12th level gunslinger will take out a CR 17 red dragon each round with no effort


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

godsDMit wrote:


Try again. He's 12 lbs off his max weight (meaning he would only be able to carry one bullet, max), and since he is carrying so much, he is encumbered, and takes a -6 to all his skill checks (the ones that ACP applies to, anyway).

Anyone attempting this maneuver would likely shell out some cash for Mithral. Sure, it's an extra 72,000 gp... but you get the weight down to 144 pounds.

Or you can get a permanent ant haul, or muleback cords, or other magic to deal with the weight issue. Let's just say 'it weighs 288 pounds' is not going to thwart anyone who cares to try this.


ShadowcatX wrote:
You assume that because Ultimate Combat says it doesn't take any additional hands to shoot the fire arm it doesn't take any additional hands to load the fire arm. That is not a good assumption to make and is not RAW.

UC p. 136 covers that; we still operate within the RAW.


And then the deadly swarms showed up and ate the gunslinger, for they were immune to weapon damage and didn't need to roll an attack roll to deal damage...

Size isn't everything! ;)


Gunslinger replaces the colossal double-barreled musket in his bag of holding.
"I like to keep this handy for close encounters!" he quietly mutters, while pooling out his colossal blunderbus from a second bag of holding.

With an area attack dealing 24d6 available, swarms are of little concer.


With an almighty roar the gunslinger fires his blunderbus. The earth shatters at the impact there scattering crushed and dismembered bugs everywhere. For a moment silence falls across the plains and then the earth shakes and the hills begins to crumble as the Tarrasque awakened from its 6 century slumber began to shake off the dirt that had settled over it during earthfall.


The GM smiled, knowing that this was obviously the most logical and reasonable course to take when it came to a player doing something incredibly dumb and messing up the game.


LOL

With touch AC 5. It will be dead in 4 rounds... If Red-dragon-skeeter can get a potion of fly.

On a more serious note: As silly as colossal guns are large and huge guns are not that far fetched.


...hmmm by RAW - and even in the strictest possible interpretation, as used by f.ex. Mabven, its seems that a medium sized character can then use two large pistols (one in each hand), causing 2d6 points of damage, with only a -2 penalty to hit on each? This is not possible with melee weapons, but is possible with firearms? Is this intentional then?


Good question, and one I hope we can get an answer for.


Yeah, rather than tweak the garbage/haphazard rules on firearm sizing, they tweaked the equally broke titan mauler and insisted that you can't 1 hand 2 handed non melee weapons.

I want my musketeer titan mauler grippli.


I will try to explain why, in spite of my best efforts, I cannot read the rules as prohibitive of medium characters wielding size Large or larger weapons.

PRPG p. 144 wrote:

Inappropriately Sized Weapons: A creature can’t make

optimum
use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A
cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size
category of difference between the size of its intended wielder
and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient
with the weapon, a –4 nonproficiency penalty
also applies.

The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon
(whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed,
or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered
by one step for each size category of difference between
the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the
weapon was designed. For example, a Small creature would
wield a Medium one-handed weapon as a two-handed
weapon. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to
something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by
this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all.
UC p. 136 wrote:

Inappropriately Sized Firearms: You cannot make

optimum use of a firearm that is not properly sized for
you. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for
each size category of difference between your size and
the size of the firearm. If you are not proficient with the
firearm, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies.
The
size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need
to use to shoot it, the exception being siege firearms and
Large or larger creatures. In most cases, a Large or larger
creature can use a siege firearm as a two-handed firearm,
but the creature takes a –4 penalty for using it this way
because of its awkwardness.]

The paragraphs I have enphasized with bold are identical in meaning. The rest of the CRB text was changed to a very different reading in UC. Thus the only logical conclusion is that while the cumulative penalties remain the normal limitation on size has been changed for firearms.

If the firearm rules are to be read as some of the other posters argue, the italized text from CRB should have been reflected in the firearms rule from UC. Otherwise the exclusion of the italized paragraph stands out as deliberate.


