gunslingers dont NEED magic items, however if you really want you can certainly purchace magic ammunition, or oils to make your ammunition magical. gunslingers are proven to do more damage than any other class except the hammer-the-gap dagger scenario-breaker build, and their damage is much more sustainable than his. there is no other class that gives access to x4crit, d12 damage, range, and 6 or more attacks per round. your only truly crippling caviat is weapon jamming, and that's it. a level 12 gunslinger will outdamage my level 12 ranged inquisitor. period. and thats at level 12 when inquisitors finally don't suck, let alone at levels 1-6 when all other ranged classes suck. if you have issues with getting 5 ft stepped on, you need to find a way around that on your own.
on top of the fact that a Vast majority of encounters happen at less-than-50 ft range in society play, and homebrew is homebrew.
Your inquisitor sucked until level12???
Well you do have better spells than the gunslinger yes?
due to an Inquisitor's reliance on multiple stats to be fully functional many are confronted with the option to be a good caster or a good fighter, but not both. a majority of the inquisitors spells are support-style spells and buffs, or healing spells. their damaging spells are limited to weapon enchantments and things like Holy Smite, or Flamestrike, which are excellent VS undead and not much else. most inquisitors, mine included, tend to go for spells like Divine Favor, Greater Invisibility, and other buff spells like Flames of the Faithful and Shield of Faith. while i could see a potentially good caster only inquisitor, the dc's of your spells would still be pitiful, so going with martial is MUCH stronger. If you want to be a caster play a cleric.
that said, the statistics i posted earlier are based off of a fully buffed inquisitor, utilizing 4 different spells and haste. my statement about inquisitors finally starting to not suck at level 12 is based off of the fact that their Bane damage is doubled at level 12, and they finally begin to do damage.
Next up: "I got my feet chopped off by a demon, and my GM says I can't just get up and walk away? He's a dick, don't you agree?"
We've also got a great show of: "Well the Dead condition doesn't SAY I can't take actions."
Followed by: "Breath of Life totally restores the body of a disintegrated ally."
back to the dragon, it has AC 38, my inquisitor fully buffed (4 rounds of a dragon smacking you, or prior knowledge of the attack and enough time to buff) i have a +24 to hit. which means i need to roll 15 AT LEAST. Gargantuan black dragons have 8 touch AC so you need to not missfire. they have a reach of 15 ft with their bite, which means that an intelligent gunslinger should outrange it. consider getting into point-blank range, and using your 5 ft step after you attack rather than before, or maybe letting your tank distract it while you do your thing.with a standard action and a second level spell slot, that same Dragon can have a Touch AC of 38 for a number of minutes equal to it's caster level.3.5e spells are not core. this is speaking from core pathfinder.
EDIT: this occured during Pathfinder Society play. 3.5e is not allowed in society, i'll not accept any argument that has any non-society legal rulings in it if i am constrained to society in my own rulings. i think its fair to ask for equal footing.
I think it is hard to Demand that we all read up on PFS house rules for you to talk to us. But i think your sucking inquisitor is a good proof that we all play the game differently.
Umbriere think that 3.5 is as good as core, you have inqusitorial problems and my groups are most likely just as screwed.If Dragons have deflection in straf of natural armor then Gunslingers are not as good as they was. That is true. But we need to know they use the Spell if we are to undestand why ms. Moonwhisper think browser are better.
Calling shenanigans on this soapbox.
Citing a 3.5e spell is square in the land of House Rule territory for topical discussion. It is NOT an official pathfinder option. The the APG, UM, and UC are all part of the Core Rulebook Line. Let me reiterate. Core Rulebook Line. Dismissing it as 'a compatible splatbook' simple guts your own position stance into nonexistence on this topic.
Apologies if any offense given to anyone.
is using a small smattering of 3.5e material in your home game any different from?
incorporating DSP's Psionics into your home game?
Using the Golarion Setting Stuff in your non-golarion home game?
tweaking s weapon choice on a feat restricted to one weapon to make a new counterpart?
using the built in race builder with DM approval?
back to the dragon, it has AC 38, my inquisitor fully buffed (4 rounds of a dragon smacking you, or prior knowledge of the attack and enough time to buff) i have a +24 to hit. which means i need to roll 15 AT LEAST. Gargantuan black dragons have 8 touch AC so you need to not missfire. they have a reach of 15 ft with their bite, which means that an intelligent gunslinger should outrange it. consider getting into point-blank range, and using your 5 ft step after you attack rather than before, or maybe letting your tank distract it while you do your thing.with a standard action and a second level spell slot, that same Dragon can have a Touch AC of 38 for a number of minutes equal to it's caster level.3.5e spells are not core. this is speaking from core pathfinder.
