I'm not a fan of locked gauntlets either. I can't remember the last time I used one. But that's what you turned weapon cords into. An inferior locked gauntlet. Might as well just ban them and make it even simpler.
When addressing an issue, we should address the issue, not try to circumvent it by changing related rules. If a GM thinks TWF with firearms is broken, then address that, not weapon cords or free action.
I'm currently GMing for a TWF Pistolero Gunslinger. The build everyone seems to fear and hate. I honestly have had no problem dealing with him so far. He deals a lot of damage against enemies in a 20ft radius... That's it.
He's even more powerful than most Gunslingers, as we use high point buy and I turned TWF into an scaling feat.
It's a weird mechanic that makes no sense, and I have to put some extra thought when creating encounters for him, but that's the same for the Paladin, Cleric and Magus.
Honestly you could easily think the opposite: weapon cords step TOO MUCH on the toes of the locked gauntlet.
Not a bad thing to have 2 or more ways to do something. Personally I'm not a big fan of cannibalizing my swift action, I tend to use them for important things.
Personally I just don't see disarm used that much. The main use I see with weapon cords is dropping them to use the hand for something like spell casting but keeping your weapon on you. Locked Gauntlet's just don't have that use.
Edit: Wasn't this thread about bows?
I'm not a fan of locked gauntlets either. I can't remember the last time I used one. But that's what you turned weapon cords into. An inferior locked gauntlet.How is it inferior?
Gauss' suggested Weapon cord lets you recover a disarmed weapon by spending a swift action. And that's it.
Locked gauntlet makes it impossible to disarm you. So recovering your weapon is not an issue.
EDIT: Ah, just noticed it doesn't make it impossible anymore, just gives you a +10. Okay then...
Still... Cords that keep your hands occupied are pretty worthless, IMO, and remove many cool possibilities from the game.
The supposed problem is reloading firearms, not weapon cords or free actions. And I'm still not convinced TWF with pistol is all that good, considering the high investment necessary to pull it off...
I think that double barrel pistols should function like vital strike if you choose to fire both at the same time. double the damage dice, but all other modifiers only get applied once. This would remove the biggest problem with that build and would only require changing one item, that is far less used than weapon cords.
I stand corrected. I think I was confused by the fact that gauntlets can't be disarmed. Like I said, I can't remember the last time I used a locked gauntlet. Hell, I can't remember the last time I saw one in play.
Anyway...
Weapon cords are not a problem. They have never been. Nothing stops me from using chains or hemp rope instead. No game has ever been broken because of weapon cords. They are not "almost a third hand" anymore than any kind of rope or chain.
Let's stay focused on the supposed problem. Reloading TWF firearms.
Not free action. Not weapon cords.
Firearms.
This whole conversation might make more sense if someone would explain what the actual abuse was, since I assume it was something much more elaborate than "I take my iterative attacks, using free actions to reload."
Gunslingers can duel wield double barrel pistols and make it a free action to load each barrel. They unload 20 bullets, give or take, this way, all against touch, and all with dex to attack and damage. That might be a part of it. Beyond that I don't see free action abuse too often, though I have seen people call taking your hand on and off your weapon(two free actions) cheesy, and I have seen people joke about how you can juggle your weapon 30 times because its a free action to swap.
I think that double barrel pistols should function like vital strike if you choose to fire both at the same time. double the damage dice, but all other modifiers only get applied once. This would remove the biggest problem with that build and would only require changing one item, that is far less used than weapon cords.
You know... That a really good idea.
|
I'm not a fan of locked gauntlets either. I can't remember the last time I used one. But that's what you turned weapon cords into. An inferior locked gauntlet.How is it inferior?
The locked gauntlet gives a huge bonus against disarm, but depending on who you are compared to who you're fighting that might not mean much.
Meanwhile a swift action and you're back to wielding for a full-attack.
Honestly you could easily think the opposite: weapon cords step TOO MUCH on the toes of the locked gauntlet.
-James
It's the bolded part that bothers me, even for normal melee weapons.
If you can attack 5 times in six seconds with your sword, but get disarmed after the first two, I find it inconceivable that you could recover the sword in time to deliver another three attacks within the same original six seconds!
