@Removal of Touch AC suggestion
I really must protest against this change in rules.
C'mon, Corvo. You already talked me into nerfing the 5 range touch AC for advanced firearms to down to 1 (if/when they ever show up) and agreed to limiting mount/companion actions to only Aid Another actions. Give me at least this to look forward to.
<_< the increment change wouldn't be in effect with this one. You'd still come out as a really powerful ranged character and keep doing what you do xD
Mounts was for everyone tho, remember those 1d3 celestial tigers with communal stoneskin?
So remove touch attack and misfire chance, but keep the rest, basically trading range for more damage? (a firearm has higher die than a bow of same type)
This could work. The whole "target touch AC" thing makes no sense. I like gunslingers, but I hate PF rules for firearms. How the hell a gun (with iron bullets!) has a harder time trying to damage a cat than a freaking adamantine golem? Are real-life bullet-proof vests actually Vests of Incredible Dexterity?
If you do choose this option, please, reduce the price of firearms and their ammo. And remove the backfire condition.
Ah yes, I forget about misfire chance. Yes, removing any misfire chance and removing the ability to hit touch AC seems to be a fair way to make gunslingers less imbalanced. I understand the logical reasoning behind making fire arms hit touch AC from a realistic perspective, a gun need only hit somewhere on a target to deal damage effectively making it a touch, but then to give a full BAB progression is a problem. The only other way to remedy it would be to trade full BAB progression (20/15/10/5) for poor (10/5) while getting to keep touch attacks.
To the player that feels they are effectively being nerf'd, Dovanik, I understand your feelings. However, the touch AC has been a hotly disputed topic, and many feel it overpowered. Think of it this way, even without touch, you have full BAB and are just as likely to hit as anyother melee ranged attacker, and you will deal more damage than any archer. You're still a bad ass, but now you might actually miss a shot every now and again.
I...
*sigh*
Whatever. I don't care anymore. Do what you will, Corvo, but I'm not happy about it.
|
To the player that feels they are effectively being nerf'd, Dovanik, I understand your feelings. However, the touch AC has been a hotly disputed topic, and many feel it overpowered.
And much more people proved it isn't, this before the final class was even finally introduced. If we were to judge balance only on how it "feels", we'd have a hard time designing anything.
I've actually seen two mid-to-high level gunslingers highly optimized played, and they still got their asses handed over to them by the group's archer. Their only feature was a great regularity in their average damage, with the occasional awesome spike in damage when critting or misfiring.
If being able to hit touch AC is so important to you, it sounds like you realize how huge an advantage that is over everyone and everything else is the game. Be glad your GM allows for the gunslinger class and firearms at all, since those are completely optional. As for having something to look forward to, what about being able to add your dex mod to damage rolls? Then later, you can cause bleed damage equal to your dex mod. Even later you can cause an enemy to make a saving throw or die. For 1 grit point. That caster whos harassing the party, you can look at him and say, "Hey, make a fort save or die." If you dont' think the gunslinger is awesome and want to play it without the touch AC bit, I don't know what to say.
|
I know your player is reading so it kind of sucks if he reads this but honestly I felt this was the fairest way of keeping things fun. Just remember as GM its not your goal to "win" but rather to make sure the PCs "win" in the best and most enjoyable fashion possible. Your goal should be to just burn a few resources per combat and possibly place a little fear in their hearts that they CAN potentially die.
|
|
If being able to hit touch AC is so important to you, it sounds like you realize how huge an advantage that is over everyone and everything else is the game. Be glad your GM allows for the gunslinger class and firearms at all, since those are completely optional. As for having something to look forward to, what about being able to add your dex mod to damage rolls? Then later, you can cause bleed damage equal to your dex mod. Even later you can cause an enemy to make a saving throw or die. For 1 grit point. That caster whos harassing the party, you can look at him and say, "Hey, make a fort save or die." If you dont' think the gunslinger is awesome and want to play it without the touch AC bit, I don't know what to say.
Duh, obviously that's important to a class designed around this mechanic. That's like saying to the wizard "oh hey that's cool and all but actually you'll have to put a stick in your enemy's face now instead of shattering reality" then asking him why he finds it is unfair.
- An archer already adds his Strength modifier to damage rolls, and receives one more damage roll per round at no penalty. His bow is silent, cheap and does not break when he rolls a 3 or less.
- Who cares about bleed damage when a single cleric in the opposite team can heal everyone and cast a spell in the same round ? Even then, that's one of the only great options of the gunslinger.