EDIT: this occured during Pathfinder Society play. 3.5e is not allowed in society, i'll not accept any argument that has any non-society legal rulings in it if i am constrained to society in my own rulings. i think its fair to ask for equal footing.
I think it is hard to Demand that we all read up on PFS house rules for you to talk to us. But i think your sucking inquisitor is a good proof that we all play the game differently.
Umbriere think that 3.5 is as good as core, you have inqusitorial problems and my groups are most likely just as screwed.
If Dragons have deflection in straf of natural armor then Gunslingers are not as good as they was. That is true. But we need to know they use the Spell if we are to undestand why ms. Moonwhisper think browser are better.
i guess i worded that poorly, this argument never stated that they used 3.5e rules, also, we were never told that 3.5e was allowed. this is a forum for pathfinder, which did at one time boast backwards compatibility, i for one think that Pathfinder is good enough standalone to not rely of 3.5, and as such i prefer to use pathfinder core line books when i play, and i generally disallow 3.5e books. this is in line with PFS rules, so i use those as a good benchmark, my request was that you not say "this dragon was stupid, and should have just wrecked your party, simply because it didnt use one spell that it wasnt allowed to use." based on the fact that the encounter happened in something that did not allow 3.5 i can offer other more concrete or relatable arguments for why gunslingers are OP if you desire. however if we want to get back to the original post, my statement was that i felt he shouldnt complain about the only thing that really curtails the class. imagine if your guns never missfired from the get go, how many fights would have ended in one turn?
ill go ahead and answer that saying "Lots."
Calling shenanigans on this soapbox.
Citing a 3.5e spell is square in the land of House Rule territory for topical discussion. It is NOT an official pathfinder option. The the APG, UM, and UC are all part of the Core Rulebook Line. Let me reiterate. Core Rulebook Line. Dismissing it as 'a compatible splatbook' simple guts your own position stance into nonexistence on this topic.
Apologies if any offense given to anyone.
is using a small smattering of 3.5e material in your home game any different from?
incorporating DSP's Psionics into your home game?
Using the Golarion Setting Stuff in your non-golarion home game?
tweaking s weapon choice on a feat restricted to one weapon to make a new counterpart?
using the built in race builder with DM approval?
Not to me. But for this talk it is relevant that we know what Spell that put gunslingers on par with archers in Dragon hunting:)
Calling shenanigans on this soapbox.
Citing a 3.5e spell is square in the land of House Rule territory for topical discussion. It is NOT an official pathfinder option. The the APG, UM, and UC are all part of the Core Rulebook Line. Let me reiterate. Core Rulebook Line. Dismissing it as 'a compatible splatbook' simple guts your own position stance into nonexistence on this topic.
Apologies if any offense given to anyone.
is using a small smattering of 3.5e material in your home game any different from?
incorporating DSP's Psionics into your home game?
Using the Golarion Setting Stuff in your non-golarion home game?
tweaking s weapon choice on a feat restricted to one weapon to make a new counterpart?
using the built in race builder with DM approval?
i can with total honesty say that i have never played pathfinder using any of these things. while i do know of their existence and what they do, i feel that the game is more fun using the core line of books. please refer to my last post.
Followed by: "Breath of Life totally restores the body of a disintegrated ally."
*Shudders*
Please stop reminding me of that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i don't touch society with a 10 foot pole, i don't like being restricted in how i play, how i DM, or the monster options i used. haven't played PFS since 2010. i like being able to include minor snippets of 3.5 material to balance things that, while problems inside PFS, can be solved outside of PFS.
So I have a TWF gunslinger armed with a pair of pistols. Last night one of the pistols misfired and jammed. Next turn I say I fix the pistol ("unjam" it) as a move action.
The DM asks, "which hand do you unjam it with?"
Bottom line -- he says I need to have a free hand in order to unjam the misfired pistol, which means dropping or holstering the working pistol.
