The firing part of a gun is called a lock, it's where the phrase lock, stock, and barrel comes from.
Medieval and Renaissance guns were built by locksmiths, the precision needed to make small parts work well was rare, and therefore expensive.
------------------
History note aside, I think it would be worth it for most melee types to have a gun with the area effect ammo. Certain opponents (ex: swarms) are much more problematic otherwise.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
High grade armor is very expensive. Thus, a weapon with the ability to render it irrelevant has to also be expensive.
There's a difference between a 15gp sword and a, at minimum, 1,000gp gun. Yes, guns were expensive, they aren't even very cheap today, but unless 1gp=1 dollar, to peasant/commoner npc types, the guns in Pathfinder are ridiculously expensive, there are entire kingdoms that don't have that kind of cash lying about.
If your country can't afford a +1 suit of armor, they cannot afford a simple pistol, personally that doesn't seem very fair.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
#Occupy Golarion. We are the 99%!
If you are playing on Golarion, IIRC, Alkenstar Gunworks is the main supply of guns to the world, but they keep a tight grip on the exportation of them. Other than that there are a few lone gunsmiths in the world here or there. Now if you are playing non-Golarion it just depends on what the GM says the "gun level" is.
Also if every commoner was able to afford a gun it would kind of kill the luster of the gun, other than the Touch AC thing they would be nothing more than a Crossbow, so would anyone buy a Crossbow anymore? Also Full Plate is 1,500 gp, should that price be lowered to make it more affordable for Gregg the Shopkeeper?
So, okay, you get a gun and, within the first range increment, it's a touch attack. That makes armor and natural armor obsolete, and I get that can be a big deal. But they also don't do that much damage, considering it's a freaking gun. As much as a greatsword, tops, without strength bonus and even with deadly aim it's a worse penalty to bonus ratio.
And they're unreliable.
I just don't see the big deal. What am I missing, guys?
So, okay, you get a gun and, within the first range increment, it's a touch attack. That makes armor and natural armor obsolete, and I get that can be a big deal. But they also don't do that much damage, considering it's a freaking gun. As much as a greatsword, tops, without strength bonus and even with deadly aim it's a worse penalty to bonus ratio.
And they're unreliable.
I just don't see the big deal. What am I missing, guys?
That's true, the price of guns skyrocket when they break.
In the real world, the progression for ranged weapons in Europe went like this:
Shortbows
Longbows
Crossbows
Arqubusses
Long Guns
The shortbow was a hunting weapon. It could, with stirrups, be fired from horseback. Composite shortbows were developed in Western Asia, but due to climate differences, never really caught on outside of the Balkans in Europe.
The longbow was a hunting weapon. In the hands of an experienced user it had a longer range than the shortbow, and better penetration power. It also had a slower rate of fire than the shortbow, something Pathfinder doesn't really reflect. (To get aimed shots off with a longbow is about one shot every 3.5 to 4 seconds.)
The crossbow had a shorter maximum range than the longbow, but more armor penetration. The crossbow was more expensive than the longbow. It fired at about half the rate of fire - one aimed shot every 6-7 seconds is not unreasonable. However, where it took several thousand hours of training to make a competent longbowman, a crossbowman could be trained to acceptable levels of accuracy out to about 300 feet with four days of training. It also had a significant weather advantage - a crossbow can fire when wet.
Everywhere other than England, crossbows largely replaced shortbows and longbows by about 1350. England held on to the longbow until the firearm made it obsolete.
The arquebus had a slower rate of fire than the crossbow - they were "fire and drop it" weapons. They had most of the advantages of a crossbow in terms of armor penetration and a flat trajectory and requisite training. They were also logistically much simpler - carrying powder and casting random bits of lead or brass into bullets is, for most European armies, significantly simpler than making sure that crossbow bolts are packed and kept dry and re-stocked.
"Easier to use" and "Easier to keep field ready" are things Pathfinder does not (and should not) emphasize.
