Are gunslingers actually broken?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 221 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Starbuck_II wrote:
Skerek wrote:
nicklas Læssøe wrote:
Cibulan wrote:
I agree that it is probably not possible to TWF with two double-barreled pistols, but it is possible with two pepper-boxes. My reply was in response to the incorrect application of iterative rules on TWF rules.
Anyway i think we can agree that using weapon cords with twf and double barrel will not work as per RAW. But i do have a hard time comming up against a rule for why gloves of storing wouldnt work. Except that it will require 30 free actions per round, which is a little excessive.
As a GM, I'll call BS on something that can fire a gun more times in a round than a monk of equal level could throw punches when flurrying.

What level than are limiting? Are you counting Haste/Ki?

Level 1th is 3 attacks (assuming Haste)
Level 4th level 4 attacks (assuming Haste/Ki)
Level 6th is 5 attacks (assuming Haste/Ki)
Level 8th is 6 attacks (assuming Haste/Ki)
Level 11th is 7 attacks (assuming Haste/Ki)
Level 15th is 8 attacks (assuming Haste/Ki)
Level 16th is 9 attacks (assuming Haste/Ki)

Wait, we didn't add Medusa feat so 11 is max attacks at level 16.

with the TWF chain, rapid shot and haste the gun slinger can get the same number of attacks as the monk, but can actually keep up the higher rate of fire. This is of course assuming the use of two single barreled pistols. We'll disregard how gunslinger is reloading for now. This rate of fire is ok. It's fast but it's not obscene. similar results can be accomplished with replacing the TWF chain with a double barreled pistol and double tapping. Once again this rate of fire is ok. It's when you get two double barreled pistols, the TWF chain and double tap each attack. This is the point where it becomes not ok. At 16th level

(4 attacks from bab, 3 from the TWF chain, 1 from haste and 1 from rapid shot) x 2 from double tapping. 18 attacks in a round.


Skerek wrote:


with the TWF chain, rapid shot and haste the gun slinger can get the same number of attacks as the monk, but can actually keep up the higher rate of fire. This is of course assuming the use of two single barreled pistols. We'll disregard how gunslinger is reloading for now. This rate of fire is ok. It's fast but it's not obscene. similar results can be accomplished with replacing the TWF chain with a double barreled pistol and double tapping. Once again this rate of fire is ok. It's when you get two double barreled pistols, the TWF chain and double tap each attack. This is the point where it becomes not ok. At 16th level
(4 attacks from bab, 3 from the TWF chain, 1 from haste and 1 from rapid shot) x 2 from double tapping. 18 attacks in a round.

This is true but each shot is at a minimum of -8 and at 16th assuming deadly aim and rapid shot it's actually minus 14 now for the first 4 or so attacks that might not be so bad but after that well to hit drops off hard if your DM bothers to run monsters with a touch AC above 9 you're going to have a bad day.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Xabulba wrote:
In any John Woo movie everybody uses the two gun style because it's cooler. The question then becomes is Pathfinder closer to reality or a John Woo film? Everybody knows that reality sucks so Pathfinder's John Woo two gun style gunslinger automatically wins.
I disagree. The question has nothing to do with reality, the question at hand is whether Pathfinder is closer to a Western like Unforgiven, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly or Tombstone than it is to a John Woo movie. I'd say the answer (particularly based on the fiction in Pathfinder Tales, as well as the name of the Gunslinger class) unambiguously favors the Western. Which, as mentioned, almost never have two-gun mojo in them.

Two gun style is cooler than one gun so my agument is still the correct one because whatever is cooler wins in a fantasy setting.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Xabulba wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Xabulba wrote:
In any John Woo movie everybody uses the two gun style because it's cooler. The question then becomes is Pathfinder closer to reality or a John Woo film? Everybody knows that reality sucks so Pathfinder's John Woo two gun style gunslinger automatically wins.
I disagree. The question has nothing to do with reality, the question at hand is whether Pathfinder is closer to a Western like Unforgiven, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly or Tombstone than it is to a John Woo movie. I'd say the answer (particularly based on the fiction in Pathfinder Tales, as well as the name of the Gunslinger class) unambiguously favors the Western. Which, as mentioned, almost never have two-gun mojo in them.
Two gun style is cooler than one gun so my agument is still the correct one because whatever is cooler wins in a fantasy setting.

Anyone who claims to be cool isn't (especially in a Western setting).


Not claiming to be cool in fact I'm so un-cool I can be used as a space heater. I'm just stating the fact that two gun style is cooler than one gun.

Liberty's Edge

Xabulba wrote:
Two gun style is cooler than one gun so my agument is still the correct one because whatever is cooler wins in a fantasy setting.

A shoulder-mounted nuclear missile launcher is cool, so's a Camaro, or a fusion powered jet-pack. Or a tank that turns into a robot suit you wear and fight in.

All of these are awesome, but they aren't really genre appropriate for Pathfinder, and so are not included as valid options in it (fantasy equivalents, perhaps, but not the actual things). Neither is two-gun mojo with reloading.

Genre does matter.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Genre does matter.

Depends on the particular gaming tastes of the group you’re playing with.

