Sounds to me like it was a pretty dumb Balor. If I were a powerful demon I'd make sure I knew what the enemy could do before fighting them... because you don't get to be a Mythic Balor without having learned how to fight effectively and dirty.
As a GM I'd also look at what feats can make a situation overpowered. And I'd even do such things as switch dice with the lucky player. (Well, actually I wouldn't. The players often need me to bless their dice before they roll well. I've been known to fudge die rolls downward because the monsters are doing too well. Most of the time.)
And I'd talk to the player and explain "this feat here is causing too much disruption for the game. I need you to switch it to something else" and maybe offer a bonus trait or a little bonus elsewhere to compensate.
|
the only thing I can add to this for all of you saying just learn the class and suck it up is:
When you have 2 11th level characters (Gunslinger + Zen Archer) one round a CR 20 Balor with Mythic Levels in a published scenario without taking any damage and laughing at it there is a problem with the rules.
Yeah......I really do feel you on this. Some of the "equalizing" in my groups has been Hell.
That's why its "Core Rulebook Plus" rules for me from now on (all products other than the CRB require GM approval).
It helps me to judge what the group of players has in mind beforehand, and therefore adjust/negate/ruledown certain aspects of the game (even through published official Paizo products).
All of Pathfinder's products are great, but you have to weigh the overall efficacy of your group as opposed to what's available (unless its PFS...and GMing those can be real Hell).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the only thing I can add to this for all of you saying just learn the class and suck it up is:
When you have 2 11th level characters (Gunslinger + Zen Archer) one round a CR 20 Balor with Mythic Levels in a published scenario without taking any damage and laughing at it there is a problem with the rules.
I disagree. There is a problem with the published scenario. It begins with what it takes to make one of these published scenarios. Broad-spectrum playability is top on the list. An optimized party, played by skilled players and designed to work as a team will rip these things apart in no time. I see it all the time. A skilled group of players optimized to work together will rip apart almost every encounter that is not tailored to challenge them specifically.
That's what optimizing is. That's what being a skilled player is. Did you think getting the most out of your character and playing it to the best advantage meant dickering about with shoelaces for ten rounds before getting serious? Of course not! The reality just often leaves people shocked and a little distraught. That's okay. Have a hot cuppa and let the shakes subside. Then move on and think it through better next time. One of the keys is how you let the combat get engaged, the other is what choices you make with the powers you have available.
|
|
Sounds to me like it was a pretty dumb Balor. If I were a powerful demon I'd make sure I knew what the enemy could do before fighting them... because you don't get to be a Mythic Balor without having learned how to fight effectively and dirty.
As a GM I'd also look at what feats can make a situation overpowered. And I'd even do such things as switch dice with the lucky player. (Well, actually I wouldn't. The players often need me to bless their dice before they roll well. I've been known to fudge die rolls downward because the monsters are doing too well. Most of the time.)
And I'd talk to the player and explain "this feat here is causing too much disruption for the game. I need you to switch it to something else" and maybe offer a bonus trait or a little bonus elsewhere to compensate.
This is saying "I don't know how your character works. And I don't want to learn what can compromise this character because that would take effort away from the rest of my GMing". I do not consider that a good resolution.
Sure, sometimes your players have better system mastery than you do. In those instances they often have enough perspective to discuss with you meaningfully the things that they are worried about occurring that will hamper or ruin their character. I also strongly urge learning to use different tactics effectively.
That's why its "Core Rulebook Plus" rules for me from now on (all products other than the CRB require GM approval)
I am much more okay with this solution. It sets expectations effectively. "I am not prepared or interested in running XYZ material, so plan around it". It engages your players and provides them a sense of exclusivity while keeping things at an arena you have some form of mastery over.
|
the problem with the gunslinger is in the way that touch AC works.
Hakken's advice here is true. Touch AC doesn't even make sense with gunslingers.
They should be hitting flatfooted AC. Think about it. The reason for this "bypassing AC" is logically supposed to be because of the bullet's speed, not because it's armor piercing. The target should be denied dex, unless they can dodge bullets.
This also solves the problem in the rest of Hakken's post about the problem worsening at higher levels. Armor or natural armor bonuses still protect the higher level bad guys.
|
|
Hakken's advice here is true. Touch AC doesn't even make sense with gunslingers.
They should be hitting flatfooted AC. Think about it. The reason for this "bypassing AC" is logically supposed to be because of the bullet's speed, not because it's armor piercing. The target should be denied dex, unless they can dodge bullets.
