| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Well I looked at older threads and quite frankly I found the attitude towards people that DARE point out the flaws of guns are trolls (Despite reasonable discussion) as rather toxic. Problems should be pointed out. Thats the only way they will be fixed.
Yes I know in real life guns overran the world pretty quickly and replaced bows and every other kind of weapon ever.
But my issue is that IG that doesn't matter (LOTS of RL stuff is dismissed RIGHTLY for fun) as they unbalance the game pretty strongly.
The guns are balanced (Barely and poorly) in the most unfun way possible. They are either amazing and kick-major buttage, or suddenly fail and your screwed.
And its not like RL early guns misfired that often. It was something that happened when it was poorly loaded. It wasn't something that was inevitable.
My issue is that I would be FINE with guns that targeted touch AC. Makes sense. Bullets go at fast velocity and pierce real hard. But my issue is that there is no disadvantage to guns (Except for the again unfun Misfire rules).
Its not like enemies with high Touch AC are "A super weakspot" all that makes the gun become is like a standard weapon. Its not a "Disadvantage" as much as its just making it as hard as it ALWAYS is for the Bow.
My idea would be that guns are inaccurate (And early guns where inaccurate). They innately are more hard to aim and stuff. So when they DON'T target touch AC (Or the enemy is dodgy) its a BIG achilies heel.
Or make guns more damaging BUT inaccurate. As to differeciate them from standard weapons.
I really don't like the gunslinger class. Its the first class to simply be "Like other classes but im just MUCH better".
All its class features are about stripping away the only basic balancing factors of the game, or are simply better then those of other classes.
Its also not very interesting as it plays like any other ranged class. Lots of attacks.
The gunslinger could be a RADICAL departure that focused on being WILD and crazy. Where your REALY inaccurate and had few attacks that would hit. But when you did it would do ALLOT of damage.
I just want to see where the idea of making guns so powerful comes from.
Guns are inaccurate. They have insanely short range increments, at least until you get up into the Advanced Firearms, and they only resolve against touch AC in the first range increment.
Well I looked at older threads and quite frankly I found the attitude towards people that DARE point out the flaws of guns are trolls (Despite reasonable discussion) as rather toxic. Problems should be pointed out. Thats the only way they will be fixed.
Yes I know in real life guns overran the world pretty quickly and replaced bows and every other kind of weapon ever.
But my issue is that IG that doesn't matter (LOTS of RL stuff is dismissed RIGHTLY for fun) as they unbalance the game pretty strongly.
The guns are balanced (Barely and poorly) in the most unfun way possible. They are either amazing and kick-major buttage, or suddenly fail and your screwed.
And its not like RL early guns misfired that often. It was something that happened when it was poorly loaded. It wasn't something that was inevitable.
My issue is that I would be FINE with guns that targeted touch AC. Makes sense. Bullets go at fast velocity and pierce real hard. But my issue is that there is no disadvantage to guns (Except for the again unfun Misfire rules).
Its not like enemies with high Touch AC are "A super weakspot" all that makes the gun become is like a standard weapon. Its not a "Disadvantage" as much as its just making it as hard as it ALWAYS is for the Bow.
My idea would be that guns are inaccurate (And early guns where inaccurate). They innately are more hard to aim and stuff. So when they DON'T target touch AC (Or the enemy is dodgy) its a BIG achilies heel.
Or make guns more damaging BUT inaccurate. As to differeciate them from standard weapons.
I really don't like the gunslinger class. Its the first class to simply be "Like other classes but im just MUCH better".
All its class features are about stripping away the only basic balancing factors of the game, or are simply better then those of other classes.
Its also not very interesting as it plays like any other ranged class. Lots of attacks.
The gunslinger could be a RADICAL departure that focused on being WILD and crazy. Where your REALY...
Ignoring advanced firearms:
Have you looked at they range increments? They are inaccurate.
But they piercing armor (touch AC) withinm first range increment. And they are loaded really slow.