As a fencer I'm used to using a martingale, a loop of leather that goes around the first three fingers. When 'disarmed' the foil doesn't fall two feet from your hand, but recovering it will still mess up that series of attacks.
The best solution is to make it a move action instead of a swift action to retrieve. Limiting what that hand can do with a weapon dangling from it is also a good idea.
It's the bolded part that bothers me, even for normal melee weapons.
If you can attack 5 times in six seconds with your sword, but get disarmed after the first two, I find it inconceivable that you could recover the sword in time to deliver another three attacks within the same original six seconds!
As a fencer I'm used to using a martingale, a loop of leather that goes around the first three fingers. When 'disarmed' the foil doesn't fall two feet from your hand, but recovering it will still mess up that series of attacks.
The best solution is to make it a move action instead of a swift action to retrieve. Limiting what that hand can do with a weapon dangling from it is also a good idea.
Making it a move action would make weapon cords terrible. Is it inconceivable? Maybe... Is it more inconceivable than the usual stuff completely mundane characters do in this game? No.
I know verisimilitude is important for some people, but "playability" should take precedence. That's why it doesn't take 6 rounds to reload a firearm. That's why Evasion works even when you're inside a 5x5x5ft box
I fail to see how a heroic character from a fantasy game recovering his weapon in an instant is so unrealistic. It's not even some super-powered action, like a dude leaping over a tree or completely ignoring damage from an explosion... It's just a quick weapon recovery.
|
|
It's the bolded part that bothers me, even for normal melee weapons.
If you can attack 5 times in six seconds with your sword, but get disarmed after the first two, I find it inconceivable that you could recover the sword in time to deliver another three attacks within the same original six seconds!
As a fencer I'm used to using a martingale, a loop of leather that goes around the first three fingers. When 'disarmed' the foil doesn't fall two feet from your hand, but recovering it will still mess up that series of attacks.
The best solution is to make it a move action instead of a swift action to retrieve. Limiting what that hand can do with a weapon dangling from it is also a good idea.
Making it a move action would make weapon cords terrible. Is it inconceivable? Maybe... Is it more inconceivable than the usual stuff completely mundane characters do in this game? No.
I know verisimilitude is important for some people, but "playability" should take precedence. That's why it doesn't take 6 rounds to reload a firearm. That's why Evasion works even when you're inside a 5x5x5ft box
I fail to see how a heroic character from a fantasy game recovering his weapon in an instant is so unrealistic. It's not even some super-powered action, like a dude leaping over a tree or completely ignoring damage from an explosion... It's just a quick weapon recovery.
If it had been written as a move action in the first place no-one would have screamed for a swift action weapon cord on the grounds of...what? Why should we have expected a mundane, one silver piece item make you effectively immune to disarm in a way that not even a locked gauntlet does, when that probably should? No-one would have found anything wrong with the move action. Getting your weapon back, as a move action, without risking an AoO, without losing it over the edge of a cliff or allowing an enemy to make off with it unless he makes another successful attack, all of these things would be worth 1sp and some inconvenience.
The only reason to object to the move action is because it would seem to take away the swift action version! It's that taking away that would cause upset, but there would've been no taking away if it had been a move action in the first place.
Further, the swift action version causes problems unforeseen by the devs, and creates characters that walk around with polearms and pistols dangling from their wrists without compromising their combat effectiveness. Heck, even enhancing their effectiveness! If tying weapons to your wrist really was so effective then we would've been doing it IRL for 6000 years!
When it comes to purely mundane items, it should leave characters looking like they would IRL. I can see the occasional weapon cord IRL to prevent your weapon being lost in a serious combat, but not to act as if you'd never been disarmed in the first place, and definitely not allowing muzzle-loading pistol-users to be able to reload a brace of them as efficiently as if reloading only required one hand. If weapon cords could do that then this would've been done in real life! They weren't, because it simply. Would. Not. Work.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how a heroic character from a fantasy game recovering his weapon in an instant is so unrealistic. It's not even some super-powered action, like a dude leaping over a tree or completely ignoring damage from an explosion... It's just a quick weapon recovery.
I have no problem with super heroics from our powerful characters, but even superpowers must make sense.