This also solves the problem in the rest of Hakken's post about the problem worsening at higher levels. Armor or natural armor bonuses still protect the higher level bad guys.
Have you seen what guns do?
The reason they replaced existing weapons as quickly as they could be mass produced was because they completely neutralized the armored infantryman. It is the same reason the longbow became so infamous. An arrow that punched right through full plate was devastating. That is why we don't wear full plate any more. It stopped protecting the soldier inside it from the weapons he encountered while doing his job.
Guns only hit touch AC out to the first increment. In PFS that means 30 feet, more with some buffs or abilities. Beyond that they have to hit regular AC as the velocity of the musket ball loses the force (and the primitive munitions and barrel design made these weapons very inaccurate which is not accounted for in PFRPG) to pierce the equipment.
You are correct that velocity is a lot of what makes that happen. After all, physics tells us that force is a calculation between mass and velocity (with some finer points for other variables).
Sounds to me like it was a pretty dumb Balor. If I were a powerful demon I'd make sure I knew what the enemy could do before fighting them... because you don't get to be a Mythic Balor without having learned how to fight effectively and dirty.
As a GM I'd also look at what feats can make a situation overpowered. And I'd even do such things as switch dice with the lucky player. (Well, actually I wouldn't. The players often need me to bless their dice before they roll well. I've been known to fudge die rolls downward because the monsters are doing too well. Most of the time.)
And I'd talk to the player and explain "this feat here is causing too much disruption for the game. I need you to switch it to something else" and maybe offer a bonus trait or a little bonus elsewhere to compensate.
This is saying "I don't know how your character works. And I don't want to learn what can compromise this character because that would take effort away from the rest of my GMing". I do not consider that a good resolution.
Sure, sometimes your players have better system mastery than you do. In those instances they often have enough perspective to discuss with you meaningfully the things that they are worried about occurring that will hamper or ruin their character. I also strongly urge learning to use different tactics effectively.
No. This is saying certain feats can cause more trouble than they are worth. For instance, the feat that allows multiple arrows at one point to "penetrate" damage reduction... which melee fighters don't have.
If a Feat is causing too much trouble, then talk with your player and have it removed. It's as simple as that.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are referring to Clustered Shots. Which is what prevents ranged attackers from being completely stopped by damage reduction. Melee Fighters get some very serious ways to boost damage, and you pick on a feat that lets an archer tally up all the damage she already had to do before subtracting the effects of damage reduction?
Melee attackers get Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike, which is arguably much better. Also the ability to grapple, entangle, trip (okay, Archers can Trip with a special arrow), reposition, bull rush, drag, overrun and more... An archer really only gets to do one thing. Damage. They are never very competitive at the other options.
Still, if you think it's better to tell them to stop using a feat that specifically exists to shore up a weakness because, "That's too much trouble. I don't want you being effective against creatures with DR" then I guess telling them to get rid of it is the simpler solution, but not optimal by any means. I'd recommend learning to play before I told my players to stop playing better than me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disallow Clustered Shots at my table, and my players have no problem getting through DR at range without it. I hardly see its unavailability as a huge weakness and neither do they. I suppose after 20 years of DM'ing I should learn how to play one of these days.
|
|
Maybe just to play the game that's at the table with the rules set it put forth. With a +4 or +5 weapon most DR is not important and Clustered Shots becomes unimportant. With a +3 weapon some types of DR stop being an issue already. Clustered Shots, quite simply, just does not break the game. It boosts damage for a period of time, after that it's just a feat you wish you could retrain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hakken's advice here is true. Touch AC doesn't even make sense with gunslingers.
They should be hitting flatfooted AC. Think about it. The reason for this "bypassing AC" is logically supposed to be because of the bullet's speed, not because it's armor piercing. The target should be denied dex, unless they can dodge bullets.
This also solves the problem in the rest of Hakken's post about the problem worsening at higher levels. Armor or natural armor bonuses still protect the higher level bad guys.
Have you seen what guns do?
The reason they replaced existing weapons as quickly as they could be mass produced was because they completely neutralized the armored infantryman. It is the same reason the longbow became so infamous. An arrow that punched right through full plate was devastating. That is why we don't wear full plate any more. It stopped protecting the soldier inside it from the weapons he encountered while doing his job.
Guns only hit touch AC out to the first increment. In PFS that means 30 feet, more with some buffs or abilities. Beyond that they have to hit regular AC as the velocity of the musket ball loses the force (and the primitive munitions and barrel design made these weapons very inaccurate which is not accounted for in PFRPG) to pierce the equipment.