And they hard to learn to use (unlike real firearms which are simple proficiency like crossbows) so exotic proficiency.
People make guns powerful because we still use them in real life. Plain in simple.
And they're crazy expensive and take for-freaking-ever to reload ...
You can use Deadly Aim with firearms. They make a special exemption for them. Ultimate Combat pg. 136
|
Another thing to note is that the deadly shot feat (power attack for ranged) cannot be used with ranged touch attacks.
So if your gun is making touch attacks you can't use one of the larger static boosters for ranged damage.
Edit: Deadly Aim sorry
** spoiler omitted **
So at level 20 you're losing out 12 damage/shot for making those touch attacks. You might still come out in the win but I still count 12 damage off as a pretty big chunk off.
please read the rules before you say stuff like this
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim.
The issue with guns is that they're pretty good for Gunslingers and basically crossbows with a misfire chance for everyone else. They do very little damage without the Dex to damage ability, no matter how many attacks you might be able to finagle out of them.
Otherwise there wouldn't be any problem with them if more monsters had decent Touch ACs at higher levels.
Basically all of the problems (which I still consider pretty minor overall) stem from the game not being balanced with Touch Attacks in mind as being a common attack form.
Another thing to note is that the deadly shot feat (power attack for ranged) cannot be used with ranged touch attacks.
So if your gun is making touch attacks you can't use one of the larger static boosters for ranged damage.
So at level 20 you're losing out 12 damage/shot for making those touch attacks. You might still come out in the win but I still count 12 damage off as a pretty big chunk off.
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target’s touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.
Advanced Firearms: Advanced firearms resolve their attacks against touch AC when the target is within the first five range increments, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full-range increment. Advanced firearms have a maximum range of 10 range increments.
|
Another thing to note is that the deadly shot feat (power attack for ranged) cannot be used with ranged touch attacks.
So if your gun is making touch attacks you can't use one of the larger static boosters for ranged damage.
Edit: Deadly Aim sorry
** spoiler omitted **
So at level 20 you're losing out 12 damage/shot for making those touch attacks. You might still come out in the win but I still count 12 damage off as a pretty big chunk off.
Early Firearms: When firing an early firearm, the attack resolves against the target's touch AC when the target is within the first range increment of the weapon, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats and abilities such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full range increment. Unlike other projectile weapons, early firearms have a maximum range of five range increments.Advanced Firearms: Advanced firearms resolve their attacks against touch AC when the target is within the first five range increments, but this type of attack is not considered a touch attack for the purposes of feats such as Deadly Aim. At higher range increments, the attack resolves normally, including taking the normal cumulative –2 penalty for each full-range increment. Advanced firearms have a maximum range of 10 range increments.
Using touch AC is not the same as making a touch attack.
Edit: added the same quote for early firearms.
Guns really aren't better than other ranged options. A gunslinger probably won't be able to get nearly the damage an Archery Fighter can, and the fact they only hit touch AC at first range increment means that they're much more vulnerable to being locked down by melee than other ranged classes.
However guns have their place in some instances. I had a player whose rogue used a hidden coat-pistol to get sneak-attacks on well armored fighters before the fights began. It was cool, effective, and flavorful for the rogue. And it basically was just a one-off weapon. Between reloading it, and not being able to get a surprise shot off a second time, it essentially became something that probably wasn't even worth the rogue talent spent to get it, but allowed for, every once in a while, a cool moment that let the rogue shine.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guns did not quickly over run other weapons historically. They came onto the scene in what, the 1300's? Guns didn't really overtake a skilled bow user until the 1800's. There were still cavalry charges with melee weapons that won battles right up until the start of the 1900's. Guns for hundreds of years were basically the next evolution of crossbow: Reasonably powerful, cheap to make and maintain, took very little time to learn to use decently. In return for being very inaccurate, shorter effective range than longbows and composite bows, having a DREADFUL rate of fire, and having unique problems like failing to work if the gunpowder got damp.
That is not "quickly."