Leaping over a tree is superpowered, but even for someone who can do that it would not make sense that going from A to B by leaping over a tree would take less time than if the tree were not there!
Completely ignoring damage from an explosion while trapped in a 5-foot cube is superpowered, and I have no problem with that. But I would have a problem with the same person being able to completely ignore the damage while trapped in that cube but not being able to ignore the damage while not being trapped in a cube! That wouldn't make sense!
Yet, with swift action weapon cords, a creature can reload and fire a double-barrelled, muzzle-loading pistol five times (for ten shots), drop it, flick an unloaded double-barrelled pistol that had been dangling from the wrist of his reloading hand into that hand and reload and fire it three more times (for six more shots), all in the same six seconds, when he cannot just reload and fire one pistol eight times in that time! That doesn't make sense!
Even superheroic characters should make sense! Should be logically feasible if you suspend your disbelief about the 'super' part. It makes no sense that he is able to reload and fire five times with one pistol, swap weapons (no matter how quickly), and load and fire three more times, when he could not use a single pistol eight times!
|
|
It's the bolded part that bothers me, even for normal melee weapons.
You didn't have an issue with a PC with a longsword and pair of spiked gauntlets from juggling the longsword back and forth while attacking with the gauntlets as if both hands were empty, but cry foul here?
You even objected to that juggling being free actions rather than non-actions.
This seems inconsistent.
-James
In my longsword/spiked gauntlet combo, my right hand was on the longsword for the entire combat sequence; there was no juggling. My left hand helped my right attack with the longsword for half the round then let go and punched for the other half. This made total sense to me, in a way that the weapon cord/twin double-barrelled pistols being reloaded 32 times faster than the best RL smoothbore musket users IRL doesn't.
Attacking with my longsword at +6/+1 then getting an off-hand spiked gauntlet attack at +6 is perfectly imaginable, and is not rendered inconceivable when imagining my left hand helping to add force to the longsword attacks. However, even if I could imagine 16 muzzle-loading reloads in 6 seconds (which I can't) it is inconceivable that this is only possible if you drop one pistol after 10 reloads and use another for 6, while being impossible to use the first pistol for those remaining 6 reloads.
Yet, with swift action weapon cords, a creature can reload and fire a double-barrelled, muzzle-loading pistol five times (for ten shots), drop it, flick an unloaded double-barrelled pistol that had been dangling from the wrist of his reloading hand into that hand and reload and fire it three more times (for six more shots), all in the same six seconds, when he cannot just reload and fire one pistol eight times in that time! That doesn't make sense!
Even superheroic characters should make sense! Should be logically feasible if you suspend your disbelief about the 'super' part. It makes no sense that he is able to reload and fire five times with one pistol, swap weapons (no matter how quickly), and load and fire three more times, when he could not use a single pistol eight times!
It only doesn't make sense because of the TWF logic though. Would you prefer it if there was a house rule that instead of TWF you had Flurry feat, which could use any combination of weapons on you? So that you really could fire one weapon 8 times?
|
|
I have no problem with people being fast. I'm a casino dealer, and have been for over 25 years. I've been timed at under 5 seconds when dealing the initial deal of 15 cards; 2 to each of seven boxes and one to the dealer. This involves both hands doing different things in order to remove a card from the shoe and present it ready to be dealt with the other hand, and readying for the next card. This means I can deal 3 cards per second, neatly. This translates to 18 cards in six seconds.
This is why I have no problem at all with a high level warrior attacking many times in a round, while holding one weapon in his right hand and using the other to alternately help the right hand to add force and let go to attack on its own. Ever seen a baton twirler? How many times do they let go/re-grip in six seconds?
So I have no problem with all that. But does reloading a muzzle-loading weapon fall under the same level of complexity as letting go/re-gripping?
Upon the command "prime and load", the soldier would make a quarter turn to the right at the same time bringing the musket to the priming position. The pan would be open following the discharge of the previous shot, meaning that the frizzen would be tilted forward. If the musket was not being reloaded after a previous shot, the soldiers would be ordered to "Open Pan".