Groups with limited imagination would so no while those groups with open imagination would say yes.


Apparently some people are taking my posts seriously, seriously don't.

I was just trying to point out the underlining futility of the entire thread because nothing will ever be resolved here. I just forgot to add the winkie face at the end of my posts.


Xabulba wrote:


In any John Woo movie everybody uses the two gun style because it's cooler. The question then becomes is Pathfinder closer to reality or a John Woo film? Everybody knows that reality sucks so Pathfinder's John Woo two gun style gunslinger automatically wins.

The gun rules in Pathfinder are so remote from reality as to not speak the same language or be of the same species. I wouldn't even bring up reality when discussing them.


As an additional question, were Warlocks broken in 3.5?


No warlocks were not broken. That had an advantage at low levels due to the touch attack, and unlimited uses of the eldritch blast, but at higher levels they were behind the curve.

Good idea, but not executed well in the eyes of many.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber
Xabulba wrote:
Not claiming to be cool in fact I'm so un-cool I can be used as a space heater.

Good line - is somebody channeling Douglas Adams?


I am still unclear -- I haven't read the rules on gunslingers so I am a total newb -- but, what happens on round two? So far, If I am understanding correctly, with gloves of storing, they rinse and repeat, is this also true with "weapon cords" (whatever the hell those are) is it a free action to collect weapons on weapon cords (do you need quick draw even?), also, it seems we are not in consensus on how two weapon fighting works for iterative attacks -- ie must it be Left, right left, etc, or can they finish on hand total then move on to the next hand -- it also seems, with the "double shot" pistols, there is an issue of when those bullets fire. In comparison, many shot is counted as two arrows but you only get one d20 roll.

I'm just a curious passer-by, as a general rule I'm a permissive GM sense adjusting encounters are always within my purview -- I mean if killing the players is the goal they will certainly die.


drbuzzard wrote:
Xabulba wrote:


In any John Woo movie everybody uses the two gun style because it's cooler. The question then becomes is Pathfinder closer to reality or a John Woo film? Everybody knows that reality sucks so Pathfinder's John Woo two gun style gunslinger automatically wins.

The gun rules in Pathfinder are so remote from reality as to not speak the same language or be of the same species. I wouldn't even bring up reality when discussing them.

I like their ability to stun enemies by shooting them in the head - a mind affecting ability. So much for hit points being abstract. I guess high level characters really are shot in the head repeatedly and really are uneffected by it as long as they have hp.

Silver Crusade

I think what a lot of people actually look over is the fact that the Gunslinger will rarely ever miss. Touch AC is the lowest defense out there and it is the hardest to increase. While the Gunslinger may not pack as much damage in each of his blows he is hitting more often than not so he is generating continuous damage.

It's kind of like comparing 100 points of damage every 3 or 4 swings to 25 - 30 points every swing.

Staying with in 30 feet is actually not a problem at all. If you have a good size group with half the group being melee then you can weave in and out with no problem at all.


cranewings wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:
Xabulba wrote:


In any John Woo movie everybody uses the two gun style because it's cooler. The question then becomes is Pathfinder closer to reality or a John Woo film? Everybody knows that reality sucks so Pathfinder's John Woo two gun style gunslinger automatically wins.

The gun rules in Pathfinder are so remote from reality as to not speak the same language or be of the same species. I wouldn't even bring up reality when discussing them.
I like their ability to stun enemies by shooting them in the head - a mind affecting ability. So much for hit points being abstract. I guess high level characters really are shot in the head repeatedly and really are uneffected by it as long as they have hp.

this reminds me of a journey quest line

"glory, have you taken lots of blows to the head?"
"hundreds"

Scarab Sages

shallowsoul wrote:

It's kind of like comparing 100 points of damage every 3 or 4 swings to 25 - 30 points every swing.

Which is, mathematically, almost exactly the same, and therefore doesn't really impact the game all that much.


shallowsoul wrote:

I think what a lot of people actually look over is the fact that the Gunslinger will rarely ever miss. Touch AC is the lowest defense out there and it is the hardest to increase. While the Gunslinger may not pack as much damage in each of his blows he is hitting more often than not so he is generating continuous damage.

People say this, but real life is a different question.

I've missed numerous times as a Gunslinger. Usually it was by 1 or 2 points I think, but it happens.

So not very often miss, but far from rarely.

Lantern Lodge

Maxximilius wrote:

And yet, even with such leniency, we still have to see a REAL broken build that isn't a laughably glass cannon easy to shatter.

So is the gunslinger overpowered ? Since we're probably reaching the 1000's posts on this exact topic, the answer is still no.
It has the potential to ruin someone's day when you reach level 13, but no more than the same level wizard casting a nasty spell and with no magical tricks to cover himself.

Some serious thread necromancy, I know, but I would just like to state that comparing casting classes to non-casting classes for general balance of power is like comparing a sling to a gatling gun.


I'm really glad the Splitting weapon ability didn't make it from 3.5 to Pathfinder, people would go utterly a!*#~#+ over it.


YES !!!!

Luckly they attract boring and predictable players without imaginations like myself and can never do anything unexpected as a class.

201 to 221 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Are gunslingers actually broken? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.