History facts are interesting and all, but the aswer to OP's question is not there. Guns are expensive for gameplay reasons, because they do something other weapons can't. Is it worth it? To me it definitely is: in the long run you do less damage but hit more often, so it balances out. Of course they are no better than a bow or a sword, but if they were better in Golarion (like they eventually did IRL) then adventurers wouldn't use anything else. It's a matter of gameplay, not historical accuracy.
I'm just saying that if they aren't better, then why do we have to pay so much for them?
I'm just saying that if they aren't better, then why do we have to pay so much for them?
Because touch AC.
So, standardly guns are rather expensive running more than a starting PC that's not a gunslinger can get.
The question is, even with the touch AC to hit thing within the first range band, is it worth that much more standard?
Making a tube that can regularly contain an explosion is actually a pretty impressive engineering feat that requires a extremely specialized and rare skill set. If the game priced things based on realism glass would cost more than gold for similar reasons.
I'm just saying that if they aren't better, then why do we have to pay so much for them?Because touch AC.
Now that's going to get into circular logic, the gun doesn't get any bonuses to damage, but it hits touch AC making it balanced, which doesn't do anything to explain why it's 10X the cost of the other weapons, at minimum, to say nothing of it being more than 21X the cost of a light crossbow, at cheapest. This isn't even considering the fact that the guns can break....on their own, causing you to spend even more money.
The Guns everywhere prices are significantly more reasonable and that's the only price I'd use.
"Easier to use" and "Easier to keep field ready" are things Pathfinder does not (and should not) emphasize.Except it does.
- Crossbow: simple weapon. Almost anybody is proficient.
- Bow: martial weapon. All combatants are proficient, any level 1 character can be proficient.
- Arquebus: exotic weapon. Combatants need a feat to be proficient, most level 1-2 character can't be proficient.
Arquebus in Pathfinder are very hard to aim. It's far longer to train someone to properly use arquebus than bows.
If they were "realistic", they'd be:
Guns: Fire once, take four rounds to reload, attack versus touch AC, simple weapon that everyone can use. Cost of ammunition would be very cheap, like 0.1 cp per shot. Weapon would do about 2d6 damage for an arquebus.
Crossbow: Fire once, take three rounds to reload, ignore shield AC, simple weapon that everyone can use. Cost of ammunition would be about where it is now. Bow would use 1.5x the Strength modifier, but every +3 damage from STR adds a round to the reload time.
Bows: Fire once, take a round to ready, attack versus full AC, martial weapon. No damage from STR Mod. Cannot fire when wet, limited indoors range is 3x the height of the ceiling. Arrows would cost about 2 sp each.
Composite bows: Fire once, rake a round to ready, attack ignores shield AC, exotic weapon, weapon gets STR mod added to the base damage. Cannot fire when wet, limited indoors range is 3x the height of the ceiling. Arrows would cost about 2 sp each.
Pathfinder/D&D's damage system is so horribly broken for any kind of real world concordance that there's no way to fix it.
Creative Director
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder/D&D's damage system is so horribly broken for any kind of real world concordance that there's no way to fix it.
In the game's defense... it was never INTENDED to be a precise real-world simulation of combat. It's a game, and it's complex enough already without forcing players and GMs to keep track of a different subset of rules for every single weapon.
AKA: The damage system isn't broken at all, since it's a damage system for a game, not for a precisely-calibrated real-world simulator.
I'm just saying that if they aren't better, then why do we have to pay so much for them?
Cattoy answered your question quite succinctly in the post right above your first post, and you seem to have ignored it. I'll quote him for you here:
"High grade armor is very expensive. Thus, a weapon with the ability to render it irrelevant has to also be expensive"
Pathfinder/D&D's damage system is so horribly broken for any kind of real world concordance that there's no way to fix it.In the game's defense... it was never INTENDED to be a precise real-world simulation of combat. It's a game, and it's complex enough already without forcing players and GMs to keep track of a different subset of rules for every single weapon.
AKA: The damage system isn't broken at all, since it's a damage system for a game, not for a precisely-calibrated real-world simulator.