Upon the command "Handle cartridge", the soldier would draw a cartridge from the cartridge box worn on the soldier's right hip or on a belt in front of the soldier's belly. Cartridges consisted of a spherical lead ball wrapped in a paper cartridge which also held the gunpowder propellant. The end of the cartridge opposite from the ball would be sealed by a mere twist of the paper. The soldier then tore off the twisted end of the cartridge with the teeth and spat it out, and continued to hold the now open cartridge in his right hand.
Upon the command "prime", the soldier then pulled the hammer back to half-cock, and poured a small amount of powder from the cartridge into the priming pan. He then closed the frizzen so that the priming powder was trapped.
Upon the command "about", the butt of the musket was then lowered and moved to a position against the soldier's left calf, and held so that the soldier could then access the muzzle of the musket barrel. The soldier then poured the rest of the powder from the cartridge down the muzzle. The cartridge was then reversed, and the end of the cartridge holding the musket ball was inserted into the muzzle, with the remaining paper shoved into the muzzle above the musket ball. This paper acted as wadding to stop the ball and powder from falling out if the muzzle was lowered.
Upon the command "draw ramrods", the soldier drew the ramrod from the musket. The ramrod was grasped and reversed when removed, and the large end was inserted about one inch into the muzzle.
Upon the command "ram down cartridge", the soldier then used the ramrod to firmly ram the wadding, bullet, and powder down to the breech of the barrel. The ramrod was then removed, reversed, and returned to half way in the musket by inserting it into the first and second ramrod pipes. The soldier's hand then grasped the top of the ramrod.
Upon the command "return rammers", the soldier would quickly push the rammer the remaining amount to completely return it to its normal position. Once the ramrod was properly replaced, the soldier's right arm would be held parallel to the ground at shoulder level, with the right fingertips touching the bayonet lug, and lightly pressing the musket to the soldier's left shoulder. The soldier's left hand still supported the musket.
The most elite units, after years of constant practice every day, could do this in 12 seconds, when you add in the aiming and firing. This translates to 3 minutes and 12 seconds to load 16 barrels, including firing. Call it an even three minutes because it's only being fired 8 times to fire 16 barrels.
But reducing the reload time to a free action, that whole process quoted above is not just being done in 6 seconds instead of twelve per reload, it's being done 16 times! While simultaneously dropping one to dangle by a string and flicking another into your off hand!
So, yes, there is a difference! Making letting go/re-gripping a free action, once per attack seems perfectly reasonable, but reducing tasks which should take 3 minutes to free actions is absurd.
This made total sense to me, in a way that the weapon cord/twin double-barrelled pistols being reloaded 32 times faster than the best RL smoothbore musket users IRL doesn't.
Don't forget that by the same rules systems, a black powder weapon can be reloaded and fired faster than a revolver*, which is also patently silly.
Not disagreeing with you, by the way, just offering another example.
*Because as written Rapid Reload does nothing for advanced firearms. Even though they're completely optional weapons, they're still included in the game rules; I can suspend disbelief for reloading a black powder weapon faster than humanly possible, as long as the rules under which that occurs are consistent - and they're not.
|
|
It only doesn't make sense because of the TWF logic though. Would you prefer it if there was a house rule that instead of TWF you had Flurry feat, which could use any combination of weapons on you? So that you really could fire one weapon 8 times?Yet, with swift action weapon cords, a creature can reload and fire a double-barrelled, muzzle-loading pistol five times (for ten shots), drop it, flick an unloaded double-barrelled pistol that had been dangling from the wrist of his reloading hand into that hand and reload and fire it three more times (for six more shots), all in the same six seconds, when he cannot just reload and fire one pistol eight times in that time! That doesn't make sense!
Even superheroic characters should make sense! Should be logically feasible if you suspend your disbelief about the 'super' part. It makes no sense that he is able to reload and fire five times with one pistol, swap weapons (no matter how quickly), and load and fire three more times, when he could not use a single pistol eight times!
I have absolutely no problem with them being fired 8 times. My problem is with them being reloaded 16 times! An operation which should take 3 minutes!
I have absolutely no problem with them being fired 8 times. My problem is with them being reloaded 16 times! An operation which should take 3 minutes!
Would you be okay if we called that superhuman then? That's more so a problem with firearm rules than free actions.