- You may want to specify that the death effect requires a CRITICAL HIT. You know, something that has 10% chances to happen and will most probably explode a puny wizard when cast from a +5 musket with Deadly Aim and 30 Dex at 19th level, for a measly 4d12 + 20(Mag) + 16(DA) + 40(Dex); 102 damage on a character with average (18x3.5 + 18x3)+6+18= 141 HP, assuming 16 Constitution and not even accounting for itterative attacks and Constitution-bleeding damage.
That's assuming the wizard can be hit at all too, considering wind wall or illusions are stupidly easy to land even before spheres of forces or cloaks of wind enter the game.
As far as invis + grapple goes vs your alchemist, see invis is not equal to invis purge. It's a way to get past that 15ft threatened space.
Alternately, snake style helps as well. Monks may not be good at alot of things, but they can handle gunslingers pretty well. Don't you watch movies?
@ Claxon
You must understand that I was (and still am) grateful that our GM approved of my character in the first place. Its very hard to find a game that allows a gunslinger period, let alone a gestalt game.
My point of annoyance is mostly that this change would be coming in after the game has started, so it feels a bit like a bait-and-switch. You come into something expecting something, but as soon as you're in and committed, the terms of usage suddenly change on you.
I know AoOs were mentioned and Snap Shot and Improved Snap Shot were brought up as why nothing can get close enough to attack the gunslinger. What I didn't see was anyone mention that a character can normally only take 1 AoO in a round and that moving into his threatened area doesn't provoke.
Also, don't forget about the penalties for shooting into melee and the penalties for other characters providing the target with cover. +16 vs touch sounds unstoppable until your taking a -8 for shooting into the scrum.
Smoke sticks are nice.
Duh, obviously that's important to a class designed around this mechanic. That's like saying to the wizard "oh hey that's cool and all but actually you'll have to put a stick in your enemy's face now instead of shattering reality" then asking him why he finds it is unfair.
I can admit that changing how a class works after play has started is annoying, however if the GM had not had a gunslinger or firearms in his campaigns before it could make it difficult to know exactly what sort of problem it poses beforehand. I will however argue with you that being able to attack vs touch AC is a core mechanic of the class versus regular AC, as that is not something that is even a mechanic of the class, but of firearms. It is no way equivalent to telling the wizard to hit the enemy with stick instead of a spell, it's not comparable. It may be like telling the wizard that he doesn't get to cast Save or Die spells anymore (3.5 to Pathfinder), but instead he will have to cast his Save or Suck spells. Nothing that I know of in the gunslinger class is really based on being able to target touch AC vs regular AC, so tell me how the gunslinger is based on getting to target touch AC?
|
|
My issue is that there have been MANY solutions short of changing the core mechanics of the class.
Concealment
There is a magic item to deflect 1 ranged attack per round
Range
Melee combat
Disarming
Damage Reduction (kills single shot classes)
etc.
etc.
Truth is...having a god like wizard or a gunslinger or a sunder barbarian or any other crazy class comes down to the GM to be creative and use the game mechanics to help balance things. There should be no real reason to unbalance what has already been tested and balanced by the community and developers IMO.
I'd say an incorporeal monster, or one with hefty damage reduction would be one way to go.
No offence, but too many of the suggestion sound almost like gm vs pc sorta thing. Yes, I can toss archers and wizards against him, but depending on the adventure, they will be out of place and also screw over the rest of the team to get at one character.
Some ideas are very good tho. Goblin alchemists with fire attacks, smokesticks and such. Magic items aren't viable, seriously, how many goblins can I drop with Deflect Ranged magic item?
Bulettes. Lots of them. From below.
Make sure the bulettes also have leprosy.
He'll never know what hit him.
|
I would not say gm vs pc. I like the gunslinger and I allow them in my games as long as it’s fitting the story. Skull and Shackles is a perfect example of an AP fitting for gunslingers.
But from the viewpoint of the intelligent opposition if they see someone with guns they may or may not have tactics to deal with it; they are after all very powerful in their way.
A group of bandits may have come across them before and may have devised a plan which they believe (rightly or wrongly) to be a defense against the gun toting adventurer/guard.
Dwarves are likely to have devised some cunning armor which may assist in deflecting much of the impact. They did invent them afterall.
Elves may just devise hiding in the trees and shooting at them from range.