The fact that they took so long to become the best weapon makes it all the more infuriating how easily they obsolete other weapons in a FANTASY game...
Guns are completely broken, both in their advantages and their disadvantages, which mostly boil down to random bad luck and DM fiat (horrible ways to balance something). They let you full attack touch attack (broken on its own in most cases) *and* unlike any other touch attack, combine w/ Deadly Aim. Gunslingers also get dex to damage with them, making them dex-only dependent unlike an archer.
Most of the bs drawbacks are countered by bs advantages.
Too expensive to start w/ a gun? Well, gunslingers get one with the "downside" that if anyone should steal it, they can't shoot the gunslinger with it. Aww, darn.
Broke due to misfire? No problem, here's some low level spells to easily bypass the issue!
Bullets are more expensive to balance their power! ...But you can craft them for 1/5 the cost instead of 1/3...
Guns can't be full attacked with! Unless your DM allows advanced firearms (balance by DM fiat, that's what I buy rulebooks for!) and/or alchemical cartridges.
Misfire sucks...unless you shoot scatter shot or get some enhancement to reduce/ignore it.
Why can't guns introduced into fantasy actually fit with the overall time period assumed (late medieval to early Renaissance, judging by the weapons and armor available) and be balanced w/ other weapons? Oh, right. The whole point of having guns is because they're *supposed* to be better than every other weapon. *eyeroll*
Well the reload times are so easily bypassed its just not funny to be honest:
Alchemical cartridge+ Rapid reload gets rid of 90% of the reload time issue, and if its a Musket, then musket master gets rid of its issue too.
You may have a point on range. Thats something that I might modify to work for my purposes. Maybe DOUBLE the distance penalty, and ban the Gunslinger.
But I dislike the Gunslinger in general. Its a bad class.
Anyway thanks for bringing up the fact that guns have poor range. Now I have something to work off of. Mainly that the issue is not of guns but of the Gunslinger.
Problem solved.
|
|
Yes I know in real life guns overran the world pretty quickly and replaced bows and every other kind of weapon ever.
The fist guns were produced in the XIV century. The first reported use of a cannon in Europe is at Algeciras in 1344.
Date of the Battle of Agincourt: 25 October 1415The longbow was in use till the XVI century and it was dismissed mostly because of the high level of training required to sue it, against the low level of training needed to sue a gun.
In 1776 Benjamin Franklin suggested the sue of the longbow agaisnt English troops. To cite the Straight Dope:
"[An archer] can discharge four arrows in the time of charging and discharging one bullet." True. A skilled English archer could loose 15 shots a minute, with ten the minimum acceptable rate. A newly-recruited musketeer, in contrast, would be lucky to get off two shots per minute, while the best a veteran could manage was five. The key phrase here, as we’ll see below, is “skilled English archer.”
The problem is, as they say, the "skilled" part. Early firearms weren't better than longbows, they were simpler to use and didn't required constant training and physical conditioning.
Only with Alchemical Cartridges can reload times be reduced to non-existant. If you disallow alchemical cartridges, I think you'll find guns to be balanced and fun. Without Alchemical Cartridges, you can reload only as a move action.
As pointed out, except in the hands of a gunslinger, guns are a very average weapon. No way to get a stat bonus to damage without being a gunslinger, makes them much weaker than the bow beyond low-midlevel.
Gunslinger as a class isn't bad either, not sure why you say that. I certainly dont think it's "just better" than any other class. You could make a gun wielder just fine with a fighter instead if you wanted. Weapon Training and Weapon Specialization (firearm of choice) could easily replace Gun Training (dex to damage). You could grab .the Amateur Gunslinger feat and get a small grit pool and the basic deeds. At mid-high level the extra feats from fighter might even end up outclassing the gunslinger in the long run.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with firearm mechanics is that "target touch AC" makes no sense.
To this day we use "armor" to protect us from bullets! And I'm pretty sure they're more effective than going all Matrix to avoid them.
But in PF, a mundane iron bullet can pierce adamantine armor as easily as a hot knife goes through butter.