Why are we limiting characters at superhuman levels (beyond level 6) to human limitations?
Evil wizard plot to continue being the grand overlords.
That, and there's a weird thing that there isn't a defined place where you become super human. Which sucks, because the level 17 guy who fights demons twice his size and stands next to the 9th level spellcasters and can fall a million feet and live is apparently still not a Charles Atlas super hero and is still expected to be limited. Charles Atlas superpower is a trope that has to exist for those guys to matter.
Why are we limiting characters at superhuman levels (beyond level 6) to human limitations?Evil wizard plot to continue being the grand overlords.
That, and there's a weird thing that there isn't a defined place where you become super human. Which sucks, because the level 17 guy who fights demons twice his size and stands next to the 9th level spellcasters and can fall a million feet and live is apparently still not a Charles Atlas super hero and is still expected to be limited. Charles Atlas superpower is a trope that has to exist for those guys to matter.
This. It's one of the main reasons mundane characters tend to suffer compared to explicitly supernatural ones; they're still stuck being realistic while the wizard's rewriting reality with a standard action.
Why are we limiting characters at superhuman levels (beyond level 6) to human limitations?Evil wizard plot to continue being the grand overlords.
That, and there's a weird thing that there isn't a defined place where you become super human. Which sucks, because the level 17 guy who fights demons twice his size and stands next to the 9th level spellcasters and can fall a million feet and live is apparently still not a Charles Atlas super hero and is still expected to be limited. Charles Atlas superpower is a trope that has to exist for those guys to matter.
I had this arguement with one of my players time ago, he is one of those who claim for "realism" (for martials). After our 20th level campaign end with an apotheosic fight which included a Titan, I shown him the size comparison between a human and a titan, which is this. Now take in account that your human sized char is blocking that guy blows with his shield. His hammer weights *several tons*, and you are parrying him, wuxia style. Go ahead and explain the realism of that if you want :P
This made total sense to me, in a way that the weapon cord/twin double-barrelled pistols being reloaded 32 times faster than the best RL smoothbore musket users IRL doesn't.Don't forget that by the same rules systems, a black powder weapon can be reloaded and fired faster than a revolver*, which is also patently silly.
Not disagreeing with you, by the way, just offering another example.
*Because as written Rapid Reload does nothing for advanced firearms. Even though they're completely optional weapons, they're still included in the game rules; I can suspend disbelief for reloading a black powder weapon faster than humanly possible, as long as the rules under which that occurs are consistent - and they're not.
In our (me and my fellow GMs) houserules for firearms, we based the reload time off the technology, not the size of the weapon. Reloading a musket and a flintlock pistol really shouldn't take much difference in time.
So, the fastest you can reload a black powder weapon is as a standard action per barrel. Cap and Ball as a move action for one barrel. Cartridges up to your dex bonus as a move action or one barel as a swift. Clips as a swift action.
|
|
This made total sense to me, in a way that the weapon cord/twin double-barrelled pistols being reloaded 32 times faster than the best RL smoothbore musket users IRL doesn't.Don't forget that by the same rules systems, a black powder weapon can be reloaded and fired faster than a revolver*, which is also patently silly.
Not disagreeing with you, by the way, just offering another example.
*Because as written Rapid Reload does nothing for advanced firearms. Even though they're completely optional weapons, they're still included in the game rules; I can suspend disbelief for reloading a black powder weapon faster than humanly possible, as long as the rules under which that occurs are consistent - and they're not.
In our (me and my fellow GMs) houserules for firearms, we based the reload time off the technology, not the size of the weapon. Reloading a musket and a flintlock pistol really shouldn't take much difference in time.
So, the fastest you can reload a black powder weapon is as a standard action per barrel. Cap and Ball as a move action for one barrel. Cartridges up to your dex bonus as a move action or one barel as a swift. Clips as a swift action.
Without commenting on these specifics, this general idea is perfect!
Without commenting on these specifics, this general idea is perfect!This made total sense to me, in a way that the weapon cord/twin double-barrelled pistols being reloaded 32 times faster than the best RL smoothbore musket users IRL doesn't.Don't forget that by the same rules systems, a black powder weapon can be reloaded and fired faster than a revolver*, which is also patently silly.