Gnomes may have devised an item which makes them better (more prone to blowing up)
Cities may indeed ban firearms in the city limits as a fire risk without certain permits which can be obtained from the city hall. “yes sir I know it is inside the city, no sir you can’t send someone in your stead, yes you can leave your fantastically expensive guns with us in this lightly guarded and poorly locked box while you get your permit, no we are not responsible for items stolen while in our care”
Have them prove they can look after their guns properly and they respect the flammable and explosive nature of them. Many cities were a firetrap and the wrong place at the wrong time would cause a devastating fire. (Great fire of London as an example)
It is not GM vs PC when you are playing an intelligent populace or group which have a very reasonable respect for the gun toting adventurer and can think up ways to defeat them. This is playing the monsters and villains as they should be played not persecuting the player for having an effective class.
A group having tactics against wizards is exactly the same; stay a good distance from each other, shoot when they start mumbling and waving their hands around; shoot the one wearing a dress first. These are reasonable precautions for a group that have in the past fought against wizards or any adventuring group and is not classed as GM vs PC.
Play the villains as clever as they are, if they know the party is coming then the player should not be surprised that they have plans to deal with each and every member of the renowned party. Make no mistake at this level they will be renowned.
Hope this helps; as always take everything tongue in cheek and feel free to ignore it.
Sic
Well, if the player doesn't like the idea of the losing the "target touch AC" mechanic, I think the house rule should be avoided. After all, noone makes Barbarians lose Rage when they pounce, break magic and kill the enemy all in the same round. Nor do we remove spell casting from wizards when they use SoD spells.
That said, I still mantain that it the touch AC mechanic makes no sense! It means any old pistol can make its (relatively) slow iron bullets pass through Adamantine like a lightsaber on butter.
Invisible Monks or the like might be picking on the character, but there are threats that are so common that no player can complain about GM persecution just because they came up. (unless, of course, they always focus on the character and seem to know her weakness)
- Spells and SLAs that target Will save. Unless you only use it on the gunslinger, this is a fairly common occurrence. In fact, Will is maybe the most important save and the one most commonly targeted by spell-casters (which are pretty common themselves).
- Flying enemies. these guys come up more and more often as the levels go up. Any character/party who is not prepared for this does not deserve keeping their hit points.
And pretty much every intelligent flying enemy will have...
- Long-ranged weapons/spells/SLAs. Another increasingly common threat. If you're not prepared to fight these, don't even bother with a retirement plan. Hell, at mid/high levels, there is a pretty good chance the Gunslinger will face enemies whose melee attacks have more reach than his weapons have range.
- Fire-based monsters. Fire is perhaps the most common type of elemental creatures, or maybe second most common, right after ice-based monsters. Again, if they don't come up every single encounter and don't focus on the gunslinger all the time, is a pretty fair challenge.
- Invisible creatures. Invisibility is a very common effect. Vanish is a 1st level spell! Preparing against it should be standard procedure.
- Grapple. Take 4 combat-focused creatures from the Bestiary, chances are, at least 1 of them has the Grab ability. Possibly combined with Swallow Whole.
- Incorporeal creatures: These are not as common as the others, but they are not exactly rare either. They tend to have good touch AC and can seriously hurt an unprepared character/party.
None of these things would bother me if my GM threw them against the party, unless of course, all of them were played/modified to focus on my weakness all the time.
All nice ideas, especially from Sic, thanks for that, I'll note them down.
I'll say it again. It's a scaled up to 10th Rise of the Runelords. Obviously I can't insert in elven archers, ghosts and invisible monks without utterly destroying any notion of keeping the adventure on track.
It's a bunch of varied enemies, most of which aren't incorporeal, monks, elves, or invisible.
this is no different from facing a well built archer. use mutiple enemies. use large creatures with reach. generally monsters attack things that hurt them the most. if your gunslinger is really doing that much damage, then they will key in on him. he can only kill so many at a time.
second take a page from napoleon book. use combined arms. oftem times some monsters that are weak on thier own, in a group become dangerous, because the party cant kill everyone at one time.
you don't need to reduce is damage or change the touch ac, which is kinda of cheesy and unfair to the player, your goal is not to nerf the player. it's to give him a sense of danger. you shoudlnt be focused on how can i create monsters that won't get hit by him, it's how will these monsters fight tactically that they will get to him. the rule books makes clear that even with a 3 int monsters can fight tactically.
All nice ideas, especially from Sic, thanks for that, I'll note them down.