You are correct that velocity is a lot of what makes that happen. After all, physics tells us that force is a calculation between mass and velocity (with some finer points for other variables).
You are wrong about arrows and bullets piercing plate btw. The plate worn at Agnincourt could stop the bodkin arrow. The mud won that battle. Bullets couldn't pierce a good breastplate, they even proofed them by firing at them point blank. If you saw the tiny dent you knew it was a good piece. The reason why they stopped wearing plate is because it was too expensive to waste on troops, and warfare moved away from nobles fighting pick up battles and the occasional big battle (which was actually rare) to massive armies moving constantly devouring the country side like locusts. Heavy pieces of steel strapped to yourself feels awful and tires you out too much.
You also don't have to "dodge" bullets or anything stupid like that, a simple evasion pattern is enough to force a miss even irl, most people even trained soldiers are unlikely to hit an evading target without a decent RoF and/or a bunch of training. Heck it took the machine gun and fast reloading riffles to finally kill off the cavalry charge. Speed + shock of the charge would force rushed shots, breaking formations which didn't have iron dicipline and enough massed firepower.
Now at point blank range you are probably going to be toast unless it hits you in the strongest part of your armor. Which is close enough to the current rule of touch only in the closest range increment.
|
Maybe just to play the game that's at the table with the rules set it put forth. With a +4 or +5 weapon most DR is not important and Clustered Shots becomes unimportant. With a +3 weapon some types of DR stop being an issue already. Clustered Shots, quite simply, just does not break the game. It boosts damage for a period of time, after that it's just a feat you wish you could retrain.
So, what you are saying is that there is no problem with this single feat being effectively worth between 32,000 and 50,000 GP (the cost of a +4 & +5 enchant)?
Oh wait, it also ignores EPIC DR as well so bump that up to 200,000 GP value for this feat.Hmmm, that sounds balanced to me.
Perhaps it is YOU who should take a step back and "look at the rules set put forth" before making comments like this.
The increasing power and availability of firearms and the nature of large, state-supported infantry led to more portions of plate armor being cast off in favor of cheaper, more mobile troops. Body armor remained in use throughout the 18th century with cavalry units, especially cuirassiers, including front and back plates that could protect the wearer from distanced fire and either helmets or "secrets", a steel protection they wore under a floppy hat.
Maybe just to play the game that's at the table with the rules set it put forth. With a +4 or +5 weapon most DR is not important and Clustered Shots becomes unimportant. With a +3 weapon some types of DR stop being an issue already. Clustered Shots, quite simply, just does not break the game. It boosts damage for a period of time, after that it's just a feat you wish you could retrain.So, what you are saying is that there is no problem with this single feat being effectively worth between 32,000 and 50,000 GP (the cost of a +4 & +5 enchant)?
Oh wait, it also ignores EPIC DR as well so bump that up to 200,000 GP value for this feat.Hmmm, that sounds balanced to me.
Perhaps it is YOU who should take a step back and "look at the rules set put forth" before making comments like this.
Honestly, 50-200k monetary value seems pretty reasonable for a feat. Obviously many feats do not equate to such a price, however plenty are "priceless".
|
|
Honestly, 50-200k monetary value seems pretty reasonable for a feat. Obviously many feats do not equate to such a price, however plenty are "priceless".Maybe just to play the game that's at the table with the rules set it put forth. With a +4 or +5 weapon most DR is not important and Clustered Shots becomes unimportant. With a +3 weapon some types of DR stop being an issue already. Clustered Shots, quite simply, just does not break the game. It boosts damage for a period of time, after that it's just a feat you wish you could retrain.So, what you are saying is that there is no problem with this single feat being effectively worth between 32,000 and 50,000 GP (the cost of a +4 & +5 enchant)?
Oh wait, it also ignores EPIC DR as well so bump that up to 200,000 GP value for this feat.Hmmm, that sounds balanced to me.
Perhaps it is YOU who should take a step back and "look at the rules set put forth" before making comments like this.
The average "value" for a feat usually floats between 2K-8K (with the very rare one hitting around 10K). This feat easily sits at 100K+ and can do something no other feat allows, Bypass EPIC DR. Nothing else in the game can do that. No feat, weapon, enchant or spell lets you ignore epic DR and that is MASSIVE. (OK Paladins technically can but they've been debating whether that was the intent for a year now).
Where would you place the monetary value on the ability to hit multiple foes in combat before you have a +x/+y BAB?
Or the ability to choose an additional class feature(eg. Magus Arcana)?
