I've been reading a bunch of Richard Sharpe novels by Cromwell. If you're unaware, they're historical fiction set in the early 1800's about the British Army. The author goes into quite a bit of detail of musket firing and fighting.
A couple books ago, he wrote quite a bit about musket loading with cartridges. To summarize:
Poorly trained troops could fire twice in one minute = reloading takes 9 move actions.
British-trained troops could fire three times in one minute = reloading takes 5 move actions
Veteran British troops could fire four times in one minute = reloading takes 4 move actions.
Expert troops could fire five times in one minute = reloading takes 3 move actions.
I don't imagine that the British muskets fighting Napoleon would be less advanced than Early firearms of Pathfinder.
My point is that if I would rewrite the game mechanics of firearms, I would increase the reloading times to the above times and use the Gunslinger class and Rapid Reload feat to reduce the times. These changes effectively nerf high level Gunslingers with multiple attacks.
To offset, I would let Gunslingers be able to take multiple attacks using one bullet. Plus, I would add a Stunned condition with a Fort save DC of 10+damage AND 1 point of stacking Bleed damage to any successful bullet hit. This would simulate stopping power and the horror against troops who can't stop their bleeding wound.
cheers
Instead of questioning the reload times just recite the mantra "it's magic".
Instead of questioning the reload times just recite the mantra "it's magic".
Yes. And the Gunslinger is non-magical. If it was the Arcane Gunslinger or if you magicked the firearms or muskets, I would agree. It of course is only a game.
The reloading times are what they are for parity and game balance more than attempting to simulate real life muskets. Reading about historical muskets, I just think the game designers could have done better. FWIW IMHO
cheers
Instead of questioning the reload times just recite the mantra "it's magic".Yes. And the Gunslinger is non-magical. If it was the Arcane Gunslinger or if you magicked the firearms or muskets, I would agree. It of course is only a game.
The reloading times are what they are for parity and game balance more than attempting to simulate real life muskets. Reading about historical muskets, I just think the game designers could have done better. FWIW IMHO
cheers
True enough about the reloading times but remember a bullet from a musket can kill anything with one shot in real life, even with criticals try killing a 10th level character with one shot, as you said parity and balance.
Remember the game also allows for a house cat to kill a commoner in three rounds or less, with out criticals.
True enough about the reloading times but remember a bullet from a musket can kill anything with one shot in real life, even with criticals try killing a 10th level character with one shot, as you said parity and balance.
Remember the game also allows for a house cat to kill a commoner in three rounds or less, with out criticals.
I disagree. As Cromwell's books illustrate, most musket wounds are not mortal. They get blown off their horse or crumple out of the line. And eventually bleed to death if they don't get medical attention. There are some who get killed instantly (by criticals), but most soldiers are low-level characters.
Which is why I would add the Stunned and Bleed effects. Plus, even at high levels, the Stunned effect would be a severe debuff.
Reload times for are crossbow, especially heavy crossbows, IRL resemble that of a musket. The advancement of the reload time from their IRL counterpart is to make them viable in a world full of magic and magic users. It also speeds up the game a good bit more, because tracking long, drawn out reloads cause a lag in the action that is undesirable by the GM and players alike. In truth, it would be rare for some IRL person to be beyond level 7 at most.
That said, I would agree that most firearms, especially early ones, death came from bleed out and shock as opposed to pure damage, with the exception of siege weapons, firearm or otherwise. But an arrow, blade, spear and really and piercing or slashing weapon has an IRL bleed effect to wounds. Bludgeoning, to a much lesser extent, could cause internal bleeding. If you wanted realism, try a different system, because to add it to one weapon, would require that you add it to most weapons.
Good point about crossbows. However, crossbows have always been sub-optimal. Generally, characters use them when they must. They don't have whole character classes built around them.
Crossbows have also never bothered me like firearms, because they are not ranged touch nor x4 critical. Plus, I could imagine myself pulling back a light crossbow in 3 seconds or cranking a heavy crossbow into place in 6 seconds. Those are long times in combat. It's not like you had to prime the pan or anything other than fit the bolt.