I'll say it again. It's a scaled up to 10th Rise of the Runelords. Obviously I can't insert in elven archers, ghosts and invisible monks without utterly destroying any notion of keeping the adventure on track.It's a bunch of varied enemies, most of which aren't incorporeal, monks, elves, or invisible.
I mentioned invisible monks as a joke. Ans I don't play APs, so I don't know what kind of opposition is present in RotRL.
Really... Will saves and flying enemies are probably the easiest way.
And liseten to Ikarinokani, he/she(?) made really good points.
Bulettes. Lots of them. From below.
Make sure the bulettes also have leprosy.
He'll never know what hit him.
leprosy isn't contagious.
@OP
Consider that you don't have to use the many excellent suggestions all at once or even every time. Just enough to make him appreciate the times he gets to go balls to the wall.
So yeah the party faces a few fighters that are smarter than average and use alchemical items to good effect (thunderstoning the wizard, smokesticks on the gunslinger ranged attacks and the like).
Next time the gunslinger gets lucky and it's a bunch of stupid orcs that simply charge in. He deals lots of damage but takes some in turn and gets hurt some (like any other 'fighter' would).
Heck then there's a fight that just goes the party's way when the wizard webs them and he gets to shoot the crap out of the baddies.
A balanced and nuanced approach where sometimes he's hot and sometimes he's not is the best in my opinion.
Current scenario is weird cuz I suck at measuring CR and APL and such.
As it is, everyone got ambushed by six goblins with CR3, using the level 4 fighter npc from NPC Index as base. This isn't really aimed at the player, but the firearm by default, any gunslinger in this game could get +16 to hit easy.
Fact is that unless I send level 13 monks from NPC codex, he'll never miss. I know concealment, cover, invis works, because they work against most everyone using range, be it archer or wizard. I'm talking about the simple fact that anyone within 20/80ft can't be missed by an attack what so ever.
+17 atk, -2 Rapid Shot, -3 Deadly Aim = 1d20+12 vs Touch AC 15 = Roll for Misfire, not attack.
I really don't see a problem with the gunslinger. Between the range, misfire chances and that they are relatively squishy, they aren't overpowered. Guns are dangerous.
Challenge in roleplaying games needs to be thought of outside of combat encounters. The more value the GM gives to these other circumstances (social, puzzles, traps, etc), the more valuable other characters become, and the value of combat will fluctuate accordingly.
This character is the only gunslinger in the land. Fine. One thing people never seem to do, which I insist on if someone is going to play something unusual or "special," is how the NPC's react to someone or something they do that is abnormal. In this game a man with devices that can harm at a distance is very new and interesting. Wouldn't this be a target of thieves, evil lords, and others? They would covet this strange machinery. He would quickly build a reputation and encounters you faced may be created specifically to get these devices and harm the character. Maybe he wakes up and finds his weapon stolen and its recovery is a side quest. Don't be afraid to go off book.
Obviously you can go to far with this. And you don't want a player to feel persecuted, but my experience is when PC's want to be special, that's fine, but you have to take all the consequences of playing a character that way. You play a defiler on Darksun, you get cool magic power, but you'll be hunted. You play an Irda magic user on Krynn, fine. You will be hunted. You want to show up with a bunch of firearms that no one else has, fine. You will be hunted.
Why would people hunt Gusnlingers? Unless you're one of them, firearms are craptastic weapons. Even crossbows are better.
Why would people hunt Gusnlingers? Unless you're one of them, firearms are craptastic weapons. Even crossbows are better.
Well it obviously wouldn't be to the degree of a defiler on Darksun, for example. But I really think thieves and rich lords would very interested in a gun. They don't know it's crappy. They would fascinate people and that's something I would role-play if I were GM'ing - good and bad. I'd have villagers want him to showcase his ability, maybe the town sharpshooter with a bow wants to have a contest. I'd also have people try to steal them. I think that'd be fun.
But generally I agree with you. They are kind of crappy. The early guns were pretty crappy compared to crossbows and even hand to hand weapons. Flintlock pistols were almost useless if the person wasn't right in front of you. In PF The range isn't great, and others have noted, a crossbow won't become usless or explode if it's exposed to rain or heat. The DM is upset that it's easier to hit with a gun. It's true, but it also doesn't cost fighter or even really any non-firearm using ranged classes a bunch of money per shot to attack. That's the trade off.