Or the ability to choose who and who not to heal with you channel positive energy?
I understand that you're correlating a direct monetary value to cluster shot due to it's "replication" of something attainable with money, however I would posit that because of the source of the ability it's really not reasonable to compare it directly to GP.
It seems your biggest issue is the ability to bypass DR/Epic. If so perhaps a ruling against breaking that specific DR is in order.
I just feel that in a game such as this were there are hundreds of options for spell casters, that I am loathe to remove any options for martial characters.
|
The average "value" for a feat usually floats between 2K-8K (with the very rare one hitting around 10K). This feat easily sits at 100K+ and can do something no other feat allows, Bypass EPIC DR. Nothing else in the game can do that.
I'm sorry, but you're just wrong here. With the changes made to Epic DR, there's actually tons of things that can bypass it. Magus, Paladin, some Bard builds like Arcane Duelist, Inquisitor, and certain other builds can all bypass it completely by level 8 or 9 with class abilities and level appropriate weapons. That's a true bypass, not just a consolidation like CLustered Shots.
|
|
If you want a low-level solution that doesn't revolve around the out-right killing/focus fire of the gunslinger, remember this one funny little trick:
SQUIRTLE, USE WATER GUN, NOW!
After all, the Gunslinger is the only class that actually has more weapon proficiencies than a fighter. On top of that, it has a d10 HD, decent saves, and usually makes good use of a high dex, which means a gunslinger's AC is decent, coincidentally. It would be a shame that a player wouldn't consider these aspects when he drops all of his feats into one basket, namely using a gun very well.
You are wrong about arrows and bullets piercing plate btw. The plate worn at Agnincourt could stop the bodkin arrow. The mud won that battle. Bullets couldn't pierce a good breastplate, they even proofed them by firing at them point blank. If you saw the tiny dent you knew it was a good piece. The reason why they stopped wearing plate is because it was too expensive to waste on troops, and warfare moved away from nobles fighting pick up battles and the...Hakken's advice here is true. Touch AC doesn't even make sense with gunslingers.
They should be hitting flatfooted AC. Think about it. The reason for this "bypassing AC" is logically supposed to be because of the bullet's speed, not because it's armor piercing. The target should be denied dex, unless they can dodge bullets.
This also solves the problem in the rest of Hakken's post about the problem worsening at higher levels. Armor or natural armor bonuses still protect the higher level bad guys.
Have you seen what guns do?
The reason they replaced existing weapons as quickly as they could be mass produced was because they completely neutralized the armored infantryman. It is the same reason the longbow became so infamous. An arrow that punched right through full plate was devastating. That is why we don't wear full plate any more. It stopped protecting the soldier inside it from the weapons he encountered while doing his job.
Guns only hit touch AC out to the first increment. In PFS that means 30 feet, more with some buffs or abilities. Beyond that they have to hit regular AC as the velocity of the musket ball loses the force (and the primitive munitions and barrel design made these weapons very inaccurate which is not accounted for in PFRPG) to pierce the equipment.
You are correct that velocity is a lot of what makes that happen. After all, physics tells us that force is a calculation between mass and velocity (with some finer points for other variables).
Not to mention the matter of training and cost. Armored Knights and English-style longbowmen needed a lifetime of training and some very expensive and specialized equipment. Meanwhile, you could make the average peasant reasonably proficient with a gun in a matter of weeks, and once the crafting process was hammered out guns were far less expensive to build and maintain.
In the end, knights died off not because their armor was useless, but because you could field a dozen men with guns for the same price.
I assure you most bullets and cannon fired shells pierced plate armor especially at the ranged commonly fire from. While the cost of, and traveling speed of fully armored troops was a part of the decline from early on, the final nail in the coffin for plate armor was guns, it just came later than most people recognize; after rifled guns became more widely available circa 18th century
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are wrong about arrows and bullets piercing plate btw. The plate worn at Agnincourt could stop the bodkin arrow. The mud won that battle. Bullets couldn't pierce a good breastplate, they even proofed them by firing at them point blank. If you saw the tiny dent you knew it was a good piece. The reason why they stopped wearing plate is because it was too expensive to waste on troops, and warfare moved away from nobles fighting pick up battles and the occasional big battle (which was actually rare) to massive armies moving constantly devouring the country side like locusts. Heavy pieces of steel strapped to yourself feels awful and tires you out too much.
Here is a wiki article talking about platemail. You'll note that the decline of platemail is immediately attributed to the development of the flintlock musket which could penetrate armor at a considerable distance.