I hate firearms in Pathfinder. H. A. T. E. If I was DM'ing I would ban them from the campaign.
However- If you are going to include them they need to be useful. They need to be at the very least mechanically viable.
An absolutely well trained guy needing what- 2 move actions to reload?
It would force him to fire (assuming loaded before combat) then spend a move action that round and the next to load. Then fire at the end of round 2. Then the next full round to fire again.
People gripe that Vital Strike is ineffective because of the low damage dice and you want to limit the character to two attacks every 3 rounds while being forced to plant in one spot for the entire time?
I get the realism angle. I do. Honestly. But if you are going to go this route just say 'Guys, sorry, guys don't work out well in this rule set. I've decided to remove them." 1/1/0 is effectively relegating them to first-round wonders anyway and stunned condition with a 1hp/bleed isn't going to change that.
Just my .02.
-S
Crossbow does not have a class built around it, but it does have it's very own archetype built specifically for it. x4 crit only coveys that it has greater killing capacity, clearly, over similar weapons. An arrow, bolt, or sling bullet is clearly capable of killing with a single strike, but a firearm bullet deals massive damage compared to the others. If you allow it or not is a decision every GM must make for themselves. Check out Spike's Deadliest Warrior episodes Musketeer vs. Ming Warrior, Pirate vs. Knight and Vlad the Impaler vs. Sun Tzu. All contain the a variation of firearm, and 2 contain crossbows.
@Selgard
I understand your argument. I would say that the action debit in the low levels balances with the firepower. After all, spell-casters only get a few spells per day. And it can be compensated by carrying multiple loaded guns. And, at higher levels the action debit argument is moot with magic. A "Reloading" and "Multiple target" magical enhancements can easily compensate/return the game mechanics to the current high level versions.
@Craig
Crossbows have always been around since the dawn of DnD. After playing for thirty years, I've accepted them as is. As I began this thread, firearms are relatively new to DnD. FWIW IMHO if I were to redesign the game mechanics, I would have done them differently. Especially, because an entire character class is based on using them.
cheers
|
I agree with quite a few of the posters here--if you want to have this level of realism, you really should be playing a different system. I've only played it a couple times, but Twilight 2000 (or its other versions i.e. Twilight 2013) do firearms really well, because it was designed almost entirely for that reason. Yes it mostly focuses on modern guns, but I'm told it does have rules for older ones (possibly in other books than the core book). You could also very easily make a mix of the two systems if you want, and I'm sure there would be a good amount of people that would play that game.
Your alternate rules are much more realistic to be sure (with the exception of the multiple attacks with one bullet, which would be difficult to pull off accurately and on purpose), but it's very difficult game mechanics wise to balance, especially because you're only adding this realism to firearms and not the other weapons in the game. In reality, most weapons have a high potential to cause bleeding, eventually lethal wounds with only a single hit, especially if the wielder has good aim. They also have the potential to completely hack off/crush/otherwise debilitate limbs that Pathfinder (and most game systems) don't touch because it's simply too complicated. In today's world, the effects of firearms are just much better known than the effects of mideval weapons, except for people who specifically study those weapons as a hobby or a job.
As it is, I see players taking their choice of three routes with these firearm rules:
1: F*** guns completely, it's too complicated and I don't want to deal with it (this is how most players I run for would react)
2: Start every combat with a firearm shot, drop the gun and run in with your melee weapon (or a "traditional" ranged weapon) while they're stunned from the shot. Multiclass into rogue, so that after most successful shots you'll be able to sneak attack. After every combat, pick it up and reload. If possible, always start every combat with a loaded gun.
3: Take quick-draw and carry a ridiculous amount of loaded guns on you (likely pistols, as I assume they would work roughly the same way?), preferably in a Handy Haversack so you don't risk any or all of them going off by accident. Never stop to reload during combat, only after.
Like any home-brew system, discuss the official and alternate rules with your players before implementing them, and let them decide if they want to run it that way. Some, especially war history buffs, will probably be perfectly happy with the change, but others could get pissed at you for trying to put too much complexity and realism into their fantasy.