Not disagreeing with you, by the way, just offering another example.
*Because as written Rapid Reload does nothing for advanced firearms. Even though they're completely optional weapons, they're still included in the game rules; I can suspend disbelief for reloading a black powder weapon faster than humanly possible, as long as the rules under which that occurs are consistent - and they're not.
In our (me and my fellow GMs) houserules for firearms, we based the reload time off the technology, not the size of the weapon. Reloading a musket and a flintlock pistol really shouldn't take much difference in time.
So, the fastest you can reload a black powder weapon is as a standard action per barrel. Cap and Ball as a move action for one barrel. Cartridges up to your dex bonus as a move action or one barel as a swift. Clips as a swift action.
Back during a discussion on Rapid Reload and advanced firearms, I had tossed around a similar idea - mostly because attempting to be 'fair' with Rapid Reload and allow it to apply to advanced firearms became way imbalanced due to the double-barrel shotgun.
The only way that I really saw to fix it was to base reload time on the specific weapon rather than on the type of weapon - so I concur with the general idea mdt puts forward. It's slightly more complex (i.e., more to remember), but I can deal with the complexity if the system makes more sense.
The only way that I really saw to fix it was to base reload time on the specific weapon rather than on the type of weapon - so I concur with the general idea mdt puts forward. It's slightly more complex (i.e., more to remember), but I can deal with the complexity if the system makes more sense.
Actually it's not really all that more complex.
You're not mixing and matching all four types of weapons in a normal campaign.
At most you're usually mixing 2 types at most, black-powder and cap and ball, or cap and ball and cartridge, or cartridge and clip. So, you really only have to remember two reload mechanics. No more complex than remembering eastern weapons/armor vs western weapons/armor, most campaigns have one or the other, not both.
Actually it's not really all that more complex.
You're not mixing and matching all four types of weapons in a normal campaign.
At most you're usually mixing 2 types at most, black-powder and cap and ball, or cap and ball and cartridge, or cartridge and clip. So, you really only have to remember two reload mechanics. No more complex than remembering eastern weapons/armor vs western weapons/armor, most campaigns have one or the other, not both.
Excellent point!
|
|
I have absolutely no problem with them being fired 8 times. My problem is with them being reloaded 16 times! An operation which should take 3 minutes!Would you be okay if we called that superhuman then? That's more so a problem with firearm rules than free actions.
Free actions are fine as they are. Making a (minimum) 12 second complex operation into a free action is what's wrong.
Superhuman speed or not, doing that 12 second operation 16 times in 6 seconds, when your supernatural speed doesn't help the gunpowder burn faster or the bullet to leave the barrel faster, still doesn't make sense even for super speed.
In fact, this reloading process is much more complex than the aiming/firing process! If our super characters could act this quickly, then if we could reload 16 times and fire 8 times in one round, then we could attack 24 times with a single weapon easily!
Going super fast I can believe. Going 5 times faster when using muzzle-loading black powder weapons than when attacking with a shortsword, using the same game engine, does not make sense. If we suspend our disbelief for the 'super' part then we suspend it equally for both tasks. Suddenly thinking that the task of reloading, of all things, is suddenly disproportionally 5 times faster than any other action our super characters can take does not make sense.
I fail to see how a heroic character from a fantasy game recovering his weapon in an instant is so unrealistic. It's not even some super-powered action, like a dude leaping over a tree or completely ignoring damage from an explosion... It's just a quick weapon recovery.I have no problem with super heroics from our powerful characters, but even superpowers must make sense.
Leaping over a tree is superpowered, but even for someone who can do that it would not make sense that going from A to B by leaping over a tree would take less time than if the tree were not there!
It doesn't take less time. That's why you spent your swift action on it.
Full round action + swift action takes longer than just a full round action.
And as I said before... "Playability" must take precedence to realism. That's why we don't take 3 minutes to reload an early firearm.
Any other balance adjustments you make? Taken alone it sounds like the only PC that should use a gun as a main weapon in the early eras would be the Spellslinger.
If you're talking to me? We changed a ton of stuff.