For a different approach, here's a video of a longbow vs 2mm thick plate steel. Here is one article on the long bow, followed by the wiki article which even mentions the bodkin test.
I appreciate your opinion, but historic fact is that you are wrong. Event he article on plate armor indicates arrows and crossbows could pierce it.
Most of the "value" rhetoric has been adequately pursued by karlbadmannersV2. Here are some points about the feat and comparison to melee which was the original point of discussion.So, what you are saying is that there is no problem with this single feat being effectively worth between 32,000 and 50,000 GP (the cost of a +4 & +5 enchant)?
Oh wait, it also ignores EPIC DR as well so bump that up to 200,000 GP value for this feat.
Hmmm, that sounds balanced to me.
Perhaps it is YOU who should take a step back and "look at the rules set put forth" before making comments like this.
- Clustered Shots does not ignore DR, it allows you to make (and miss) all of your regular shots before calculating DR. This assists in bypassing DR, but does not ignore it.
- Every melee combatant can add Strength or Strength(1.5) to his attacks. Strength is also the melee accuracy stat, meaning you can add both accuracy and power off of one stat.
- Range attackers must use Dexterity for accuracy and if they choose to add damage they must purchase a specific type of weapon for variable costs and invest in a second attribute to enhance that effect. Some classes have special features that work around this. None of those features are available at early levels, so a significant investment is required.
- With every feat applied, range attackers receive 6 attacks per round at the top. Melee attackers receive between 4 and 7 with full feat investment. Both groups can add 1 attack with haste.
- Melee attackers threaten nearby squares and can make attacks of opportunity without investing feats. Range attackers cannot do this at all without investing significant feats (the Snapshot chain is a commitment).
- Range attack bonuses to damage rarely exceed double digits and rarely have more than a few dice to contribute from enchantments. Yes, there are exceptions, but to get even that far they must be committed to using a ranged weapon exclusively. Melee attackers can exceed double digits on damage bonuses (and the extra dice from enchantments) several levels sooner, and can often commit only partially to this and then move on to do other things.
There are several arguments I have not brought up, but the bottom line is that hating on Clustered Shots is from a position of personal bias, not because it is breaking the game. If you do not know how to handle a ranged attacker in your game, then you should sit down with the rules and look at what makes them work, and what they have to sacrifice to get there. A good CMD is often missing, and an entire archer line can usually be stumped with a good selection of Summoned Monster options. If you did not design the encounter that is being overrun...then the encounter designer clearly did not anticipate a broad array of threats. Poor encounter design is a common problem. More often than not, when I hear GM's complaining about a class or a feat, it is because they do not understand how to interact with it, and what the NPC's should do to cope.
As a control wizard might say "Just because you can throw 16d6 on the table doesn't mean I have to sit there and take it".
In my opinion, the Gunslinger is an overpowered POS class...
POS?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Piece of Sexy!
EDIT: What he was really trying to say is that the gunslinger does not fit his thematic interpretation of Golarion/Wherever and uses the perceived OPness of the class to ban it.
Here is a wiki article talking about platemail. You'll note that the decline of platemail is immediately attributed to the development of the flintlock musket which could penetrate armor at a considerable distance.
For a different approach, here's a video of a longbow vs 2mm thick plate steel. Here is one article on the long bow, followed by the wiki article which even mentions the bodkin test.
I appreciate your opinion, but historic fact is that you are wrong. Event he article on plate armor indicates arrows and crossbows could pierce it.
You might want to read your own sources a bit more carefully (Assuming you weren't deliberately misrepresenting the contents). To quote your wiki article:
However, even heavy-draw longbows have trouble penetrating well-made steel plate armour, which was used increasingly after 1350.
Modern tests and contemporary accounts agree therefore that well-made plate armour could protect against longbows,
Steel was continually being made stronger and thicker to protect from bullets but eventually the needed protection was too heavy and expensive for most troops.
Oh for the supremacy of the armored knight ended earlier, I meant the "true" end of plate armor use in battle, e.g. even single officers no longer wore breastplates.
Interesting note on the hiring of swiss mercenaries
There were other factors that led to the rise of firearms and the end of heavy armor use.
1. Less training required to use effectively...you can train someone to shoot a musket effectively in a matter of days...bows require far more training.
2. You can be sick as a dog, ill, suffering from dysentery and still shoot. This is a factor in long campaigns...at Agincourt a large percentage of the English archers were literally too ill to pull their bows.
3. A gun was cheaper than a knight and when not being used didn't need to be fed. This also led to the rise of national armies which led to less power for the nobility and more for the monarch.