I argued that this is not anywhere in the rules that you need a free hand to unjam a pistol.
Who is right? Am I (ie the rules) correct, or is my DM being a weenie?
The DM made the right decision, hands down...
Followed by: "Breath of Life totally restores the body of a disintegrated ally."
*Shudders*
Please stop reminding me of that.
Never.
And then you guys realize that the OP hasn't replied yet, probably left because he didn't get the answer he wanted. >.>
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then you guys realize that the OP hasn't replied yet, probably left because he didn't get the answer he wanted. >.>
Oh yeah definitely. These complain on the forum threads backfire all the time.
In fact you could say...
/shades on.
It misfired.
YEAAAAAAAAAH.
the spell she is refering to is: http://dndtools.eu/spells/draconomicon--92/scintillating-scales--1001/
Scintillating Scales
(Draconomicon)
Abjuration
Level: Sorcerer 2, Wizard 2,
Components: V,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level
Your hide glistens and shimmers with a protective magical aura, granting you a deflection bonus to your Armor Class equal to your Constitution modifier.
Your natural armor bonus decreases by an amount equal to your Constitution modifier x 1/2.
in effect an ancient black dragon has 38 regular AC, 8 touch AC, and 25 con. this flips it to AC=38- 3 (7 modifier/2 rounded down)=35 AC and 8+7=15 touch AC. not quite as strong as she makes it seem, but still better than 8.
Never.
Followed by: "Breath of Life totally restores the body of a disintegrated ally."
*Shudders*
Please stop reminding me of that.
here is the spell that balances Archers and Gunslingers in the art of dragon hunting
it's 3.5 material on an approved reference site. the spell isn't for the faint of heart. it's a tactic disallowed in PFS, works just fine in a PF home game or one of those looser organized meetups (like SAGE if you live in Sacramento for example)
Scintillating Scales
(Spell Compendium, p. 181)
Abjuration
Level: Sorcerer 2, Wizard 2,
Components: V,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 minute/level
You invoke the words of this spell, and your skin glistens and shimmers with a silvery protective aura that makes you shine.
This spell transforms your natural armor bonus to Armor Class into a deflection bonus to your Armor Class. While your overall Armor Class might not change, the deflection bonus applies to melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks, including incorporeal touch attacks. If you have no natural armor bonus, this spell has no effect.
the spell compendium version trumps the dracominicon version and is the version i am referencing
here is the spell that balances Archers and Gunslingers in the art of dragon hunting
it's 3.5 material on an approved reference site. the spell isn't for the faint of heart. it's a tactic disallowed in PFS, works just fine in a PF home game or one of those looser organized meetups (like SAGE if you live in Sacramento for example)
this is precisely why i dont use 3.5e rules. the exact same spell from two different books on exactly the same website has two hugely variable rules.
this is precisely why i dont use 3.5e rules. the exact same spell from two different books on exactly the same website has two hugely variable rules.here is the spell that balances Archers and Gunslingers in the art of dragon hunting
it's 3.5 material on an approved reference site. the spell isn't for the faint of heart. it's a tactic disallowed in PFS, works just fine in a PF home game or one of those looser organized meetups (like SAGE if you live in Sacramento for example)
a General Rule, is that the Spell Compendium Version trumps any Non-Spell Compendium version
alright, lets leave the dragon where it lies, dead in the drink, and pick a different example.
pick any level, any ranged class, any point buy and any item worth, i will counter with a much stronger gunslinger (on paper) within the same parameters.
a General Rule, is that the Spell Compendium Version trumps any Non-Spell Compendium versionthis is precisely why i dont use 3.5e rules. the exact same spell from two different books on exactly the same website has two hugely variable rules.here is the spell that balances Archers and Gunslingers in the art of dragon hunting
it's 3.5 material on an approved reference site. the spell isn't for the faint of heart. it's a tactic disallowed in PFS, works just fine in a PF home game or one of those looser organized meetups (like SAGE if you live in Sacramento for example)
the draconomicon is a collection of spells and other rules specifically for dragons, i would think that a dragon looking at a spell would follow something specifically for a dragon, but again i re-iterate, this is PRECISELY why i do not use 3.5
the draconomicon is a collection of spells and other rules specifically for dragons, i would think that a dragon looking at a spell would follow something specifically for a dragon, but again i re-iterate, this is PRECISELY why i do not use 3.5a General Rule, is that the Spell Compendium Version trumps any Non-Spell Compendium versionthis is precisely why i dont use 3.5e rules. the exact same spell from two different books on exactly the same website has two hugely variable rules.here is the spell that balances Archers and Gunslingers in the art of dragon hunting
it's 3.5 material on an approved reference site. the spell isn't for the faint of heart. it's a tactic disallowed in PFS, works just fine in a PF home game or one of those looser organized meetups (like SAGE if you live in Sacramento for example)
Its also an interesting look at Power Creep of 3.5 over 2 years.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
there aren't many monsters that have a high touch AC without that 3.5e spell. so yeah, gunslinger can keep piling on penalties because they attack touch. and still stand a decent chance of hitting. though i will admit inquisitors don't make the best archers.