No where in the text does it say that the rules for inappropriately sized firearms supersedes our replaces the rules for inappropriately sized weapons. Thus raw is that both rules are in effect. This is always how it is - a new rule does not countermand an existing rule unless it specifies that it does. I don't know how many different ways I need to say the same thing.

More than one pfs dm has said it would not cause confusion at their table. I don't know what else to say. If you really feel that this is a poorly written rule, then you should write a new post in rules questions, because this thread had been moved to general discussion.


All that that rule says is that large or larger creatures needs teo hands to fire a siege weapon for a medium character. Core RAW says they can use a medium 2 hander with 1 hand. Simple stuff.


Im a little disappointed in you PFS GMs with the whole " Dont know if I would allow that even if it is raw. If it did make it in though I would go out of my way to bone that character every chance I got."

Thats Just bad GMing.


Common sense should always trump RAW. That's good Going GMing.


Common sense doesnt trump RAW in PFS. RAW is greater then all. I agree the concept is absurd and I will be waiting to see how its cleared up but bad gming isnt the right way to go.


PFS sounds like is sucks. Anyways... RAW says no, so all those PFS GMs are safe from whatever trouble they would get into.


I would never try something like that , but there is a case to be made. The rules lawyer in me could pick it apart and agrue points for hours. I wont though becuase its really a horrible concept anyway. Ill just wait and see how it turns out.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

As a PFS GM I would say "No."

I wouldn't go out of my way to "bone the character." I would refuse to allow it at my table. I choose to abide by the rule stated which cites that a weapon of that size is simply too big for the character to use at all.

If the player wants to lodge a grievance with the Venture Captain or with the PFS Coordinator, he can feel free to do so.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:

No where in the text does it say that the rules for inappropriately sized firearms supersedes our replaces the rules for inappropriately sized weapons. Thus raw is that both rules are in effect. This is always how it is - a new rule does not countermand an existing rule unless it specifies that it does. I don't know how many different ways I need to say the same thing.

More than one pfs dm has said it would not cause confusion at their table. I don't know what else to say. If you really feel that this is a poorly written rule, then you should write a new post in rules questions, because this thread had been moved to general discussion.

Normally you would be right. But...

The moment they included the emphasized text in UC the rules for inappropriately sized firearms went from being an addendum to the CRB rules for inappropriately sized weapons, to be an exception.
If the wording about cumulative penalties had not been in UC I would never have thought larger than medium weapons would be wieldable. Unfortunately that is not the case.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A gun that big is called a cannon and absolutely should be able to blow a dragon out of the sky with one shot.

It's not supposed to be "wielded". You don't move that thing (without some serious magic to help you). You sit on it, use cranks to aim, reload with the Leadership feat, and put giant holes in whatever's dumb enough to be in range.

Now, if you were to put it on some kind of giant Floating Disk, and enchant it to auto-reload (cannon ball of returning?), then this works just fine. No GM should allow it, and if they do they deserve what they get, but mechanically and thematically it works just fine. Basically what you're talking about is a Gunslinger in a magitech hover tank.


Fatespinner wrote:

As a PFS GM I would say "No."

I wouldn't go out of my way to "bone the character." I would refuse to allow it at my table. I choose to abide by the rule stated which cites that a weapon of that size is simply too big for the character to use at all.

If the player wants to lodge a grievance with the Venture Captain or with the PFS Coordinator, he can feel free to do so.

I certainly understand your position with regard to colossal muskets! And would probably do the same.

But it really misses the point I have been trying to make all along.
Derwalt above appears to be the only person catching on here.

How would you in good conscience exclude a player from your convention table if the player showed up with a character that wielded a Large pistol or pepperbox? or dual wielded two Large pepperboxes? or a Large musket? I can easily see a player making a good argument for why commonsnse AND RAW would permit it.

The colossal musket is an extreme example that showcases a fundamental clitch in the UC wording that should be ammended with an FAQ - it is an easy fix, and would prevent unnecesary conflicts between players acting in good faith and GMs doing likewise.