I don't particularly care about "realism" in a fantasy game, but guns completely bypassing armor is not very fantastic either, it's just nonsensical bs.
Yes but armor in pathfinder isn't made out of Kevlar now is it? Steel armor would be useless against a direct shot of a firearm.
if you want "armor" against bullets, look at the amulet of bullet deflection, or the ring of protection. That's exactly what they are, a new wave of armor for a new wave of weapons. You just have to get into the right mindset to really love guns.
I used to be a critic. I used to sort of dislike the firearm rules, not I really like them. Give them a chance and you might be pleasantly surprised. It's not nonsensical, it works very well.
Try to think of guns as exactly what they are: an emerging new weapon understood by few, but with great potential. A weapon which traditional defenses are nigh-useless against, a technology that is sparking an arms-race to find a better sort of armor, and then make a better sort of gun. I love firearms because it introduces something to pathfinder that I didn't know was missing: a real sense of technology, and progress.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BS. Steel armor worked to some effect against period firearms, that's why when the conquistadors landed in the new world, they were still decked the hell out in it.
Not to mention that by RAW, bullets pierce force armor like mage armor, too.
And further, why only firearms get to skirt the "no touch attacks with deadly aim / power attack" thing.
The whole thing is complete bs.
I gave them a chance and I was pleasantly annoyed that my PC plowed through enemies like butter.
You pointing out how well the fighter works with guns just makes me wan't to ban them altogether.
Firearms skirt that because it's a weapon; the devs didn't want spellcasters Deadly Aiming their Scorching Rays, and because firearms only do that in the first range increment. I would have just said 'you can't use this with spells', but whatever.
So why can't you deadly aim with splash weapons or bombs?
So why can't you deadly aim with splash weapons or bombs?
Aiming bombs or splash weapons in a deadly way would be silly? but apparently firing off 16 bullets in six seconds all against touch AC with deadly aim is not. I don't see why it doesn't at least have an equivalent.
I can't really see a reason you couldn't, provided you're targeting a creature directly rather than just aiming for a grid intersection.
But, really, if you're looking for internal consistency, you're pretty much SOL. Most game systems don't have a lot of that.
Guns might work better with 'Armor as DR', in retrospect, or a houserule that force-effects do count against bullets.
If you throw and shatter a glass vial of acid in someone's face vs. their chest, I'm pretty sure it's going to hurt more.
And yes, I realize you were being sarcastic. :)
So why can't you deadly aim with splash weapons or bombs?
Maybe because you can't 'aim' an explosion to directly pierce someone's lung?
As to why you can't apply it to rays, honestly I can't offer a logical argument for it, other than the designers felt it could be unbalancing to grant that increased power to a class that already had so much DPS capability at its disposal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes but armor in pathfinder isn't made out of Kevlar now is it? Steel armor would be useless against a direct shot of a firearm.
I'm not sure that's the case... But even if it is, that's not my point.
In PF, a primitive firearm with iron bullets can completely ignore the carapace of an adamantine golem.
Can't you see how bizarre that is? You shouldn't need magic to make adamantine strong enough to not be completely ignored by iron bullets.
Also, I think crossbows had more piercing power than most early firearms, and yet, they do not get to bypass armor.
I actually like Gunslingers, I just hate PF mechanics for firearms.
As to why you can't apply it to rays, honestly I can't offer a logical argument for it, other than the designers felt it could be unbalancing to grant that increased power to a class that already had so much DPS capability at its disposal.
I know right? I mean that one ray with deadly aim could do like... 4 more damage. Meanwhile the that gunslinger dual wielding double barrel pistols on weapon strings...
I think the DR 20/epic and adamantine covers the whole golem issue.
I think the DR 20/epic and adamantine covers the whole golem issue.
Unless the Gunslinger has Clustered Shots. :D
Still, The golem was just an example.
Meanwhile the that gunslinger dual wielding double barrel pistols on weapon strings...