In general, I'm against nerfing someone in the middle of the campaign unless they are horribly out-classing the rest of the party. Then I talk to the PC and we come to something equitable.
Current scenario is weird cuz I suck at measuring CR and APL and such.
As it is, everyone got ambushed by six goblins with CR3, using the level 4 fighter npc from NPC Index as base. This isn't really aimed at the player, but the firearm by default, any gunslinger in this game could get +16 to hit easy.Fact is that unless I send level 13 monks from NPC codex, he'll never miss. I know concealment, cover, invis works, because they work against most everyone using range, be it archer or wizard. I'm talking about the simple fact that anyone within 20/80ft can't be missed by an attack what so ever.
+17 atk, -2 Rapid Shot, -3 Deadly Aim = 1d20+12 vs Touch AC 15 = Roll for Misfire, not attack.
Remember, not every fight needs to be a life or death situation, if someone made a combat-focused character, chances are he wants to be awesome in combat!
At higher levels, a full-attack usually means a dead enemy anyway, this is not exclusive to Gunslingers. AC is not even the best defense by then. Miss chances, like Mirror Image, Blink or Displacement are usually more effective.
Use multiple average enemies, never 1 (or even a couple) powerful ones, action economy will slay them faster than any bullet the Gunslinger can shoot!
If the character only focus on offensive tools, chances are his defenses are not that good. There's no problem in playing a glass cannon, let them enjoy the "cannon" and you focus on the "glass" part of the equation.
As much as I despise PF's firearm rules, I really don't see any balance issue with the class.
You said it yourself, whatever work against ranged weapons, works against firearms. There is nothing wrong about reasonably exploring these weaknesses just as much as you'd do it against other ranged characters.
Even if firearms are rare in your setting, a 13th level character probably has some notoriety (compare it with Hercules, who was probably a 7th~9th level Barbarian), so some people might know a little about his abilities, and any half-brained enemy that survived/witnessed the Gunslinger in battle knows what to expect and should take precautions if the they plan to face the party someday. Just like they'd buy some items of fire resistance/immunity if they knew the party included a sorcerer focused on fire spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would people hunt Gusnlingers? Unless you're one of them, firearms are craptastic weapons. Even crossbows are better.Well it obviously wouldn't be to the degree of a defiler on Darksun, for example. But I really think thieves and rich lords would very interested in a gun. They don't know it's crappy. They would fascinate people and that's something I would role-play if I were GM'ing - good and bad. I'd have villagers want him to showcase his ability, maybe the town sharpshooter with a bow wants to have a contest. I'd also have people try to steal them. I think that'd be fun.
But generally I agree with you. They are kind of crappy. The early guns were pretty crappy compared to crossbows and even hand to hand weapons. Flintlock pistols were almost useless if the person wasn't right in front of you. In PF The range isn't great, and others have noted, a crossbow won't become usless or explode if it's exposed to rain or heat. The DM is upset that it's easier to hit with a gun. It's true, but it also doesn't cost fighter or even really any non-firearm using ranged classes a bunch of money per shot to attack. That's the trade off.
In general, I'm against nerfing someone in the middle of the campaign unless they are horribly out-classing the rest of the party. Then I talk to the PC and we come to something equitable.
I agree with pretty much everything you say in this post.
It's kinda funny, IRL, the only advantage of early firearms was how (relatively) easy to use they were, compared to bows and crossbows, who had much better range, precision and penetrating power (this sounds dirty, but I don't know the correct term... lol), but in PF, they don't have even that! They are exotic weapons!IMHO, one of the flaws of 3.X/Pathfinder is how bows are the only decent ranged weapons. Crossbows are terrible, and firearms are even worse (unless you're a Gunslinger, in which case firearms become quite useful!).
I agree, though crossbows with an alchemist who specializes in poisons can make them somewhat more effective with the Master Alchemist.
Really, unless you're talking about PFS, it's not too hard to balance a game as a GM without just changing the rules if you notice things out of sorts. A smartly placed magic item can make a player who is ineffective in combat much more threatening. You can increase the challenge rating, or add more of a monster. You can change the type of monsters they face. And you can always play with circumstances and the environment the PC's are in.
I agree, though crossbows with an alchemist who specializes in poisons can make them somewhat more effective with the Master Alchemist.
The disavantage is that now you're using crossbows and poison. Two of the most ineffective combat styles around.
Using poisoned weapons is cool. If only they had high DC and low cost instead of the complete opposite...