existing gunslinger and firearms rules, and see which is more conductive to actual play without screwing up a setting, verisimilitude, and so forth.
Nope. No problems with the gunslinger. Class is in no way broken. In fact, its slightly complicated grit mechanic gimps it a bit in my estimation. But, no, it is not unbalanced enough to complain in any way. It's a lot of fun, really.
Going a step further using the gun rules, the wizard archetype of the spellslinger takes the old broken and not-well-thought-out gun mage from the Iron Kingdoms and finally does it right, making one of the most exciting archetype classes in the whole game.
I dig Ultimate Combat, and I have dug the idea of the gunslinger since before it was announced. I was hoping and hoping for gun rules in an official Paizo book, and am totally happy with the result.
You don't have to create stupid rules to try and make people want to play a class that already has issues. Seriously, why do you have to have a special class to use firearms anyway? Is every member of a militia in a firearms nation a 1st level gunslinger? Seriously?
I'm not sure if that question was rhetorical or sarcastic, or what? You do know that there are plenty of gun rules for non-gunslingers in Pathfinder, right? Feats, and such? So no, not every character using guns is a gunslinger.
I too feel dread every time I open a D&D book and see that it will contain guns. Not because of fluff reasons but because they always feel the need to give guns their own extra special awful fiddly rules that never work well.I already favourited this but I still felt the need to quote it and take my hat off to you sir.
D&D has already had guns. There were alternate rules for ray guns, black powder guns and cannons in the DMG, in both 3.0 and 3.5.
They were quick and easy and proved to be rather fun.
|
Let me tell you all that instead of this piecemeal HATE the OP is after, somebody decided to go wholesale.
You don't have to create stupid rules to try and make people want to play a class that already has issues. Seriously, why do you have to have a special class to use firearms anyway? Is every member of a militia in a firearms nation a 1st level gunslinger? Seriously?I'm not sure if that question was rhetorical or sarcastic, or what? You do know that there are plenty of gun rules for non-gunslingers in Pathfinder, right? Feats, and such? So no, not every character using guns is a gunslinger.
Stupid rules. Say it with me! :P
You should not have to have an archtype and a lot of feats to use a weapon that is supposed to be simple in its use, just to make it somewhat feasible compared to existing weapons. In fact, that's kind of an oxymoron because giving up your class features and feats to use these terrible firearm rules isn't feasible at all.
Imagine it! The new fighter archtype! Club-guy! A fighter that wields a club! Of course, a club is also an exotic weapon now, and occasionally splinters and breaks when you try to whack things with it. To properly use this club, you need to give up some of your existing class abilities, so that you can slightly offset the suckiness of your favorite weapon by not taking the -4 and only having your favorite weapon shatter sometimes. Now let's also have you take a feat so you can make iterative attacks with your club. Finally, your club begins broken but you duck-tapped it, and that duct-tape doesn't work for anyone else but you.
But that's OK, because clubs are cooler than swords, amiright!? :D
These club rules are teh bombzors!
|
I've been using firearms in my games since before the Pathfinder Gunslinger was out, and presented a free alternative to the Pathfinder gunslinger which I even said Paizo could have if they wanted it during the playtest if they wanted it.
According to the messageboard FAQ, the statement of understanding says you give Paizo the right to republish anything you post to the Paizo boards in any media when you sign up.
So yeah, any post you've made on the forums is property of Paizo.
|
|
You don't have to create stupid rules to try and make people want to play a class that already has issues. Seriously, why do you have to have a special class to use firearms anyway? Is every member of a militia in a firearms nation a 1st level gunslinger? Seriously?I'm not sure if that question was rhetorical or sarcastic, or what? You do know that there are plenty of gun rules for non-gunslingers in Pathfinder, right? Feats, and such? So no, not every character using guns is a gunslinger.Stupid rules. Say it with me! :P
You should not have to have an archtype and a lot of feats to use a weapon that is supposed to be simple in its use, just to make it somewhat feasible compared to existing weapons. In fact, that's kind of an oxymoron because giving up your class features and feats to use these terrible firearm rules isn't feasible at all.
Imagine it! The new fighter archtype! Club-guy! A fighter that wields a club! Of course, a club is also an exotic weapon now, and occasionally splinters and breaks when you try to whack things with it. To properly use this club, you need to give up some of your existing class abilities, so that you can slightly offset the suckiness of your favorite weapon by not taking the -4 and only having your favorite weapon shatter sometimes. Now let's also have you take a feat so you can make iterative attacks with your club. Finally, your club begins broken but you duck-tapped it, and that duct-tape doesn't work for anyone else but you.
But that's OK, because clubs are cooler than swords, amiright!? :D
These club rules are teh bombzors!
I know that sarcasm is hard, and every opportunity to flash your grasp at it should be cherished, but you don't need to take an archetype to use firearms.1 feat - EWP - is all that you need.
I know that sarcasm is hard, and every opportunity to flash your grasp at it should be cherished, but you don't need to take an archetype to use firearms. EWP is all that you need.