And my 2 cents....Gunslingers are totally OP...that touch AC mechanic just blows. In PFS games if I GM I find myself holding back from just killing gunslingers just because I hate the mechanic. They are legal in PFS games. In any home game I ref they will not exist period.
Here is a good one:
Don't play a class that your DM does not want you to play. You can reason with him, work around the balance problems, but in the end: if you refuse to NOT play the gunslinger then your character's life should be short.
I have so far had two gunslingers show up in my campaigns and a single Zen Archer. We were level 10 or so. I told all three characters at the game show I was hosting at that their characters would likely heavily outshine the other players, and for that reason I will be trying to kill them so they can bring in different characters.
So, what happened? First I threw some normal standard encounters (1 - 2) monsters at the PCs, and the Gunslingers and Zen Archers annihilated the encounters. Session 1 I left things alone. Afterwards I pulled everyone in back and asked them what they thought and ALL of them said they felt less important to the overall game due to the OP characters; they felt like minions protecting the killing machine; they felt like their purpose there was like that of a side-kick and not a hero.
Next session, every encounter consisted of 4 Save or Die casters who specifically targeted the OP characters, 16 enemy encounters who all focused on grappling and tried to kill the OP characters, or blasters who also targeted the OP characters.
Once their godly characters died, horribly I might add, they complained. I retorted with telling them exactly what I told them at the beginning: "If you use this character, I am going to go out of my way to try and kill you because it is too powerful and unbalanced compared to the rest of the party."
One stormed off and never returned, one made another character, and one demanded to prove to me that his Gunslinger was OP.
The first was easy, he left. GTFO my group you toxic turd.
The second was also pretty easy since he just made a two-handed fighter gish.
The third was also easy, I just threw 4 gunslingers at them in an epic encounter so both groups would be about as powerful as each other. Absolutely no surprise on the outcome even when I had all the gunslingers target separate people. The caster died almost instantly, the healer as well, the tank's AC was worth nothing so he lasted a few rounds before just dying, and the Gunslinger was the only one who killed his target...only to be killed by the other 3 NPCs.
Seriously. Don't bring OP characters to the table, play them as OP as possible, and then complain about the DM loathing your existence because believe me, the DM can kill you very easily. He can literally copy your PC into an NPC, readjust for gold, and then wipe the party. It is easy.
If the DM tells you to not play a character because of power reasons make another damn character.
The only time a Gunslinger is even remotely balanced is when everyone is using guns--both the Baddies and the PCs.
"Well-made" plate armor came in later. The penetration effect of Longbows was a contributing factor to metallurgical sciences and the advancement of better constructed plate armor. My point still stands. Modern alloys are used today in armor worn by soldiers facing AK's and other modern firearms. Essenitally it is breastplate with accomodations. Flexibility became a huge factor as people realized that more rigid substances were not as effective as yielding ones in stopping high velocity munitions. Just because the Longbow became less effective after armor-crafters came up with different versions of armor in order to counter its effectiveness kind of proves my point, not disproves it. They had to create new armor in order to defend against the Longbow.
The battle of Poitiers, English Longbow was completely ineffective against plate. Descriptions include skidding off the armor or even shattering. The Longbow was used in enfilade fire to shoot out the horses which weren't armored enough from the sides. which weren't protected so the dumb French knights would come crashing down in front of their charging formation causing all sorts of disruption. That is 1356 mind you, the stuff at Agincourt in 1415 was even stronger, and the the bodkin arrow still crappy soft iron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodkin_point
As for plate against guns, it wasn't until the later 30 Years War that you start to see plate stop being used fully. The cost and weight were just too much in the era of 100k+ men armies and rapid deployments and maneuvers. Some armor was useful though, perhaps not at close range but the guns of the time didn't have long range power or accuracy. Guns were mostly used defensively for most sides (though some sides figured out how to increase the ratio of muskets in their army to devastating results).
IMHO the current rules work fine for guns. At long range you roll to hit as normal. In point blank range you can punch through armor like its not there (which is true for all but the heaviest historical armors). Since I don't really want to see a plate exception to the rules, it is serviceable enough IMHO. The class for gunslinger is effectively a fighter with extreme focus on a heavy commitment weapon (in gold, feats, and class abilities). Fighters are hardly broken and can even manage superior damage if built well. Hitting against touch doesn't really matter when you need 2s to hit normal armor. Heck a 3/4 BAB character should be hitting on at least 5s if they are built for serious combat.