Fatespinner wrote:

As a PFS GM I would say "No."

I wouldn't go out of my way to "bone the character." I would refuse to allow it at my table. I choose to abide by the rule stated which cites that a weapon of that size is simply too big for the character to use at all.

If the player wants to lodge a grievance with the Venture Captain or with the PFS Coordinator, he can feel free to do so.

Eh , consider me bated lol. The text in the core rule book and UMC are the same execpt in a few regaurds.

You cannot make
optimum use of a firearm that is not properly sized for
you. A cumulative –2 penalty applies on attack rolls for
each size category of difference between your size and
the size of the firearm. If you are not proficient with the
firearm, a –4 nonproficiency penalty also applies ( appears in both texts )

What really gets me is the difference in the second part of the text. The first one gives on how to handle weapons and was made before firearms came out. It says you cant have a weapon that large. Thats preaty straight forward and no up for arguement.

However , UMCs text deals specifically with firearms only and goes out of its way to state that the size of the firearm and the hands to use it do not change when it is changing sizes ( baring siege weapons ).

This newer printing , which I believe is an addition to the orginal rules and here to clarify specifically how upsizing fire arms only works ,should be taken at its wording and legally allow oversized firearms at the table. I would go as far to say that the very specific language they put in that this might also be RAI.

PS - I can not endorce doing this in any game or accually showing up with a character that is using this concept. Its horrible and flawed. I am simple making a counter arguement for consideration. I do not believe it should work like this.


It looks to me like the size rules where included to state that a larger creature needs two hands to fire a smaller siege weapon.


ATron9000 wrote:
It looks to me like the size rules where included to state that a larger creature needs two hands to fire a smaller siege weapon.

Yes but it lists that as an execption to the statement before it. which is you dont use more hands to wield and fire a oversized fire arm.

I can agree though thats its a bit silly to have a giant struggling to use a siege cannon as a huge weapon while the dwarf has a " one-handed" gun that is 2 sizes bigger.


No. The exception is the -4. It still follows the two handed rule.

Silver Crusade

Actually you could just say that a gargantuan firearm then becomes a siege weapon and because it's a siege weapon it would need to be mounted unless you are a large creature, then you could wield it two-handed.


Tagion wrote:
ATron9000 wrote:
It looks to me like the size rules where included to state that a larger creature needs two hands to fire a smaller siege weapon.

Yes but it lists that as an execption to the statement before it. which is you dont use more hands to wield and fire a oversized fire arm.

I can agree though thats its a bit silly to have a giant struggling to use a siege cannon as a huge weapon while the dwarf has a " one-handed" gun that is 2 sizes bigger.

I agree. Further elaboration for siege firearms wa only included since they all rely on crew rather than "hands".

The "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need
to use to shoot it," part cannot simply be dismissed as redundant.


It's in plain sight that a large pistol becomes a "two handed weapon" BUT you still wield it with one hand.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
The Grandfather wrote:

The "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need

to use to shoot it," part cannot simply be dismissed as redundant.

Indeed. However, while you still only need one hand to fire a Large pistol, the weapon is considered a Two-Handed Weapon for determining if a creature can use it under the Inappropriately Sized Weapons rule. That rule you are quoting does not remove the previous rule, only makes it so a character does not have to use two hands to wield a Large pistol.


The Grandfather wrote:
Skerek wrote:
...
RAW a naked dwarf with Str 18 could wield a 300 lbs weapon relatibely unhindered.

Common misconception, dwarves speed is the only thing that Slow and Steady effect, wielding a colossal weapon is still gonna take normal penalties.