Re: Selgard I agree. I did not add guns after a unanimous vote against them. The closest thing we have are "canons" on ships that are powered by "magic".
I'd rather keep the load times low, because otherwise, nobody will ever use one. I've never seen anybody use a freakin' heavy crossbow. If you take it up to anything realistic, you might as well not include them at all.
It seems that much of the comments are now against firearms and realism of the game system in general. Something like all Pathfinder weapons are unrealistic anyway, so why change firearms. Or the firearm game mechanics are all bad and throw them all out. Those are are all perfectly valid arguments.
I just think we could do better with the firearm rules to be more realistic. As for Dazz's tactics 3 and 4, that's usually what was done in any historical fiction that I've seen or read with muskets, like pirate movies, three musketeers, or last of the mohicans. I'm ok with those tactics.
My suggestion about multiple attacks with one bullet would simulate the gunslingers ability to do severe damage with one shot, which is what bullets can do.
As to Zhayne's comments about no one using heavy crossbows... I've seen them used, for one shot. No one invests in more for the reason that they only give d10 damage for the horrible reloading time. Firearms have a touch attack and X4 critical, which makes a significant difference.
Thanks for the conversation.
Cheers
Your original design just negates firearms completely. Sure at higher levels they may be ok but who's going to stick around for it?
No one.
They are too expensive to keep tons of guns on your shoulder loaded and ready to go (not to mention heavy).
You can do realistic musket combat. Absolutely. But in doing so you also remove muskets as a realistic combat option for Pathfinder- unless you also make the damage equally realistic. i.e. one shot one kill being a real possibility at all levels.
So sure 1/1/0 shots with each one forcing a dc 10+(1/2GS level)+Dex mod or die would work. It would also break it.
Realism isn't always a good thing.
Muskets sucked because of their reload times. They kept using them because they were effective.
Pathfinder removes the reload times and alters the output to make them effective. If you are going to make one realistic, then change the other to be realistic too.
-S
What was done 'historically' really isn't much of an argument to me, because we aren't talking about history. It's a completely different world, with a different history. Plus, we have blacksmiths who can use magic to improve their crafting, and just outright talk to the gods and get advice on how to make stuff better.
There's no reason based on 'history' that their weaponry would be as poor as ours.
I'm also in the camp where there I'm okay with verisimilitude as long as it remains fun. The rules suggested in the first post just aren't fun enough to justify the realism. Sure, you front load more power with stunning and bleed, but then I spend the next 2+ rounds reloading. Or, just drop my gun and switch to a different weapon. As cool as stunning and bleed are, I'd pick a bow and arrow over your firearms any day of the week. Bleed isn't that great to begin with, as your allies will probably kill that victim before bleed does anything significant. And the stacking of the bleed is not only breaking the rules of normal bleed damage (and thus adding the burden of knowledge for yet another exception to a rule), but pointless if you can only fire once or twice per combat. Casters at least have options when casting spells, like school abilities or cantrips. And the stunning would become super broken, especially at later levels when you can simply combine it with Vital Strike to make the stunning DC nearly unpassable. It's too much front loaded power with too much cooldown period and a worthless bleed effect. Not balanced at all.
As for carrying multiple weapons, how are they going to afford multiple firearms at level one? I guess they can stock up on fire lances, but at that point a player would be better off simply playing an archer instead of a dedicated gunslinger. I may not be the biggest fan of the firearm rules, but I prefer them over to this hands down.
I have a matchlock black powder musket that I use for battle re-enactment :)
There is no way that I would try to carry a number of loaded muskets in Real Life - powder will leak out. Unless you are using percussion caps, the first place it will leak from is the firing pan. You would most likely find yourself with a whole bunch of loaded musket that wouldn't fire without re-priming (and probably pricking out as well)
The risk of one exploding would also be higher - all those loaded weapons just hanging around. Ugh. In RL you load black powder as you want it.
In RL - they are used in Volleys - often under the command of an officer who will instruct one rank to fire, they then retire to the rear and reload, while the other ranks fire.
Fire and try to reload, in RL, and you will probably be subject to a charge attack from someone with a melee weapon. You best bet then is either of use a bayonet (if you have one) or to use the musket as a club!