I m kinda having the same problem , in my campaign with the musket master....it just makes it so hard to balance out fights, and it is all because of the Touch attacks....it is just hard to find a monster, with 20+touch AC so the campaign now is at the point where I bring in mobs with high DR ,regen or create my own mobs, or even modify some of the monsters so their touch AC and normal AC would be around the same...
Some people on the topic said, that it looks like a problem between the GM and the player, but that is not the case...The GM needs to counter the gunslinger and center the mobs ,rewrite their stats accordingly....
if you look at Bestiary I and II , you will see, that most monsters don't have that big of a touch AC....heck the mighty Tarrasque have 40 AC and 9 touch AC....
and even if some of the mobs do have a high touch AC they have really hardcore special abilities, that could cause a problem for the whole party..
I have tried everything and it is incredibly hard to do anything against him from lvl 5 when if I remember correctly he adds his dex to his DMG with a specific firearm
I tried equipping mobs with Bullet Shield neclaces that would give them +4 deflection bonus, I tried bringing in monks with the deflect arrows feat since it works against bullets also....(not to mention one of my monks tripped and fell, and went from 40 HP to -48 in 1 round just from the gunslinger....)
It is really hard to balance out the fights just because of one class...
that's why we decided, that next time we hold a Pathfinder campaign, we will be making characters based on Tournament Rules with a point system for classes and races
But before that I need to find a way to make my campaign work, we are at a point where I will send a "The Worm that Walks" against them...since i m basically out of high touch AC mobs...and there will be 2 more fight, that I still need to figure out and end my campaign.
Every advice would be welcomed, and every little trick that i could use to shut down a gunslinger, with a priest backing it up (bit of luck,cat's grace etc etc... >.>)
oh cool along with the advice how about we all make a time machine
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why its "Core Rulebook Plus" rules for me from now on (all products other than the CRB require GM approval).
Yes, because wizards, clerics, and druids are completely balanced with the rest of the Core rulebook classes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These threads, man. They always happen and I don't know why. Optimized Characters are supposed to one-round things. It's intended. I mean, how is a Gunslinger absolutely murdering a heavily armored enemy in one round different than a Witch using Sleep Hex--> Coup de Grace? How is it different than a Wizard with Hold Person or worse? How is it different than one of dozens of Pouncing Barbarians?
I'd actually consider any character who cannot solo a CR appropriate enemy to be underpowered. I mean, let's say you have an Evil Dragon, who is somehow about to be Full-Attacked by a Paladin. With a little luck and Litany of Righteousness, the Paladin will one-shot a monster designed to challenge a whole group, and he can do it even if the dragon is 3 or more CR higher.
The DMs who become upset when one character kills three enemies in two rounds, I'm not sure what they are hoping for. Pathfinder is called rocket tag for a reason.
As for how to handle the Gunslinger: Swarms. Incorporeal. Wizards who target Will and have twice to three times the Gunslinger's range. Illusions target Will and waste ammunition. Break the weapons. Threaten him so he can't fight without provoking. Knock him into the water. Fog. Fickle Winds stops every ranged character ever.
Just wondering: How can people think doing ANY amount of damage is overpowered when scry and die still works?
He raised the touch AC by 12 points????
The Gunslinger is an odd duck in a group, but it can be feat intensive AND expensive to dolly up (gear, weapons, and enchanting said firearms)
Yeah I looked that up too!
Touch AC should be 8 on that monster,
Not to be a dick, but why didn't you just go "Your builds are going to outshine the other players heavily, please play something else" if you knew from the start that the builds wouldn't fit, instead of wasting everyone's time with passive-agressive GMing just to prove a point? In fact, when you pulled the players aside the first time (and I'm assuming the gunslingers and zen archers were there too) why didn't you just say "Your builds are making things less fun for the other players. Please tone it down or you'll have to play something else."?I have so far had two gunslingers show up in my campaigns and a single Zen Archer. We were level 10 or so. I told all three characters at the game show I was hosting at that their characters would likely heavily outshine the other players, and for that reason I will be trying to kill them so they can bring in different characters.
His players were warned to not be Gods. You know you can play one of those classes and be good, just good not crazy broken but to achieve that the player needs to build accordingly. They didn't...they died.
I don't really see why the DM should need to ban them from the outset, the players were warned - they didn't listen - they got what they deserved. It may have wasted time but again that was the players fault for not listening imo.
I believe that was a "test combat" to show how it was overpowered, and had no lasting consequences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think over all the issue isn't really about the gunslinger class. The gunslinger offers a lot of different playstyles switch hitters and crowd control with called shot are quite viable. Or is every gunslinger a musket master or pistolero wielding a double weapon?