Right - and really, I should've written that quoted sentence as:
"Pathfinder/D&D damage is completely orthogonal to any kind of real world concordance. Trying to bring realism to Pathfinder does neither side of the argument any good, though it does cause Paizo to buy more hard drive space for their web servers..."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder/D&D's damage system is so horribly broken for any kind of real world concordance that there's no way to fix it.In the game's defense... it was never INTENDED to be a precise real-world simulation of combat. It's a game, and it's complex enough already without forcing players and GMs to keep track of a different subset of rules for every single weapon.
AKA: The damage system isn't broken at all, since it's a damage system for a game, not for a precisely-calibrated real-world simulator.
Exactly.
You know, as an old-timer, I have to point out to the critics, that players have been debating damage values, speed of attacks (for older editions), number of attacks, and a myriad other supposed violations of "real world" values since the first D&D pamphlets.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out Gary and Dave had all-night arguments with their wargaming buddies over the same stuff before the game was even printed. There's nothing new about it, and you may as well get used to the way things are. It's a great game, and only a game. Not a science experiment.
IMHO, firearms in general are prohibitively expensive when you consider the misfire chance, the ammo cost, the rate of reload, the lack of damage improvement, shorter range (& thus accuracy), etc. Hell, even with the Gunsmithing feat a single bullet and dose of powder costs 1.1gp, enough for 11 crossbow bolts or 22 arrows.
I can understand that guns should be more expensive than crossbows, as they are slightly better than a crossbow of the same size, despite the increased load time, but 10x more expensive, even after taking a feat? Especially considering that if the powder gets wet, you can't even use the weapon, a rule that, despite accuracy, does not even apply to a wet bow in PF. And Create Water is an orison for crying out loud!
Yes, firearms are expensive. I can understand that they should be rarer than bows and crossbows, and that to make that true they should be more expensive for most characters, but if you have spent the feat to make them they shouldn't be more than double the cost of using a crossbow.
So here's my solution, use the rules for commonplace guns, reducing the costs to 25% (or even 20%) of what's listed, but leave firearms as exotic weapons. For those characters who want to use guns and are willing to spend the feats or take a level in gunslinger for them, this is now feasible, but for all others it will still be prohibitively expensive until higher levels and they will never be very good with them.
As for funding the party by making guns, using the standard rules I'd say no; there simply aren't enough NPCs rich enough to buy guns for that to be profitable, especially considering that he can still, as an adventurer, only sell the things for minimal profit.
The reason I say that is because without a steady shop or caravan route, no one will buy for more than 10% above what the item can be made for, considering that most buyers will be weapon shops. Even with a shop or caravan, the player in question likely will not be able to run it by himself, at which point most of the excess profit is eaten up paying rent, maintenance, and salaries, especially seeing as it normally takes more time to sell a product than it does to make it.
Furthermore, using these guidelines in conjunction with a normal cap on the prices most people will be able to pay (thus limiting income per month, but scaling it with the player's lvl), will help with the problem of runaway crafting wealth by level. Not that your player couldn't still make better gear for the party at slightly reduced cost, but the party should still be feeling it.
So a level 1 Human Warrior with Point Blank Shot and Rapid Shot could either spend 4 seconds to take that aimed shot as a standard action, or pop off two at 3 seconds each for a -2 penalty to attack rolls hrmmmm.In the real world, the progression for ranged weapons in Europe went like this:
Shortbows
Longbows
Crossbows
Arqubusses
Long GunsThe shortbow was a hunting weapon. It could, with stirrups, be fired from horseback. Composite shortbows were developed in Western Asia, but due to climate differences, never really caught on outside of the Balkans in Europe.
The longbow was a hunting weapon. In the hands of an experienced user it had a longer range than the shortbow, and better penetration power. It also had a slower rate of fire than the shortbow, something Pathfinder doesn't really reflect. (To get aimed shots off with a longbow is about one shot every 3.5 to 4 seconds.)
To get a shot off in three seconds (and consistently do this), a real world archer must:
1) Have the bow strung.