It's also not that hard to say "change that exotic weapon proficiency to simple, but all the weapons are only X2 crit, if you bought, or simply have, EWP(firearms), then the weapon shoots for two dice of it's category, and has an 18-20X4 crit. Look at that! I just did.
Advanced weapons do/did/will go clean through armor, which is the reason armor went out of style for a long time, and only relatively recently came back into style, when we realized that ceramic plating does what is needed: stop most calibers of bullets. In a very odd way Pathfinder mimics this very efficiently, you don't have to be proficient with a gun to use it, you aren't as accurate, but armor is basically meaningless to it. Though it does start doing weird things when you consider bears, and other tough critters.
Also, something I meant to say earlier: @Ashiel: realism is overrated, it also went out the window the moment a guy could say a few words, and then make your body start fixing itself from 30 feet away.
I know that sarcasm is hard, and every opportunity to flash your grasp at it should be cherished, but you don't need to take an archetype to use firearms. EWP is all that you need.
That's a laugh. First you need the exotic weapon proficiency feat just to avoid taking the -4 penalty to hit and having it explode 25-30% of the time. You can't actually make it part of your concept if you plan to actually use them past the lowest of levels, since it's still a standard action just to load 1 shot into your pistol. You could get rapid reload, but then you only reduce it to a move action. Still no full-attack. Likewise, you have to take rapid reload per gun you plan to use, so then if you want to use a Pistol and later find a Dragon Pistol, or a Pepperbox, or a Revolver, you need an entirely different feat.
That's not even counting the fact that as weapons they're very uninspiring. You shoot at the speed of suck, but the only thing they have going for them is a x4 critical, which isn't even all that impressive since their base weapon damage is low and you can't apply your Strength modifier to the damage. You have a higher % chance for your gun to explode than you do to enjoy your high critical multiplier.
So ok, they're touch AC up to 1 range increment. A pistol has a 20 ft increment. If you're close enough to use this, you don't need a ranged weapon, because they're probably going to be chewing on you in melee soon, unless you have someone between you and them (which means you now need point blank shot, precise shot, and deal with the +4 AC from soft cover).
Then of course, your weapon is going to explode and hurt you now and then. Good thing you spent a feat on this piece of trash.
Seriously, that's rich man. Please, so me a sweet Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Bard, Cleric, Warrior, Expert, or Adept that actually makes these things not look like a sad and pathetic joke, without archtypes or special gun feats. This should be easy, since as you say, all you need is Exotic Weapon Proficiency.
So the basic gripe against firearms is that they're not crossbows?
Advanced weapons do/did/will go clean through armor, which is the reason armor went out of style for a long time, and only relatively recently came back into style, when we realized that ceramic plating does what is needed: stop most calibers of bullets. In a very odd way Pathfinder mimics this very efficiently, you don't have to be proficient with a gun to use it, you aren't as accurate, but armor is basically meaningless to it. Though it does start doing weird things when you consider bears, and other tough critters.
Exactly. You needed some super-guns by comparison to pierce plate armor, and even then armor was still pretty effective at protecting you from shots at long ranges, but fell out of use heavily due to cost and weight; particularly because it was expensive to field troops in armor.
Of course, we don't have stuff like adamantine and mithril in reality either, so what is your point, exactly? Dragon hide is, based on natural AC values, more protective than full-plate, and can stop weapons capable of tearing houses apart from even dealing nonlethal damage.
What was it you were saying about realism?
Also, something I meant to say earlier: @Ashiel: realism is overrated, it also went out the window the moment a guy could say a few words, and then make your body start fixing itself from 30 feet away.
Realism has never been involved. I'm not arguing for realism. I'm arguing that it's stupid to try and justify the bad gun mechanics by trying to make it seem like guns should pierce armor, or explode because they can malfunction, or be unable to be used during a full-attack, or anything like that.
Seriously, trying to call guns fantastic because they have stupid rules is worse than trying to call guns fantastic because they have playability. Sure, it probably isn't realistic that good firearm rules will let players reload fast enough to full-attack, but then again, like you said, we're not talking about realism but playability.
So the basic gripe against firearms is that they're not crossbows?
My basic gripe with them is that crossbows make them look good; while crossbows have also been widely considered the redheaded stepchild of the ranged weapons because they aren't very good and can't be used very well, and are simple weapons.
Meanwhile, their leading competitor in suck is the firearms, which require exotic proficiency, explode more often than they crit, have terrible range, stupid prices, and fail at being firearms (since the rules are entirely against using them for militia, pirates, musketeers, etc).
There's like...nothing that I can find about them that is actually good about them.
So the basic gripe against firearms is that they're not crossbows?I'd take a crossbow over a firearm any day.
And how. :P
So the basic gripe against firearms is that they're not crossbows?My basic gripe with them is that crossbows make them look good; while crossbows have also been widely considered the redheaded stepchild of the ranged weapons because they aren't very good and can't be used very well, and are simple weapons.
Meanwhile, their leading competitor in suck is the firearms, which require exotic proficiency, explode more often than they crit, have terrible range, stupid prices, and fail at being firearms (since the rules are entirely against using them for militia, pirates, musketeers, etc).