i love how we all derailed this thread as soon as the OP left after getting an answer he or she didn't want.
Gunslinger damage is a bit high, yes. I would have the Dragon grapple the dude.
I argued that this is not anywhere in the rules that you need a free hand to unjam a pistol.
Who is right? Am I (ie the rules) correct, or is my DM being a weenie?
Loading a Firearm: You need at least one hand free to load one-handed and two-handed firearms.
Since Dual-Wielding Fighting Pistols is a pretty cool concept, Players came up with multiple ways to bypass this:
-Buy Weapon Cords, with Quick Draw you can now juggle your Pistols and reload as oftwen as you wish to. However there is an FAQ advising GMs on limiting such free actions. Also this looks kinda stupid
-Gloves of Weapon Storing, more expensive than the Chords. Works the same way.
-Alchemist dip to grow a third arm.
-Reloading Hands spell, reloads your weapon once per round.
-Ask for being allowed to use revolvers. Those have six shots before running out of Ammunition.
Its also an interesting look at Power Creep of 3.5 over 2 years.the draconomicon is a collection of spells and other rules specifically for dragons, i would think that a dragon looking at a spell would follow something specifically for a dragon, but again i re-iterate, this is PRECISELY why i do not use 3.5a General Rule, is that the Spell Compendium Version trumps any Non-Spell Compendium versionthis is precisely why i dont use 3.5e rules. the exact same spell from two different books on exactly the same website has two hugely variable rules.here is the spell that balances Archers and Gunslingers in the art of dragon hunting
it's 3.5 material on an approved reference site. the spell isn't for the faint of heart. it's a tactic disallowed in PFS, works just fine in a PF home game or one of those looser organized meetups (like SAGE if you live in Sacramento for example)
true. the other dragon rules are what the dracominicon is good for, not the spells that got changed later in the spell compendium
but both are an interesting view of 3.5 power creep
pathfinder almost has the same power creep with the magus, gunslinger, summoner, samurai and ninja.
there aren't many monsters that have a high touch AC without that 3.5e spell. so yeah, gunslinger can keep piling on penalties because they attack touch. and still stand a decent chance of hitting. though i will admit inquisitors don't make the best archers.
i love how we all derailed this thread as soon as the OP left after getting an answer he or she didn't want.
inquisitors make fine archers, they just take time to come into their own. even so, i wager a smart gunslinger will outdamage any ranged class on paper, but that isnt why i think gunslingers are op. gunslingers are op because they have the option to do many things that no other class can. x4 crit, 1d12 ranged damage, hit touch AC, full BAB. at upper levels this more or less means that they have the option to hit on any roll that doesnt missfire. oh wait, they do that at low levels too.
i feel personally that they only reason gunslingers arent the perfect class is missfire chance. and guess what, THAT CAN GO AWAY AT LEVEL 13.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The OP still never clarified how the gunslinger was reloading with both hands occupied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The OP still never clarified how the gunslinger was reloading with both hands occupied.
Then I suppose it's great that we stopped caring and decided to talk about something far more interesting.
id wager it was an honest question from a newer player who decided to pick up the game. im basing this off the title. "my DM is a weiner." very mature.
i think im going to add a new quote to my profile "the best decision i ever made in my pathfinder career was refusing to play a gunslinger ever."
im tempted to build a gunslinger that uses a sword.
The GM was correct, and was not a weenie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i think im going to add a new quote to my profile "the best decision i ever made in my pathfinder career was refusing to play a gunslinger or summoner ever."