As long as we're b~+$#ing about unreasonable things in Pathfinder, can I complain about weapon cords? The idea of having a weapon dangling from your wrist, not causing any issues at all to whatever it is that someone's supposed to be doing with that now "free" hand and then being able flip it back into your hand like some sort of deadly paddle ball as a free action is insane. I wouldn't mind them if all they were good for is keeping your weapon from falling off a ledge or being knocked 15' away from you but the ways they get abused as a matter of course drives me nuts.
And back on topic, bows and crossbows are a hell of a lot more capable of penetrating heavy steel armour than any primitive ball ammo firearm. Although, to be somewhat fair to the designers, at the range where firearms get to be touch attacks, shot will penetrate steel almost as well as a bodkin.
I wish people would stop using the nonsensical argument that bullets penetrate armor. They don't do that at all. But your adamantine won't stop the force of that bullet hitting your chest. Check out what happens when somebody is shot with a bulletproof vest on. If that isn't hitpoint damage, I don't know what is.
I like gunslingers. Movie like. Not juggling weapons hanging on cords from their wrists cause they can't reload.
Use rule zero and you'll enjoy a game with stylish gunslingers. Porcupine gunslingers after they met some longbow pros, of course.
I wish people would stop using the nonsensical argument that bullets penetrate armor. They don't do that at all. But your adamantine won't stop the force of that bullet hitting your chest. Check out what happens when somebody is shot with a bulletproof vest on. If that isn't hitpoint damage, I don't know what is.
Now, show me a YouTube video of someone getting shot in the chest while wearing an adamantine breastplate.
They would probably be lead bullets, not iron:)
Ah, that's true. My bad.
Anyway, since bypassing armor is a property of firearms, not its ammo, they could use rubber bullets and still ignore armor... -.-'
Condescending strawman logic
Please don't do this.
I wish people would stop using the nonsensical argument that bullets penetrate armor. They don't do that at all. But your adamantine won't stop the force of that bullet hitting your chest. Check out what happens when somebody is shot with a bulletproof vest on. If that isn't hitpoint damage, I don't know what is.
Yeah, you know what? A lot of things could penetrate full plate or deliver such heavy impact that it would still wreck the person inside the armor. Yet bodkin arrows, crossbow bolts, halberds (which were basically designed to can-open a fallen knight's armor), and a vast assortment of heavy bludgeoning weapons don't seem to have this armor-ignoring property. Only the guns.
Because gunslingers cast oh so many spells, am i right or am I right?
Being low level spells means they are cheap potions/oils and wands. On top of being not a big deal for any spellcaster PCs to support you with.
DM Fiat isn't the horrible thing so many people make it out to be. IMO, if you don't trust your DM perhaps you should consider finding a new DM.
It's not about trusting my DM. It's about expecting a balanced set of rules rather than leaving it entirely upon the DM to decide if guns should obsolete other weapons or not. They don't even give guidance on how badly each different "tech level" will bone other weapons to help the DM choose the level he wants, it's presented purely in terms of fluff about how "advanced" society is.
So ya, the martial character has options? Yup, that's broken. Can't have that.
Magic makes stuff better? No! Say it ain't so!
It's easy fixes to the drawbacks that were supposed to balance the weapons.
There were still cavalry charges with melee weapons that won battles right up until the start of the 1900's.I believe the last successful cavalry charge was actually in WWII, 1942 to be exact, though those charges were defensive charges. As for offensive charges you would be correct, 1917, the Charge of the Light Brigade.
t
I have to correct you - the Charge of the Light Brigade was during the Crimean war in the 1850's during the battle of Balaclava. It was a mess and a mistake, read Tennyson's poem.
The Charge of the Austalian Light Horse was during WWI at Beersheba, the Australian Light Horse technically weren't cavalry, they were mounted infantry, they fooled the Turks by charging instead of dismounting, they didn't have swords only bayonets. They charged into field guns and machine guns and unlike the Light Brigade they were successful.
