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...
It seems I prepared a casting of Wall of Text today... I apologize in advance.
From my understanding, they didn't overtake them quickly due to production, cultural (including military culture), and religious issues; not because melee and non-gunpowder ranged weaponry just happened to be better. You can also cite the 1300s as the beginning of the "gun", and their effectiveness in the Hussite wars later in the 1400s, but those were very early prototypes. This is fairly good reference here.
But, the "early firearms" presented in Pathfinder seem to be more of the variety closer to the 1700s. It's hard to really say, as Pathfinder doesn't go into great detail about their firing mechanisms, barrel crafting techniques, and what have you... But the introduction of paper cartridge, along with the way they function, really seems to lean things towards that period. If they tossed in rifling, we'd be there for sure.
But this discussion is generally futile anyway, as Bows and Crossbows are far from being accurately represented, much like the firearms you do so despise. Afterall, Pathfinder and 3.5 are abstract systems.
So at the end of the day, it's about giving every weapon a unique "gimmick" to allow some different type of mechanical play. Shortbows and Longbows require martial training (or special class features), and can reload as free actions. With enough "training" (i.e. Feats), they become flexible weapons of death. Crossbows require little to no training, but deal more damage per shot from the start, as well as slightly greater range, but reload slower. Early on, the feats limited your ability to pursue greater levels of mastery with the crossbow. Later books changed that.
So what is left for the firearm to do, that would somehow follow its iconic history? The fast-firing, mastered weapon has been done by the Bow. The slow-firing damage dealing weapon has been done by the crossbow. They could just make it an "improved heavy crossbow", doing more damage, as historically that's what the musket pretty much was. But that's not iconic enough, and WotC did that already. Perhaps they could go with making it scare people in an area for firing! Except people are used to seeing fireballs going off, so the psychological effect of firearms are lost. Perhaps they should highlight how they were produced and trained cheaply, and have encounters with masses of soldiers firing muskets. But no, that's not very heroic.
"Ah-ha!" says one of the game designers. They cite how firearms more or less nullified plate armor. True, some armor perhaps could withstand the firepower, if crafted using the most modern and secretive armor crafting techniques at the time (Don't have the link handy, but I remember History channel having a show exploring some of the later armor techniques with hollow spaces between plates, much like tanks did later on), but most armor didn't stand up to firearms well. Plus, why create a whole new set of complicated rules when you can just recycle Touch Attacks, making the reading much easier for new players?
So they decide to run with that, and just go with touch attacks, since those more or less bypass armor. Now firearms have their unique gimmick. Shouldn't smoothbore firearms have limitations on mastery though? Well, Crossbows used to have limitation on mastery, and then splat books expanded upon them to make them masterable much like a bow. So they applied the same mastery to firearms, to make them in-line with all the other ranged weapons. Because if they didn't, every player would complain that their snowflake weapon of choice couldn't access all the other feats that popular weapons had (I can't be the only one who remembers the D&D ranged feat arguments of yore applying to crossbows).
Is this the best implementation? Probably not, but then again, what fantasy game DOES have a good implementation of firearms? Does it give it a unique gimmick to make firearms "feel" like firearms? Most certainly, and Pathfinder LOVES unique gimmicks that make classes and fighting styles feel unique, and by extension, awesome.
I could say how I'd design it, but hell, that's useless, as I don't have hundreds of hours of playtesting to cite like Paizo (and WotC before them) does. But, I do think this is how firearms got to be where they are today. They bother me a little bit, but not all that much, as it just becomes a game of balancing towards that type of gameplay, and dropping the price on firearms greatly, as enemies will start carrying them around as well.
Anyhoo, apologies for the wall, but I get a hunkering to spit one of these out now and again.
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.
Ah, apologies for going off topic, but I thought I'd ask: Did you keep bit from the "Armor as DR" rules about magic armor, a separate source of DR, and natural armor combining to make a superior DR? I found that tended to make Barbarians wearing magical armor with some access to Natural Armor gods among adventurers.
And how do those rules play overall? What weaknesses do they have?
