|
So a friends and I were talking about Pathfinder and specifically guns and the gunslinger class and he took a position I had not considered before, but I think makes a lot of sense.
If we look at firearms in general, the advantage is in penetration, not damage.
If you were successfully stabbed with even a short sword it would generally do more damage to your body than being shot with a pistol.
As he put it, 50 cent was shot 9 times at close range and lived. Try stabbing someone 9 times with a short sword in the same spots and see what happens.
His position was that the touch AC rules aren't the problem. It is the damage. If you reduce firearm damage and make the critical X2, you now don't need to worry about rate of fire with things like pistols, even with the touch attack factor.
A simple pistol, for example, could be a 1d4 X2 damage weapon against touch AC. But now that the base damage is down, you don't need to be as concerned with rate of fire, even against touch AC.
More powerful guns could remain heavy damage, but with the current limitations toward lower rate of fire, creating a balance between the two.
We both agreed there would be nerd rage at the idea of guns doing less damage. But I thought I would throw this out there to start the conversation.
The advantages for us were this.
1. Rate of fire isn't an issue. You can have revolvers that fire like reloading crossbows with no issues, because they are only doing 1d4X2 damage. You want to dual wield revolvers? Fine.
2. Guns can be made less complex, because they aren't that great in terms of damage, so you don't need to add odd limiting factors.
Thoughts?
Now add weapon bonuses, eg flaming, dex mod to damage, smites, etc.
The actual damage dice isn't the biggest factor, but it might be a step in the right direction if you feel guns are overpowered.
|
|
Now add weapon bonuses, eg flaming, dex mod to damage, smites, etc.
The actual damage dice isn't the biggest factor, but it might be a step in the right direction if you feel guns are overpowered.
Bonus damage is a factor, but you also have limits on what does and does not apply to firearms.
Manyshot, for example, is off the table with firearms.
I think the DPR math would make it comparable or even lagging.
EDIT: Also it isn't an over power as much as an over complication concern. With this, we might not even need misfire chance or the whole free action debate.
Remember that the guns in pathfinder is the kind with a round lead ball that flatened a lot upon impact and did severe tissue damage as it passed into the body. As such, the critical range on guns is actually more unrealistic, since it should be far better.
I think guns are ok in pathfinder, they pack quite a punch, but the gunslinger is the only class that does it well.
As for comparing the effects of modern firearms to the effects of early firearms, it cannot be done that easily. Modern firearms are designed for penetration and wounding, since wounding the enemys troops will force him to spend ressources on keeping them alive and healing them.
Early firearms, on the other hand, was designed to do a lot of damage and preferably kill the enemy with that one shot.
All in all, I don't see the need for a fix :-)
|
|
Remember that the guns in pathfinder is the kind with a round lead ball that flatened a lot upon impact and did severe tissue damage as it passed into the body. As such, the critical range on guns is actually more unrealistic, since it should be far better.
I think guns are ok in pathfinder, they pack quite a punch, but the gunslinger is the only class that does it well.
As for comparing the effects of modern firearms to the effects of early firearms, it cannot be done that easily. Modern firearms are designed for penetration and wounding, since wounding the enemys troops will force him to spend ressources on keeping them alive and healing them.
Early firearms, on the other hand, was designed to do a lot of damage and preferably kill the enemy with that one shot.All in all, I don't see the need for a fix :-)
Relative to what though?
If I stab a sword through your body, it will do more damage than a bullet, would it not?
However the sword is less likely to pierce armor.
We should be comparing like to like, as it were.
|
|
I think what you have now though serves neither to include them in a balanced way or a realistic one.
I think most all would agree a machine gun being readily available is a bad idea.
But if you are going to have a gunslinger concept, it should be able to be...well...be a gunslinger in the "I have revolvers on my hips and I pull them and fire."
All the machinations are in place because the guns in the game are more powerful (damage) than other weapons.
Simultaneously you add a mechanic that allows them to be more accurate and the problem arises.
Now, if guns are more accurate (touch ac) that reflects the ease of training aspect noted above, but also maintains balance.
And again, comparing like to like, the bullet would vs the sword wound in the same place with the same penetration (because one is ignoring armor and one is avoiding or overcoming armor) it isn't unrealistic to say the bullet wound is less damage than the sword.
I would say the revolver should be hella expensive/rare, and other guns like muskets and longarms can maintain the same problems currently in place.
But if we logically said that revolvers (6 shooters) exist, but the bullets only do 1d4 X2 damage and are subject to the same attack rules as other weapons, with reload time for a revolver being a full round action that can't be shortened, would that reduction in damage allow the concept to work, in a balanced goldilocks (not to much, not to little) way?
Remember that the guns in pathfinder is the kind with a round lead ball that flatened a lot upon impact and did severe tissue damage as it passed into the body. As such, the critical range on guns is actually more unrealistic, since it should be far better.
I think guns are ok in pathfinder, they pack quite a punch, but the gunslinger is the only class that does it well.
As for comparing the effects of modern firearms to the effects of early firearms, it cannot be done that easily. Modern firearms are designed for penetration and wounding, since wounding the enemys troops will force him to spend ressources on keeping them alive and healing them.
Early firearms, on the other hand, was designed to do a lot of damage and preferably kill the enemy with that one shot.All in all, I don't see the need for a fix :-)
Relative to what though?
If I stab a sword through your body, it will do more damage than a bullet, would it not?
However the sword is less likely to pierce armor.
We should be comparing like to like, as it were.
Relative to a modern firearm, barring shotguns and other stoppers, you're right. But fintlocks fired masive bullets, some up to 1,5 or 2 centimeters in diameter. Now because these where lead bullets, they didn't keep their shape very well and as they warped they did far more damage to muscle and soft tissue than most personal firearms do today.