I hate, hate hate hate, that some douche with a primitive pistol and a soft lead bullet can shoot right through my +5 impervious adamantine full plate that is probably stronger than the armor of a main battle tank.
(At least, it's got two or three times the hardness and hitpoints of a M1 Abrams in d20 Modern ;) )
Not only is it verisimilitude-shattering enough to raise my hackles even in a game with elves and dragons, touch attacks for a full BAB class is a poor mechanic even when divorced from the poor flavor.
Guns did not quickly over run other weapons historically. They came onto the scene in what, the 1300's? Guns didn't really overtake a skilled bow user until the 1800's. There were still cavalry charges with melee weapons that won battles right up until the start of the 1900's. Guns for hundreds of years were basically the next evolution of crossbow: Reasonably powerful, cheap to make and maintain, took very little time to learn to use decently. In return for being very inaccurate, shorter effective range than longbows and composite bows, having a DREADFUL rate of fire, and having unique problems like failing to work if the gunpowder got damp.
That is not "quickly."
.
This is not exactly accurate. While I am not sure I would call 200 years quick firearm based model armies are the top of the food chain by the 1500s. That is 200 years after cannons enter Europe but really only about 100 years after the first man portable firearms. By the 1600 s no major European military is depending on bows or crossbows. Sure cavalry still is in major use into the 1800s but by the mid 19 th at the latest cavalry is utulizing pistols as a primary weapon. Citing a few exceptions from wwI or after really doesn't change the facts that swords and bows are finished. No advanced army is relying on the, any more.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually yes they did. the original arquebuses were prone to misfire and even explosions. The present rules aren't that harsh, your first one is a misfire, your second one is an explosion only if you haven't done what you should do as a gunman and cleared up the misfire. overall it's pretty faire given that D20 only allows a certain amount of granularity while keeping the system uncomplicated.
And its not like RL early guns misfired that often. It was something that happened when it was poorly loaded. It wasn't something that was inevitable.
Yeah, I'd rather keep guns playable than realistic.
In game where a guy can walk away in one piece from falling 200 ft. without any magic involved, raising "that's not realistic" arguments is always funneh.
Agreed. I don't much care about realism in a game where I can wrestle a gargantuan flying lizard who breathes fire.
The problem is that the rules are not very good from a fantasy perspective either...
- From a "realistic" PoV it doesn't make sense, because lead bullets would never be able to simply ignore stuff like a +5 adamantine armor. And as StreamoftheSky pointed out, there are plenty of other weapons that were made specifically to counter armor (such as halberds) and none of them get to target touch AC.
- From a fantasy PoV it doesn't make sense either. When I don't see +5 Adamantine armor as something that any mundane firearm should pierce without any effort. A dragon's scales being completely ineffective against mundane pistols doesn't fit any fantastic stories I know, even the ones where both dragons and firearms are present.
- From a balance PoV, it makes even less sense. As the levels go up, touch AC tends to fall. The system was not design with the assumption that martial characters would be able to target touch AC all the time.
Now, I don't think Gunsingers are OP (unless they're using advanced firearms). I just don't like the firearms mechanics. They feel too gimmicky to me. Gimmicky strengths "balanced" by gimmicky weaknesses.
Personally, I'd just remove "target touch AC" and misfire mechanics and be done with it (Gunslingers would still be allowed to use grit to target touch AC). Maybe make it a simple weapon too... Wasn't ease of use one of the main advantages of firearms?
TalonHawke house rule alert!!!
I've fixed guns by fixing defenses really for my non kirthfinder games. I use the armor as dr rules combined with the Unearthed Arcana defense bonus rules for my home games. This gives each character a scaling bonus to their AC that applies to touch, which is reduced by their armor check penalty, that's makes guns not so auto win since even monsters get some bonus. Then armor becomes DR to make it about actually reducing damage natural fits here making a dragon pretty fearsome. Magic weapons can bypass some of this dr as they go up in enhancements and adamantine ignores most of it. This actually made advanced firearms workable enough to become my home settings standard.