I'm not home so I can't answer the first question atm. As to the second mages have to focus a bit more on dex to hit higher touch ACs and certain creatures with high natural armor ratings can become a pain. Clustered Shots gets taken more often honestly to help when something has a DR 30/something you can't overcome. All in all it takes a bit of getting used to but the overall game assumption doesn't change too much.
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.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."
.
I realize they replaced bows in armies earlier than I stated. That was for the reasons stated mainly dealing with ease of use / training time to be proficient with it. I was specifying, "Guns didn't really overtake a skilled bow user until..." because I'm talking about in terms of which is the superior weapon.
In a fight between massed regiments of troops without more than a few years training at most, the gun's drawbacks of inaccuracy (oops, I shot the enemy 15 ft to the left of the one I aimed at) and rate of fire (stagger the soldiers' fire for a constant stream) were not nearly as big of an issue as they were in any sort of conflict/skirmish between small units, let alone a duel.
D&D parties don't fight in huge war battles, so the gun's rate of fire and poor accuracy *would* be serious drawbacks compared to what a skilled archer can accomplish.
As for "realism," I don't care about that nearly as much as I care about balance. But people defending the PF gun rules are trying to use realism/history to defend the rules, and that's just plain incorrect. PF's gun rules are silly, plain and simple, and have no historical basis. Again, not that it should even matter if it's totally realistic.
Is historical basis even a thing when you aren't talking about our history, but another world altogether?
I was purposefully leaving out adamantine from my previous posts because its really hard to say how tough Adamantine is, as its not something that actually exists. But since like 3 or 4 people have complained about their adamantine plate being completely nullified by firearms, I will adress it.
Firstly: is Adamantine Plate stronger than Kevlar? Yes it probably is. Is it better *at stopping bullets* than Kevlar? No, it probably is not! Kevlar is specifically designed to stop bullets. In its particular feild, it probably IS better than adamantine plate. Would you rather have fire resistance 100 or lightning resistance 5? Most of the time, fire resistance 100 is better. However, if you're getting hit with lightning, the lightning resistance 5 is preferable. It's not "better" than fire resist 100, but it's more effective against what it's intended to stop.
Secondly. your Adamantine-whatever is NOT completely negated by firearms. Things made of adamantine have dr. The Adamantine Golem is a prime example, it's adamantine body still protects it very well, just not in terms of AC. Adamantine full plate has DR 3/-. You do get protected against firearms with adamantine, just not in terms of AC.
Remember that 99% of these conversations revolve around firearms targeting touch AC. So we should also be remembering that we're talking about extremely close ranges. This is where an early firearm would be most effective. Conquistador armor would protect against bullets to a degree... at longer range, which is exactly what they still do. At point blank range, I'm not so sure. As another poster pointed out, the impact alone is enough to do HP damage, even if it doesn't fully pierce the armor.
As for "why dont crossbows target touch-ac, crossbows are just as good at armor-penetrating as early firearms" and the like... I don't know. Maybe they ought to. But I see that more as a problem with crossbows (an extremely underpowered weapon choice that nobody uses beyond the first couple of levels barring maybe one or two specific archetype/builds) than with firearms. Is it fair to crossbows? No, Is that the fault of firearms though? No.
Honestly I've said it before and ill say it again if the balancing factor to touch AC targeting was
1. Long reloads
2. Extreme cost
3. Auto misses
4 critical failures
5. Weapon possible breaking
Then ill take attacks against normal any day. They made a weapon that should have just been a class feature because really only one class uses them to any real function. Any one else who uses one probably has a feat or class feature to give them one or more gunslinger class features.
Remember that 99% of these conversations revolve around firearms targeting touch AC. So we should also be remembering that we're talking about extremely close ranges. This is where an early firearm would be most effective. Conquistador armor would protect against bullets to a degree... at longer range, which is exactly what they still do. At point blank range, I'm not so sure. As another poster pointed out, the impact alone is enough to do HP damage, even if it doesn't fully pierce the armor.
Most D&D combat takes place in close ranges, usually within 30 ft. Most creatures are melee oriented, and spaces are often cramped and, you know... dungeon-like...