There's like...nothing that I can find about them that is actually good about them.
Which is what happens when ppl cry for months on end about getting guns in their Fantasy. We end up with fail guns.
Before we go any further I think it bears mentioning that while there are no prior rules for mundane weapons penetrating armor there are prior rules and existing ones for weapons that are fragile. Hence the fragile keyword. This si generally used for hodge podge hammered together weapons or primitive wooden ones. Given the complexity and relative fragility of early firearms and the finnicky nature of blackpowder weapons in those periods that at least is justified. You might make an argument that other weapons that don't do this should but it doesn't mean that firearms shouldn't.
Short range is also justified. Because, well, they did. They're really just lousy weapons.
The only thing that really gets me about them is that they attack touch ac at close ranges. It feels like that if anything they should attack flatfooted ac. However I understand why they didn't do this. It's mainly for balance reasons. So they opted for "bullets as armor penetrators" at really close ranges.
In my mind early firearms do suck. Pathfinder firearms mostly suck. Unless it's a gunslinger using it.
We can make a lot of the same arguments about scrolls. Afterall, only spellcasters can use. :)
Before we go any further I think it bears mentioning that while there are no prior rules for mundane weapons penetrating armor there are prior rules and existing ones for weapons that are fragile. Hence the fragile keyword. This si generally used for hodge podge hammered together weapons or primitive wooden ones. Given the complexity and relative fragility of early firearms and the finnicky nature of blackpowder weapons in those periods that at least is justified. You might make an argument that other weapons that don't do this should but it doesn't mean that firearms shouldn't.
Short range is also justified. Because, well, they did. They're really just lousy weapons.
The only thing that really gets me about them is that they attack touch ac at close ranges. It feels like that if anything they should attack flatfooted ac. However I understand why they didn't do this. It's mainly for balance reasons. So they opted for "bullets as armor penetrators" at really close ranges.
In my mind early firearms do suck. Pathfinder firearms mostly suck. Unless it's a gunslinger using it.
We can make a lot of the same arguments about scrolls. Afterall, only spellcasters can use. :)
Magic scrolls aren't something that can clearly be demonstrated, purchased, and has a history of functioning. Likewise, that's incorrect. For 20 skill points, you can rock scrolls just like a wizard. Heck, for a trait you can rock it as a class skill.
Why cannot a Fighter, master of weapons, rock a weapon?
EDIT: Also as to the range/touch AC thing, why are we pick and choosing the worst examples? I mean, on one hand everyone says "well you can't base it on realism", and then on the other hand say that guns have crappy stats, explode, and have short ranges because that's somehow more realistic.
Does not compute.
EDIT 2: Even existing D&D equipment isn't realistic, but no one complains because it's usable. Slings should actually be better, and possibly a martial weapon, but slings are weak in D&D past the lowest levels, and that's probably for fear of balance issues or due to bow fanservice.
Likewise, if we wanted to get down and realistic, armor should provide varying amounts of damage reduction based on the weapon being used. Wanna use swords vs chain mail or full plate? Suck it. Maces are pretty much going to hammer you regardless, but maybe the padded armor is particularly good at softening those blows, while being nigh useless vs piercing and slashing weapons.
But...that's way more than we need to dive into in our abstract game of fun, usable, and streamlined mechanics. So why do we gotta make guns suck so bad, and then blame it on realism?
I have lots of arguments but very little time. So I'll be back. But I will address the last one.
1. Because of the "guns in my fantasy" crowd.
2. Because Alkenstar. I'll elaborate on that later.
ciao~!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the worst ideas I've seen spouted in the gaming community is that we must hold our games to some realistic ideal.
I say thee, nay. This is fantasy, and fantasy can be anything.
Ban things you don't like, not things that are historically inaccurate.
The thing is, guns did exist side by side with many of the other troupes we are looking at.
My issue with guns and the gunslinger isn't that it exists, but that it could have been done so much better.
As far as guns, there is no reason they needed to be touch attack for everyone. Period. It could have been a mid-level gunslinger feature. Guns should be a mediocre to poor weapon for everyone but the gunslinger.
As for the the gunslinger, it should have been that this was a class that focused on mastering firearms that eventually got to the point that it could use crappy medieval firearms as effectively as one uses modern weapons.
Instead what you got was a new weapon variation that is clumsy to use because of misfire, while being potentially game breaking because of touch AC. The balancing mechanic slows down game play, while what it is balancing significantly changes how things in the game interact.
Big, unnecessary, mistake.
Then you follow this mistake with a mechanically clumsy class that can't decide what exactly it wants to be, in part because it started as an archtype and never quite got to the point where the question was "what is a gunslinger" rather than "how can we make a fighter into a gunslinger".
I feel the same way about the Ninja and Samurai. I wish they had either made them into regular archetypes for that class or done full base classes. The hybrid was the worst of both worlds.
I loved the rest of Ultimate Combat, but they dropped the ball hard on the "new" classes.
*stuff*
Cirtose...!
I agree. :P