Fixed =)
Rule #1: the GM is right. The rules are just a guideline. You're playing in the GM's world, after all.
Don't bring that nonsense here, and yes I am a GM. The rules section is not the houserules section. Here we discuss the rules as they are written in the book, not what the GM says. Otherwise this section would not be needed.
Yeah I think the GM was correct but not for the reason you mentioned.
If the dragon need a 3.5 splat book to win pehaps guns are strong;)look I'm sorry Umbriere, but nothing you will ever say will convince me that gunslingers arent overpowered. my friend has a musket master, at level 11 she solo'd a Gargantuan Black Dragon with 449 HP in two rounds at 30 feet away. granted she crit once, but at 19-20 from an oil and its x4 crit.
EDIT: it was 3 rounds, and only had 349, i typo'd. it was a dragon that wasnt meant to be killed, you're supposed to run.
sounds like an issue in the dragons tactics to me. gunslingers at that level deal at least 100 DPR, but all martial characters at that level tend to. 3 rounds to kill the dragon is fairly reasonable for a long optimized martial character.
there are spells that the dragon could have used before the fight against the gunslinger, such as Scintillating Scales, which takes a natural armor bonus to AC and transforms it into an equivalent deflection bonus. effectively making the gunslinger have to target real AC. something any spellcasting creature with a lot of natural armor should take and use during every fight they enter.
there are also a variety of magic items exclusive to bow users
Pathfinder is basically 3.75, meaning 3.5 material is fairly compatible, in fact, the big pathfinder marketing feature when it was first released, was that backwards compatibility.
not using 3.5 material alongside pathfinder is electing not to utilize a major feature of the game.
and besides, it's only one spell from such a commonly used sourcebook it might as well be core. many people mistake spell compendium spells for core spells even today.
No they don't, and 3.5 is 3rd party to pathfinder. Not everything in 3.5 was even good for 3.5. With that aside the dragon had bad tactics if it just solo'd by a gunslinger. That is a GM problem, not a gunslinger problem. Maybe the dragon should have ambushed the party if it intended on killing them. If the intent was to make them run away then maybe being buffed should have happened.
3.5e spells are not core. this is speaking from core pathfinder.back to the dragon, it has AC 38, my inquisitor fully buffed (4 rounds of a dragon smacking you, or prior knowledge of the attack and enough time to buff) i have a +24 to hit. which means i need to roll 15 AT LEAST. Gargantuan black dragons have 8 touch AC so you need to not missfire. they have a reach of 15 ft with their bite, which means that an intelligent gunslinger should outrange it. consider getting into point-blank range, and using your 5 ft step after you attack rather than before, or maybe letting your tank distract it while you do your thing.with a standard action and a second level spell slot, that same Dragon can have a Touch AC of 38 for a number of minutes equal to it's caster level.Gunslingers aren't core either. i'm merely using a compatible splatbook to counter something from another compatible splatbook
Pathfinder was literally designed to be backwards compatible with 3.5, i'm merely using another feature of the system and a marketing gimmick from the initial release
The gunslinger is not core but it is official pathfinder material. 3.5 is not. The spell is not needed anyway.
here is the spell that balances Archers and Gunslingers in the art of dragon hunting
it's 3.5 material on an approved reference site. the spell isn't for the faint of heart. it's a tactic disallowed in PFS, works just fine in a PF home game or one of those looser organized meetups (like SAGE if you live in Sacramento for example)
This is NOT an approved reference site. The only approved site is the official one made by WoTC. Anyone with good HTML knowledge and a few books can create a website with rules from 3.5. If it was approved there would be an official link back to WoTC.
This is NOT an approved reference site. The only approved site is the official one made by WoTC. Anyone with good HTML knowledge and a few books can create a website with rules from 3.5. If it was approved there would be an official link back to WoTC.
That is legitimately what the spell is though.
I have exactly two 3.5 books: The Magic Item Compendium, and the Spell Compendium.
That's the one in the Spell Compendium.
SCINTILLATING SCALES
Abjuration
Level: Sorcerer/wizard 2
Components: V
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 minute/level
You invoke the words of this spell, and your skin glistens and shimmers with a silvery protective aura that makes you shine.