So to compare a sword to a firearm of the time, the sword - most likely a sabre - could shear an opponent's arm clean off with a good strike, where a bullts would lften turn vital organs into hemorhaging mush.
A clean sabre wound is much easier to bind and treat than a messy pistol shot in the stomach.
So to answer your question: no, a sword wouldn't nessessarily do more damage than a gun from the same period :-)
|
|
@Rocket Surgeon - But those also didn't penetrate armor well. So we need to either pick our poison or have differentiation with ammunition types.
I'm fine either way or even both. Have the ability to choose armor piercing (touch ac/low damage) or high damage ammo.
What we have now is both, with a lot of machinations that slow down play.
EDIT: Also, again like to like. A sabre wound to the stomach vs a bullet wound to the stomach...
While all of your (and your friend's) points are sound, ciretose, the actual problem with the firearms rules aren't the flavor with which they are presented. The problem is that the game wasn't constructed with the idea of a full BAB touch attacker in mind. The rules support this; look at virtually any creature and you'll see that its touch AC is ridiculously low compared to its AC. It is difficult to boost a creature's Touch AC and there are few methods by which a character can do it. The game is built assuming that the primary way to increase a creature's Armor Class is by, well, piling more and more armor onto it. All of which the gunslinger can easily ignore while taking huge benefits on attack rolls to fuel abilities like Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot.
Basically, its the same problem that happened when 3.5 introduced Sonic damage; the game simply wasn't built around the assumption that Sonic damage was a thing, and to this day sonic damage is the rarest energy resistance and/or immunity. The difference, as you noted, is that the 3.5 designers took this into consideration by limiting the damage done by sonic damage spells.
So while your method is a perfectly valid one for dealing with the issue, in the long run it is treating the symptoms, not the actual cause of the issue; a distinct lack of monsters that can challenge the gunslinger.
@Rocket Surgeon - But those also didn't penetrate armor well. So we need to either pick our poison or have differentiation with ammunition types.
I'm fine either way or even both. Have the ability to choose armor piercing (touch ac/low damage) or high damage ammo.
What we have now is both, with a lot of machinations that slow down play.
EDIT: Also, again like to like. A sabre wound to the stomach vs a bullet wound to the stomach...
Oh. That's what you ment. Well yes, their armor penetration was horrible, even chainmail or boiled leather would have offered a measure of protection.
I agree completely that the gunslinger could have been a smoother ride, no argument there, but the guns themselves aren't that bad if you look at them seperately.
About the gutwound; it would be basically the same damage. Though no selfrespecting sabre user would use his weapon for stabbing ;)
People in modern times have been stabbed dozens of times and lived; some with 5-6" knives that won't be much different from short sword wounds (I'd argue that sword slashes are deadlier than stabs, but that's neither here nor there). Modern medicine is pretty good and accounts for the huge difference in bullet survival rates between now and 200 years ago.
Going back to guns, Pathfinder fails to model the actual benefits of guns vs other projectile weapons; far easier to use than a bow, far faster and easier to reload than a crossbow, the ammo takes far less space than any arrow/quarrel, and you can put a knife on the end for close combat.
|
|
I believe the touch AC mechanic is pretty broken, and I don't think that reflects how easy it is to use a gun. (There's actually no way of doing so within the rules.)
Kids can't accidentally kill someone with a gun because it penetrated their armor. The victims are almost never wearing armor.
Kids can accidentally kill someone with a sword...
What we have in my mind is this.
If you want a revolver wielding gunslinger who hits touch AC, you can have it if you reduce base damage and crit to 1d4 X2. That guy will always hit, but not for that much.
If you want a high damage low penetration gun, which is more period accurate, you can have that but it shouldn't be against touch ac.
If you want both depending on what ammo is in the gun, I'm fine with that too.
But what we currently have...well...it is kind of a mess.
|
|
People in modern times have been stabbed dozens of times and lived; some with 5-6" knives that won't be much different from short sword wounds (I'd argue that sword slashes are deadlier than stabs, but that's neither here nor there). Modern medicine is pretty good and accounts for the huge difference in bullet survival rates between now and 200 years ago.
Going back to guns, Pathfinder fails to model the actual benefits of guns vs other projectile weapons; far easier to use than a bow, far faster and easier to reload than a crossbow, the ammo takes far less space than any arrow/quarrel, and you can put a knife on the end for close combat.
Yes stabbed with knives, like daggers, which would be the same basic damage (1d4 X2)
Stabbed many times with a sword, even a short sword, in the same location and the bullet strikes with penetration the same...not so much.
The gun is still better than the dagger. It hits more often and penetrates armor.
You are modeling the modern firearm, and the modern firearm is incompatible with the setting. There has to be a reason people don't just all carry guns, or the setting logic ceases to be...well...logical.
What we are looking at is a weapon that almost always hits. If you also have that weapon do more damage than most other weapons in the game...problem. The solution was misfire and ammo cost...which is overly complicated and slows the game down.
If the solution is "Yes, you hit very often, but you don't do as much damage as other weapons" that is a simple solution that allows you to have your dual revolver wielding gunslinger without having them break the game.
Or it may, part of this was intended as a place to discuss the math.
|
|
Well, if you actually care about modeling early firearms, the solution is easy: Fire rate of a few times a minute.
The problem is that doesn't make for a great focus for a class. More of a fire once and drop weapon for everyone.
Same argument for the crossbow...it wasn't like the repeating crossbow worked all that well.
I am more going for the "If we are going to have a revolver outcome, let us have a revolver.
If you make the revolver very expensive/rare with 1d4 X2, you can have it against touch AC and I think that maybe things don't fall apart balance wise and you still get what you want from the class and concept.