2) Have a selection of arrows point down in the earth in front of him - getting an arrow out of a back-quiver is about 2 seconds right there. Hip quivers are faster, but interfere with running and the draw action.
3) Have his feet planted properly.
Second 1: Target ID.
Second 2: Grab arrow from in front of you, nock it.
Second 3: Draw to full extension, while keeping feet planted. Loose.
You're really not going to be aiming in that time frame.
Most people need about a second and a half to aim and line up a bowshot. It does get shorter with a lot of experience and a bow you're familiar with.
In the real world, any archer that had a guy with a sword within 30' of him was dead, and knew it. Army formations were built specifically so that your guys with swords were between your archers and their guys with swords (or spears), with cavalry there to bust holes in your line of guys with swords or to deal with their cavalry and bust through their line of guys with swords.
Not that this has any bearing on how D&D should work. :)
Also, these aren't Desert Eagles or AK47s. These are flintlock muskets and pistols, shooting a ball of lead, not a jacketed round with a hollow-point tip. There is a big difference from a pre-War of Independance musket shot and a 44 calibur round from a modern assault rifle. Honestly, a greatsword is a far more effective means of inflicting tissue trauma, setting aside ranged capability.
Guns are expensive in Pathfinder because they are new, different, decently effective, and have some niche advantages that people can exploit (touch AC, works in dead-magic, etc).
For those old-timers here (sarcasm on) think about when CD burners first became available to the public. $1000. Yep. True story. It was amazing, it was revolutionary, it was cutting edge, and it was expensive! Now they are quite literally 2% of their origional price, and 500% faster if not more, to say nothing of DVD burners.
Gun tech in Pathfinder is emergent, its at that same point as CD burners were back in the day. As time in the game world goes on, the price will come down as manufacturing improves and demand spurs production.
If that is the point you want to be at in your game, that is fine, but please be aware of why guns would be inexpensive at that point.
|
Creative Director
|
Flask thrower costs 25 gp and negate high grade armor at 200 feet instead of 20.Cattoy answered your question quite succinctly in the post right above your first post, and you seem to have ignored it. I'll quote him for you here:
"High grade armor is very expensive. Thus, a weapon with the ability to render it irrelevant has to also be expensive"
Which makes me think it's the flask thrower that's broken, not guns.
So, standardly guns are rather expensive running more than a starting PC that's not a gunslinger can get.
The question is, even with the touch AC to hit thing within the first range band, is it worth that much more standardly?
I gotta ask... is the SRD wrong or something?
Deadeye (Ex): At 1st level, the gunslinger can resolve an attack against touch AC instead of normal AC when firing her firearm’s first range increment. Performing this deed costs 1 grit point per range increment beyond the first. The gunslinger still takes the –2 penalty on attack rolls for each range increment beyond the first when she performs this deed.
Therefore, you are hitting touch AC when your target is past your first increment range, not within it.
|
History facts are interesting and all, but the aswer to OP's question is not there. Guns are expensive for gameplay reasons, because they do something other weapons can't. Is it worth it? To me it definitely is: in the long run you do less damage but hit more often, so it balances out. Of course they are no better than a bow or a sword, but if they were better in Golarion (like they eventually did IRL) then adventurers wouldn't use anything else. It's a matter of gameplay, not historical accuracy.
....and if you take the Rapid Reload feat along with alchemical paper bullets/ammo it makes relaoding your chosen firearm a FREE action - load, move action and fire every turn...and someone please correct me if i'm wrong :D
|
|
Which makes me think it's the flask thrower that's broken, not guns.Flask thrower costs 25 gp and negate high grade armor at 200 feet instead of 20.Cattoy answered your question quite succinctly in the post right above your first post, and you seem to have ignored it. I'll quote him for you here:
"High grade armor is very expensive. Thus, a weapon with the ability to render it irrelevant has to also be expensive"
nope, guns need some errata..... double barrel musket = 10ft range! stuff that, i'll take 2, yes 2, double barrel pistols along with hip holsters, some 'Mirrored Flare Protection Goggles (ie mirrored shades), and go down in a blaze of glory :D