This spell transforms your natural armor bonus to Armor Class into a deflection bonus to your Armor Class. While your overall Armor Class might not change, the deflection bonus applies to melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks, including incorporeal touch attacks. If you have no natural armor bonus, this spell has no effect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never played with a gunslinger, but it seems pretty clear that they're overpowered. My evidence supporting this is to look at the forums, so much interest in the gunslinger and discussions about how powerful they are. Second, the one powergamer in my group said to me recently, "I'd like to try a gunslinger."
We play core only, but I told him I'd read up on it before making a decision. After I read up on it and told him no, he laughed because he knew he was basically trying to slip it in thinking I wouldn't investigate it fully.
Regardless if Pathfinder has changed the terminology or not, the "Core" rule book has always referred to player's book, dungeon master's book, and monster's manual. Player's book and dungeon master's book is combined in Pathfinder. This is the ONLY "Core" book. Everything else is non-core, a splatbook if you prefer, etc.
If you have to refer to 3.5 in order to "balance" out a splatbook class, you've already lost the argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never played with a gunslinger, but it seems pretty clear that they're overpowered. My evidence supporting this is to look at the forums, so much interest in the gunslinger and discussions about how powerful they are. Second, the one powergamer in my group said to me recently, "I'd like to try a gunslinger."
We play core only, but I told him I'd read up on it before making a decision. After I read up on it and told him no, he laughed because he knew he was basically trying to slip it in thinking I wouldn't investigate it fully.
Regardless if Pathfinder has changed the terminology or not, the "Core" rule book has always referred to player's book, dungeon master's book, and monster's manual. Player's book and dungeon master's book is combined in Pathfinder. This is the ONLY "Core" book. Everything else is non-core, a splatbook if you prefer, etc.
If you have to refer to 3.5 in order to "balance" out a splatbook class, you've already lost the argument.
we were referring to the Core Line of books, including the Core Rulebook, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Equipment, Ultimate Magic, APG, Bestiaries 1-3, and other books. i would call things like the player companion splatbooks.
we were referring to the Core Line of books, including the Core Rulebook, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Equipment, Ultimate Magic, APG, Bestiaries 1-3, and other books. i would call things like the player companion splatbooks.
I understand that, but just because they call something the "Core Line" doesn't mean it is "Core". There is a much smaller market for non-core books for a variety of reasons. So it makes sense from a marketing stance to try to identify other books as being "Core", but the whole purpose of identifying something as "Core" versus "Non-core" is to separate the original offering of the game against other, supplemental books.
In other words, whatever is the minimum needed to play the game is "Core", everything else is non-core, splatbook, etc.
we were referring to the Core Line of books, including the Core Rulebook, Ultimate Combat, Ultimate Equipment, Ultimate Magic, APG, Bestiaries 1-3, and other books. i would call things like the player companion splatbooks.I understand that, but just because they call something the "Core Line" doesn't mean it is "Core". There is a much smaller market for non-core books for a variety of reasons. So it makes sense from a marketing stance to try to identify other books as being "Core", but the whole purpose of identifying something as "Core" versus "Non-core" is to separate the original offering of the game against other, supplemental books.
In other words, whatever is the minimum needed to play the game is "Core", everything else is non-core, splatbook, etc.
Og the guys, that make the game, call it Core. i think it is safe, for us to do it as well:)
I've never played with a gunslinger, but it seems pretty clear that they're overpowered. My evidence supporting this is to look at the forums, so much interest in the gunslinger and discussions about how powerful they are. Second, the one powergamer in my group said to me recently, "I'd like to try a gunslinger."
We play core only, but I told him I'd read up on it before making a decision. After I read up on it and told him no, he laughed because he knew he was basically trying to slip it in thinking I wouldn't investigate it fully.
...
I think the gunslinger is good but i dont agree it is op.
And kick that player in a soft place and tell him it is rogue or nothing from here on.
Og the guys, that make the game, call it Core. i think it is safe, for us to do it as well:)
This is literally the only thread I've ever seen where the usage of core wasn't:
"Participant 1: OMG, gunslinger/summoner is broken. I'm using core only.
Participant 2: Core only. You fool! The wizard/cleric/druid is the most broken class in the game."
look I'm sorry Umbriere, but nothing you will ever say will convince me that gunslingers arent overpowered. my friend has a musket master, at level 11 she solo'd a Gargantuan Black Dragon with 449 HP in two rounds at 30 feet away. granted she crit once, but at 19-20 from an oil and its x4 crit.