We assumed that the standard for the system was Cap and Ball, not BP, so Cap and Ball is the standard for PCs. But BP is also useful, we just assumed people would be using multiple barrels, and that they'd also be combining guns with swords and etc, like they did when BP first came out.
Gunslinger class is really designed for Cap and Ball, not Black Powder. We also toned down the critical numbers (only sniper rifles have x4), brought the damage down to about the same as melee weapons (1d6 to 1d10), and broke guns up into 4 'classes' (black powder, cap and ball, cartridge, and advanced).
We got rid of all the 'speed things up' guff of paper cartridges (that's handled via cap and ball technology) and that let us give hard reload speeds with rapid reload having different effects by class of firearm.
|
|
Any other balance adjustments you make? Taken alone it sounds like the only PC that should use a gun as a main weapon in the early eras would be the Spellslinger.
I think they should model the threat they were IRL. they should be easily capable of one shot/one kill, while also easily being able to just graze. They should be used initially, but reloading in close combat to be a poor tactic.
So, make the crit stats 18-20/ x4. This can easily be deadly with the right feats and bonuses, while still being able to graze/flesh wound. With Improved Critical and adding Dex to damage, 1d6+5 is only 8.5 average, but critting on 15-20 makes it 4d6+20, averaging at 34 damage. Ouch!
Reloading would be a move action which provokes an AoO, even with a cartridge, not reducible by feats. This would mean you might have even two or three pre-loaded pistols when preparing for a fight, but you better have that cutlass for when the enemy engage you in melee.
If you somehow get a gun which magically reloads itself, brilliant! You get your full attack!
Quick Draw would be useful, but weapon cords would be as useless as they are in real life in helping you reload more times per round, as it would be a move action to retrieve the weapon.
With these adjustments firearms would better model their influence in combat to RL, and any magic effects or supernatural speed would still apply in a way that follows logic.
Those are fine and probably far more realistic than the current rules. I assume there's no easy way to boost them: No Rapid Reload/alchemical cartridge/Lightning Reloads, etc. Those are, after all not far from the base load time in the current rules. Standard for one barrel of an early pistol, for example.
If you really can't boost it any faster, then the problem is the early weapons are essentially useless. At least as something to build a class around. Fire once, then drop. Maybe carry a lot of pistols?
Unless you let damage scale with level, instead of number of attacks scaling with level.
Well, as you see from the post above, we assume Cap and Ball, not Black Powder. If the tech is black powder, we assume that, just like in real life, you are mixing guns and swords, like pirates. Not six shooters like the old west (which is what the gunslinger is). Most of the issue currently is the gunslinger is built as if cap and ball or cartridges are the norm, but then given black powder weapons for norm.
But yes, the only way to speed up reloading is to have the rapid reload. No other mechanism.
We also slightly modified multibarrels. If you're firing multiple barrels at once, you get one attack, and either one die added to your damage for each extra barrel, or you get a +1 to hit and a +1 damage, your choice. So, if you have a +2 flaming pepperbox with 4 barrels, and fire all four, then if the pepperbox does 1d4 normally, you can either get +2 attack, 4d4 +2 +1d6 fire damage, or you can get +5 to hit, 1d4+5 + 1d6 damage. All burst fire works this way (including burst fire in advanced firearms). But, you don't have to individually enchant the barrels, you enchant the gun once. If you fire the barrels individually, you do +2 attack, 1d4+2 + 1d6 fire on each attack. This allows black powder to still allow a gunslinger to get his full iterative attacks on the first round. And if you want multiple guns to be able to fire, it's not ruinously expensive at higher levels. Sure, you can't afford 2 or 3 +5 guns, but you can afford 2-3 +2 guns, and since you're hitting Touch AC, you don't mind that they aren't higher than +2 or +1 and Special.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically make firearms usable once per fight?
What if someone wants to play a firearm-based characters, a "Gunslinger" of sorts...?
They can't because their main weapon sucks?
I understand that PF firearms are not realistic (the touch AC is completely non-sensical), but that is not enough reason to nerf them to the grave.
I understand many players don't like firearms, but that too is not enough reason to nerf them to the grave. You don't like firearms, don't use them. Players who like firearms in their campaigns can use it and have fun.