They would be no fun at all (in PF) if they were realistic :) For that reason, I don't allow them in the games I run :)
For more on the stunning effect, let us say I'm a level 7 gunslinger and I decide to take Vital Strike. I've got a musket, which does 1d12 damage. Assuming I have Deadly Aim (standard feat for ranged characters), and a +1 weapon, you are looking at an average of 18 damage from the gun, and a DC 28 for the stun. Against a level appropriate creature with Fort as their Good Save (+10), they are looking at an 18+ to pass the save. Everyone else is going to have to make a 20 to save against that. Against an Epic level encounter, you're looking at a +13 Fort Good Save, giving them a 15+ to save. That's best case scenario.
This isn't even looking at Dead Shot, which has a much better chance of adding more damage, or magical weapon abilities like flaming.
Anyone mention the fact that most Musket wounds would cause lead poisoning and most likely would cause infections do to the fact that the wound wouldn't close easily?
At that point, we are slowing down combat. The steps for firing a musket would be:
1. Roll attack.
2. Roll damage.
3. Add the damage total for the DC.
4. Have target make Fort Save for Stun
5. Have target make Fort Save for Lead Poisoning.
6. Repeat for multiple attacks... with the same bullet apparently? Which seems to undermine the whole "Make things realistic" thing being attempted...
I feel adding two or more saves for something meant for multiple attacks would slow that player's turn to a crawl. Which I guess is okay, since they'll be spending the rest of combat reloading.
You guys do realize a Musket Master is the only one who can get a Full Attack on a Musket right?
That is because they are the only ones that can reduce it to a free action reload.
You guys do realize a Musket Master is the only one who can get a Full Attack on a Musket right?
That is because they are the only ones that can reduce it to a free action reload.
I was assuming with the OP's rules, there'd be some way to hit multiple people with the same bullet. *shrug*
Still, using Vital Strike to up the Stun DC is very viable.
I'm not going to hide this. When Pathfinder tries to shove modern realism down my throat, I will refer them to this disaster. Any game can be ruined by realism.
Wow. Good discussion.
EDIT Honestly, I thought a +2 enhancement called "reloading" would allow higher level gunslingers to avoid carrying multiple guns. And could be priced for when Pathfinder crosses into high level play... when spell-casters can add maximize, dazing, or quicken effects to their spells.
A +1 enhancement of "Ricochet" could allow firearms to allow multiple targeting when the gunslinger has multiple attacks for the machine gun effect.
For me, my rule suggestions just start firearms out more "realistic" and different than other ranged weapons. FWIW
thanks
Wow. Good discussion.
thanks
Sorry, if I sound snarky, it's because I've been in enough games where verisimilitude has sucked the fun out of playing a character. I was playing a gunslinger that had a GM like yourself impart a rule where it cost me two full rounds to reload my musket. By the time I had finished reloading, combat was usually over, either in favor of us or the enemy. Ended up spending most of my time in combat stabbing things with a bayonet. Wasn't very fun at all.
Wasn't just firearms though. Had a GM once impart initiative penalties for heavier weapons, like greatclubs and greatswords, and had them cost a full-round to use them for one attack. Or how lightning weapons shock the user when activated, because metal weapons are a conductor, and fire weapons did heat damage to the user since its fire is so close to the player. Same GM actually, now that I think about it. No one really plays games he runs anymore.
Point is, there's nothing wrong with trying to keep some form of realistic verisimilitude. Hell, I think the "it's a magic world with dragons!" argument is lazy and moronic, because by that token, my fighter can simply punch gravity to fly while giving physics the middle finger because MAGIC AND DRAGONS HURR! But we don't do that because even with magic, there are still some things that need to be grounded in some form of realism, while some things can be brushed aside since they add little to the game. Gravity we clearly can't ignore, but the Square-Cubes Law can go right out the window because, admittedly, giants would probably collapse under the weight of their muscles. Or possibly cook themselves to death. Breathing in space is still impossible, but you can take damage from lava and still survive to keep on fighting. It's all in picking and choosing your battles in the fight for verisimilitude and really, the fight for fun.