Slow and Steady:
Dwarves have a base speed of 20 feet, but their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:

The "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need

to use to shoot it," part cannot simply be dismissed as redundant.
Indeed. However, while you still only need one hand to fire a Large pistol, the weapon is considered a Two-Handed Weapon for determining if a creature can use it under the Inappropriately Sized Weapons rule. That rule you are quoting does not remove the previous rule, only makes it so a character does not have to use two hands to wield a Large pistol.

exactly.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:

The "The size of a firearm never affects how many hands you need

to use to shoot it," part cannot simply be dismissed as redundant.
Indeed. However, while you still only need one hand to fire a Large pistol, the weapon is considered a Two-Handed Weapon for determining if a creature can use it under the Inappropriately Sized Weapons rule. That rule you are quoting does not remove the previous rule, only makes it so a character does not have to use two hands to wield a Large pistol.

That reading may be correct.

If so I do not understand why the CRB text was not uncluded in its entirety or why the cumulative -2 part was not ommited in UC.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Grandfather wrote:
LazarX wrote:


As a PFS GM, myself I would have no problem dismissing such nonsense from my table. For one thing, you can't even purchase such items in PFS which is considerably more strict about such things than homebrew campaigns. And another, I have yet to meet any PFS gamer that would try to pass a fraction of the wackiness that munchkiners try to pass off on these boards.

Where do you get it, that a PFS charcter cannot buy oversized firearms?

IF it doesn't appear on the Allowed Resources list, you can't buy it. Oversized Firearms nor the oversized ammo and shot don't appear on any purchasable list and customised purchases are not allowed.

In PFS I'm not obliged to prove a negative. It's the player who has to show me the entry that would allow the item he wishes to buy.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
The Grandfather wrote:

That reading may be correct.

If so I do not understand why the CRB text was not uncluded in its entirety or why the cumulative -2 part was not ommited in UC.

Agreed. I chalk it up to editing oversight, since it is a relatively minor thing. Paizo isn't held to legal precision with their rules (save by rules lawyers like myself), so things slip through.


LazarX wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
LazarX wrote:


As a PFS GM, myself I would have no problem dismissing such nonsense from my table. For one thing, you can't even purchase such items in PFS which is considerably more strict about such things than homebrew campaigns. And another, I have yet to meet any PFS gamer that would try to pass a fraction of the wackiness that munchkiners try to pass off on these boards.

Where do you get it, that a PFS charcter cannot buy oversized firearms?

IF it doesn't appear on the Allowed Resources list, you can't buy it. Oversized Firearms nor the oversized ammo and shot don't appear on any purchasable list and customised purchases are not allowed.

In PFS I'm not obliged to prove a negative. It's the player who has to show me the entry that would allow the item he wishes to buy.

All non-Advanced Firearms from UC are legal for play according to the Additional Resources document and at 12th level an average character will have 54 Fame wich is sufficient to purchase any legal for play item of 70,000 gp.

Size only matters as far as Always Available Items is concerned.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Grandfather wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The Grandfather wrote:
LazarX wrote:


As a PFS GM, myself I would have no problem dismissing such nonsense from my table. For one thing, you can't even purchase such items in PFS which is considerably more strict about such things than homebrew campaigns. And another, I have yet to meet any PFS gamer that would try to pass a fraction of the wackiness that munchkiners try to pass off on these boards.

Where do you get it, that a PFS charcter cannot buy oversized firearms?

IF it doesn't appear on the Allowed Resources list, you can't buy it. Oversized Firearms nor the oversized ammo and shot don't appear on any purchasable list and customised purchases are not allowed.

In PFS I'm not obliged to prove a negative. It's the player who has to show me the entry that would allow the item he wishes to buy.

All non-Advanced Firearms from UC are legal for play according to the Additional Resources document and at 12th level an average character will have 54 Fame wich is sufficient to purchase any legal for play item of 70,000 gp.

Size only matters as far as Always Available Items is concerned.

Show me again on the core item lists where gargantuan firearms are priced.

You can not scale a list item up or down size wise for a custom purchase within PFS. You can not buy custom items at all. Only what's on the resource list and on a player's Chronicle.


Fire arms are on the resources list.

No where are item sizes smaller than Small or bigger than Large prohibited.

LazarX wrote:
... In PFS I'm not obliged to prove a negative. It's the player who has to show me the entry that would allow the item he wishes to buy.