The ability to target touch AC is a terrible mechanic. I can agree with that. But it's offset by so many freaking factors... Why is it never enough? Why do people ignore the HUGE disadvantages firearms have and focus only on its pros?
That's like saying Fighters are OP because they deal lots of damage and have great AC, while willfully ignoring all the shortcomings of the class.
Unless you're a Gunslinger or Trench Fighter, firearms are the absolutely worst weapons in the game. So you have to devote a whole class, lots of feat and even more gold to make it powerful?
Look how extensive is the ranged combat feats... Add Rapid Reload. Then add TWF. Then add a LOT more gold expenses than any other class.
Is the TWF Gunslinger dealing more damage than everyone else? Good! He should be! He invested much more than everyone else!
Just a note, thejeff's statement about carrying multiple pistols is the realistic way that early 'gunfighers' - pirates, mostly - dealt with the long reload times of black-powder firearms. They would normally carry at least 4 pistols so that they could get 4 shots off, then they would holster or drop all the pistols and switch to melee.
Also re: MDT and Gunslingers using six-shooters, I agree that is the feeling I get from the class - but from a rules perspective, that's not the standard weapon they use; a Gunslinger will only be wielding a revolver in campaigns that allow advanced firearms, or at very high levels (and if he's lucky to get an artifact-equivalent weapon).
|
Never had one!... I feel bad for not knowing what that is off the top of my head. On the bright side, its something to think about other than arrows while browsing the forum.Snickerdoodle?I knew nothing changed from the start! Do I get a cookie for that?This has spread like wildfire, with many confused about what is written.
Even talking is being questioned.
If look closer though, you will realize, nothing has changed.
Trust me, snickerdoodles are delicious. :)
Only 1 per round, though...
So basically make firearms usable once per fight?
You should go back and reread all my posts. We assume cap and ball, which allows such things as, for example, reloading using preloaded cylinders. You still have to take all the time to load up your cylinders, but you can take a full round action to pop your current cylinder out of the gun, and load in a new cylinder. This was how people 'speed loaded' in the cap and ball erra.
If you want to have lots of shots, you need multiple guns or multiple barrels, ro both, with black powder.
Most fights don't really last more than 3-4 rounds, usually. So fast drawing pistols with 2 or 3 barrels works pretty well. Note we also dropped the gunslinger to a 3/4 bab and boosted skill points to 6.
Also re: MDT and Gunslingers using six-shooters, I agree that is the feeling I get from the class - but from a rules perspective, that's not the standard weapon they use; a Gunslinger will only be wielding a revolver in campaigns that allow advanced firearms, or at very high levels (and if he's lucky to get an artifact-equivalent weapon).
Which is why it was, to me, a badly designed class. Or at least, the guns being broken up into 2 classes was, or a combination thereof.
A gunslinger can still get buy with multiple guns and barrels, even at high levels. it just means they can't 'go nova' with weapon cords and juggling, since if they go nova, they've fired everything they have in the first round and have to fal back to something else in later rounds.
With our modifications, a gunslinger wouldn't really be as effective, but still playable, with BP, they'd just be carrying a brace of double barreled flintlock pistols and a cutlass. Much like people did for 200 years with black powder weapons before cap and ball and cartridge came along.
|
|
I think the trouble with the gunslinger class is that we are visualising Clint Eastwood emptying a revolver in two seconds, but our gunslingers don't have revolvers!
We expect the same rate of fire as Clint, but only give him single-shot muzzle-loaders!
If we give our characters pirate-type pistols, then we should expect our characters to tuck four of them pre-loaded into various belts and carry a cutlass as backup.
If we expect our characters to perform Clint-esque exploits then we should equip our gunslingers with Clint-type weapons: revolvers.
No-one would complain about a revolver being fired six times, but we wouldn't expect even these to be able to be reloaded quickly without also having metal cartridges.
Technology has limitations. Improving them doesn't involve getting our heroes to reload 32 times faster than reality, but in improving that technology; either by advancing the tech in a realistic way (revolvers, metal cartridges) or with magic, self-loading firearms.
It all has to make sense. Even superpowers have to make sense in terms of internal reality.