Also, Distance property is only a +1 enhancement, and there are other means to hit touch AC at 2 range increments or 5 range increments or whatever.As for "why dont crossbows target touch-ac, crossbows are just as good at armor-penetrating as early firearms" and the like... I don't know. Maybe they ought to. But I see that more as a problem with crossbows (an extremely underpowered weapon choice that nobody uses...
No, it is the guns' fault. All those other weapons already existed and had rules and did not ignore armor. Yet along come guns and they do so.
Crossbows are not extremely underpowered, either. They are simple weapons, for one... They have roughly equal ranges to the bows or superior, even, and superior base damage. They can be fired prone. And while you can't leverage a high str for damage, you do get to use them w/o penalty if you have low strength. They take more feats to full attack with and have a lower damage ceiling, but they're still perfectly decent. IMO, the biggest hindrance to them is the inexplicable "arrows only" of Manyshot...Unlike guns, crossbows are designed to represent what they were historically: simple, powerful, cheap, long ranged weapons that any grunt could learn to shoot with little training and possibly fell a knight with.
I agree, historically crossbows are great. In Pathfinder not so much. I have NEVER seen anybody use a crossbow as their primary means of attack in 10 years of playing a LOT of dnd/pathfinder.
I realize that the nature of dnd is combats at extremely short range.... but historically that was not necessarily the case. Most battles took place on large battlefields where the extreme range of say, a longbow, could be used to maximum effect. Up close, yes, firearms have the advantage. A great example of how the Pathfinder universe differs from what happened historically in the middle ages.
A great example of how the Pathfinder universe differs from what happened historically in the middle ages.
If I remember right in Golarion guns specifically come from Alkenstar, which is void of magic. I'd think that would be a huge deal about guns appearance in the base setting. Also, there is a huge difference I think between adventurers raiding dungeons and full scale warfare.
Personally, I always felt guns in pathfinder were different because they were made for another game. Looks like it anyway. They attack touch, are hard to reload, and don't add in damage without class features. It looked like crossbow but better when I first peaked at it(sans the exotic status).
|
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.
A world where a person can fall from 18.000' and walk away with a few splinter of wood in his body and a sprained leg has some problem with your "realism".
Strangely, it is our world. see Nicholas Alkemade.- * -
About steel armor and bullets:
During the Siege of Malta (1565) the King Hospitaliers in full armor where essentially invulnerable to handgun fire and arrows. The problem was that that kind of armor was costly, required extensive training and physical conditioning to use it properly and in the hot climate of Malta caused several heatstrokes.
Very different from the full plate in the D&D line of games, where you can don it for 16 hours in the day, 24 if you have the right ability, with no discomfort.
I have to ask, how that goes? I thought about doing something similar, but to me, it seems like it has the problem of unbalancing things by making Fragile classes more fragile, since they neither get DR and their AC doesn't go up, where Sturdy classes get more sturdy, since they get both DR, and their AC stays high.
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...
I hear a lot of things said about guns being broken and I would agree. But them being too GOOD? That's a completely new idea to me.
Guns Misfire, take ages to reload and can't get a damage bonus. The Touch AC on the first range increment is the only thing they have over bows.
Bows don't require reloading, they can be used with all those ridiculous archery feats (manyshot: flat out double damage (including things like flaming enchantments and everything) with the first shot), they get a damage bonus from the character's Strength score, if you have the proper composite bow. Bows are still the best ting you can have if you want to shoot something.
You also need abundant ammunition and a whole bunch of different ammo types to get through dr
Or you take Clustered Shots.
I was thinking about treating crossbows other than hand crossbows and two-handed firearms with deadly aim, the same way power attack treats two-handed attacks. I don't have a very good fluff explanation, but it would give these weapons some reason to be used while bows exist.
Maybe. At least more reason than there is now.
Some really clever DM came up with this a few years ago:
Then again, one could go really far out in a world with all kinds of magic and monsters. Maybe your heavy crossbow has little pixies that live in the stock. After you fire it they come out and cock it and reload it for you (their action, not yours, so you can fire once per round). Heck, those little tikerbells might even get under the stock and flap their wings to lift it, ever so much, just enough that it doesn't feel so heavy. No -2 penalty to hit for you!
Way back in this thread.