Yes you are obliged. If you rule against RAW you better provide the appropriate rule to back it - and that brings us back to the original topic - a UC rule that can be read as both an amendment to CRB AND as an exception to it.

If you wish to discuss Always Available Items and Additional Resources for PFS please start a new thread on the PFS board. I will gladly continue that discussion there.


Since this is a rules question it would be best if this threadcould be moved back to Rules Questions where this thread belongs.


This is nothing more than rules lawyering to munchkin a rule set. This would get an automatic NO from me and any of the other three DMs in my group. Any smart DM would also shoot this idea down as well.


That maybe so, but would not adress the actual problem at hand.


The Grandfather wrote:
That maybe so, but would not adress the actual problem at hand.

There is no problem. You are the only one who thinks there is a problem. There has to come a point where you recognise that your interpretation is shared by practically no one, and you let it go.

The reason this is not in rules questions is because as far as the moderators are concerned, there is no contradiction in the rules, and thus this is not an appropriate discussion for the rules questions forum.


Mabven the OP healer wrote:

...

The reason this is not in rules questions is because as far as the moderators are concerned, there is no contradiction in the rules, and thus this is not an appropriate discussion for the rules questions forum.

You talk like you know this for a fact.

If you review this thread you will find that other posters can see as well why I have a valid point. Why I agree that my example is completely over the top and ludicrous to boot. I actually have a PFS game with a Medium gunslinger wielding a Large musket. The players is within the RAW and it asnot really asstupid as my example, but the implication is there and Large+ pistols and muskets have an open door into Organized Play.

You have already made your point and repeated your argument over and over and should not feel obliged to continue posting, just because I do.


As far as I read it can be read either way.

It is very ambiguous. It looks very much like the firearm size rules were meant to replace in a specific instance the overall size rules. Since the idea of using a larger firearm to increase damage is not exactly an odd concept it almost fits a more realistic theme if they do within reason.

However, if it does work that way then it is in contradiction to everything else written about weapon sizes and massively boosts the power of firearms depending upon how much the size increase is limited and the terminology is not specific enough, imo, to be 100% sure either way without dev input.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Grandfather wrote:
Mabven the OP healer wrote:

...

The reason this is not in rules questions is because as far as the moderators are concerned, there is no contradiction in the rules, and thus this is not an appropriate discussion for the rules questions forum.

You talk like you know this for a fact.

If you review this thread you will find that other posters can see as well why I have a valid point. Why I agree that my example is completely over the top and ludicrous to boot. I actually have a PFS game with a Medium gunslinger wielding a Large musket. The players is within the RAW and it asnot really asstupid as my example, but the implication is there and Large+ pistols and muskets have an open door into Organized Play.

You have already made your point and repeated your argument over and over and should not feel obliged to continue posting, just because I do.

I have a strong suspicion that your player is actually in violation of what can be purchased or bought.


Dumb question, couldn't you make this horrible giant cannon out of mithril to make it lighter. Also couldn't you just get a golem or two to carry it around for you?

But going aside from the meanness of having a gargantuan gun, would not a large sized rifle be kind of a cool thing?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Can you purchase a golem in PFS?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Can you purchase a golem in PFS?

No idea. I would guess no, just because of the action economy that a golem brings is nuts.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Can you purchase a golem in PFS?

No. Golems are generally aquired by crafting them and in PFS there are very strict restrictions on crafting.

As crafting are not legal for play by either the Guide to PFSOP or the Additional Resources list they cannot be purchased either. I imagine one could be aquired as a familiar - eg. a humonculuc, but not the big burly golems.


LazarX wrote:


I have a strong suspicion that your player is actually in violation of what can be purchased or bought.

You may not believe this, but I generally don't let my players get away with anything, but in this case I cannot see a rule prohibiting it (and I have looked for it).

To be honest I think its a cool theme, but as I pointed out at the start of this thread I also see it as a slippery slide that can take him somewhere very ugly.

51 to 100 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / 12th level gunslinger will take out a CR 17 red dragon each round with no effort All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.