Ultimately players should use self control and build characters within the paradigm of their play group.
Not to be a dick, but why didn't you just go "Your builds are going to outshine the other players heavily, please play something else"
I did not do this because some people come in with OP characters and then limit themselves intentionally. I have had gunslingers in campaigns pull out repeating crossbows. I have had gunslingers shoot all enemies equally, hence spreading their damage out. I have had people play broken characters in ways that are not broken.
The point is that the players in question made characters that were far more powerful than the other characters. The responsibility now falls to the players of said characters to control how powerful they are when compared to other members of the party.
Hell, I am playing a broken character at my level (Warrior 1 Werewolf [natural]) and we are at the beginning of Second Darkness. I could solo the party, solo all of the encounters, and then proceed to go on without them because my DR10 and resistances from Aasimar are too powerful for the monsters to get through without critting. So what do I do? I hang near the back, whip out my short-bow and shoot at enemies from afar until someone gets incapacitated, and then, only then, do I put the bow away and tear things apart with my bite (wolf) and two claws (Aspect of the Beast). It helps that my character was raised by Astarathian in Pangolais, Nidal as a favor to his afflicted werewolf mother.
Any OP character can be played in broken ways, or in not broken ways. Imagine a Nova Magus who does not cast that 10d6 shocking grasp and hold it, then discharge the 10d6 SG out of his sword on the first hit as well as discharge his held, and then cast anotehr 10d6 and discharge that all on the same round. Imagine if he instead decides to cast one 10d6 SG on a tough enemy but use his spell with spell combat the cast cantrips to inhibit enemies.
When the DM tells you that you can play a character but that you are way too powerful that is the DM's way of telling you:
"You have a chance to be allowed to play this character.
If you play
in such a way
that you, lone, do not save the day
then part of the party you can stay."
It isn't being passive aggressive, that would be tell him the game is over so he doesn't show up again. My actions were, instead, being kind and assuming that he will, in turn, be kind to the party. Instead, he decided to play a god, and as we all know the Mantis god was not amused by such assertions!
the problem with the gunslinger is in the way that touch AC works. Don't believe me---go look at dragons and their ac.
at 1st level--most mobs AC is close to equal to their touch ac---so while other characters are trying to hit ac 18--the gunslinger is trying to hit about 14.
but as you get higher level--others are trying to hit ac 40 while the gunslingers can actually go DOWN
young dragon ac 21 and touch ac 12
adult dragon ac 28 and touch ac 10
ancient dragon ac38 and touch ac 8too many monsters are like this--the higher up you get---the easier it gets for a gunslinger to hit---only needing 1/3 to 1/4 of the to hit of other classes. A DM almost HAS to play the monsters against the gunslinger to keep from being one shotted (ie keep them out of PB range until they attack, doing fly by attacks and not letting the gunslinger get a full out attack in pb range.)
archers may be powerful--but say they do get the same dex as a gunslinger--both +5. they get a +5 bow, and bracers of greater archery for +2. give them focus for +1, give them point blank for +2.
for all of that they get a +15 to hit--at 10th level a fighter archer gets a further 10 BAB for a total of plus 25---so needs a 13 to hit the ancient dragon----costing him 2 feats and the price of a +5 bow and greater bracers
the gunslinger gets +5 dex, and +10 for level giving him a +15 to hit an AC of 8--meaning he needs a NEGATIVE 7 for no extra feats or costs
touch ac is broken when you get 8 shots a round at it with a X4 crit weapon and an effective NEGATIVE needed to hit it
It's not really just a question about the gunslinger, though. The way ACs are built in the 3e family and the behavior of touch AC and touch attacks have been problematic since day 1. This was evident once the first cleric used a harm spell on an otherwise uninjured dragon and beat his SR. The spell went from doing somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-80 points of damage on an unarmed hit on a full AC to doing up to hundreds of points of damage on a much easier target.
On some level, the simulative aspect of a touch AC works reasonably well, particularly for determining if someone made bodily contact with the target, but it's harder to make it work in a reasonable way for a game. Personally, I'm not really keen on any weapon attacks that rely on force being able to completely discount armor/natural armor/shield bonuses no matter how high they are. I would think a dragon's thick hide would count for more than a rogue's studded leather armor, yet it is penetrated just as effectively. Though it adds complication, I'd rather each firearm reduce armor/natural armor/shield bonuses by a fixed amount - perhaps less for weaker firearms, more for stronger.