EDIT: it was 3 rounds, and only had 349, i typo'd. it was a dragon that wasnt meant to be killed, you're supposed to run.
I'm confused. Why did the dragon stand around 30 feet away from the gunslinger doing nothing for 3 rounds? It sounds like this gunslinger killed the dragon because the dragon was poorly played. Muskets have a range increment of 40 feet and a maximum range of 200 feet. The dragon could have moved out of the gunlsinger's range in 1 round.
Archers can deal similar levels of DPR from 5 times the range with a far cheaper baseline weapon, far cheaper ammunition and no misfire chance. bows also benefit from a great amount of exclusive magic item and feat synergies, don't require as much feat investment to pull off, and area martial weapon rather than an exotic weapon.Gunslingers aren't any more broken than archers, in fact, archers are more overpowered.
EXACTLY! Now THAT is some "common sense"!!!
What I'm hearing is a lot of whiner DMs who aren't creative enough to challenge a base class like the gunslinger. Half of them are coming out and ADMITTING that I am right because the rules DO NOT state the need for a free hand when clearing a gun!
As for how I am reloading, it is with the Reloading Hands spell. Get this -- the DM gave us each a special ability (SLA) that could be any 1st or 2nd level spell, 3 times per day. Pretty sweet! He was being less of a lamer that day.
Anyway now I have the proof that even his fellow negative Nancies are admitting that nowhere in the ACTUAL RULES does it state that I need a free hand to clear a weapon. Thanks!
FACEPALM
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Archers can deal similar levels of DPR from 5 times the range with a far cheaper baseline weapon, far cheaper ammunition and no misfire chance. bows also benefit from a great amount of exclusive magic item and feat synergies, don't require as much feat investment to pull off, and area martial weapon rather than an exotic weapon.Gunslingers aren't any more broken than archers, in fact, archers are more overpowered.
EXACTLY! Now THAT is some "common sense"!!!
What I'm hearing is a lot of whiner DMs who aren't creative enough to challenge a base class like the gunslinger. Half of them are coming out and ADMITTING that I am right because the rules DO NOT state the need for a free hand when clearing a gun!
As for how I am reloading, it is with the Reloading Hands spell. Get this -- the DM gave us each a special ability (SLA) that could be any 1st or 2nd level spell, 3 times per day. Pretty sweet! He was being less of a lamer that day.
Anyway now I have the proof that even his fellow negative Nancies are admitting that nowhere in the ACTUAL RULES does it state that I need a free hand to clear a weapon. Thanks!
Considering the way you talk about your GM might i give you both the following advice:
Don't play together.
You clearly sound like you don't want to play this GM. And no GM would want to play with a player who talks about him/her that way and complains about their sensible rulings on the internet.
Og the guys, that make the game, call it Core. i think it is safe, for us to do it as well:)
You can, call them the gold books, if you like, but it, doesn't mean, they're made, of gold.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archers can deal similar levels of DPR from 5 times the range with a far cheaper baseline weapon, far cheaper ammunition and no misfire chance. bows also benefit from a great amount of exclusive magic item and feat synergies, don't require as much feat investment to pull off, and area martial weapon rather than an exotic weapon.Gunslingers aren't any more broken than archers, in fact, archers are more overpowered.
EXACTLY! Now THAT is some "common sense"!!!
What I'm hearing is a lot of whiner DMs who aren't creative enough to challenge a base class like the gunslinger. Half of them are coming out and ADMITTING that I am right because the rules DO NOT state the need for a free hand when clearing a gun!
As for how I am reloading, it is with the Reloading Hands spell. Get this -- the DM gave us each a special ability (SLA) that could be any 1st or 2nd level spell, 3 times per day. Pretty sweet! He was being less of a lamer that day.
Anyway now I have the proof that even his fellow negative Nancies are admitting that nowhere in the ACTUAL RULES does it state that I need a free hand to clear a weapon. Thanks!
The rules also do not state that a dead character cannot take actions.
They do not state that a toothless tiger does less bite damage than a normal one.
They do not state that a Roc with clipped wings cannot fly.
They do not state that declawed dragons do less damage on a claw attack.
They do not state that you can clear a weapon with only your gunslingers mind powers either.
Just because the rules do not say it does not mean that your DM was incorrect in making you use a free hand.