| 6 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This twin-barreled shotgun can be shot either one barrel at a time, or both together as one attack. A double shot that fires bullets is inaccurate, and takes a –4 penalty on both attacks. A double shot that fires bullets targets only a single creature and increases the damage of each barrel to 2d6 points (Small) or 2d8 points (Medium) for a total of 4d6 or 4d8 points.
Bolded for parts that I find important to question.
A common interpretation I have found is that it basically lets the player double their full attack like they have multi shot applied to each shot in exchange for a -4 penalty on attack roles.
The wording for the Double Barrel rule could use a little clarification in the form of a FAQ or Errata.
So it's in need of errata? Because I do not believe Paizo would ever intentionally print a weapon that literally doubles your full attack damage for a -4 penalty.
Yes, three in the same book all with the same unclear wording.
A -4 penalty to attack roles VS Touch AC. Touch AC on average never rises above 13 no matter the CR. In other words the penalty means practically nothing by the time you can afford the Double Barrel Shotgun.
Increased misfire chance may sound scary, but in practice it meant that the Gunslinger would obliterate almost anything in one round by having a full attack routine that did 60-100 damage at level 6 and occasionally do less damage due to misfire.
That and it being a "dual Wielding" equivalent for the low price of a few thousand gold as opposed to 3 feats+stat requirements is a false comparison.
The whole point of archery VS gunplay is that Archery has a higher damage potential, but is against higher ACs while gunplay was less damage, but against a low AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes it's unbalanced; yes it's unclear if Paizo originally intended it to be this powerful.
It's clear about how it works, except how it's intended to interact with certain feats like focused shot or sneak attacks.
If you don't like it, you can house rule it in your home games. I think it should be nerfed so you can only shoot one barrel per attack, mostly because of the way it hasn't been explained how it interacts with other rules.
The only thing archery wins on is range. Firearms are built broken and use mechanics that don't make se. e. Remember touch ac is what wizards are supposed to attack, not fighters. Even the guy whow made the class has put down the gundlinger, because he wrote the class for a home brew that uses different rules.
Anyway by about level 10 the -4 to hit means....well you still only miss on a misfire, which you can reduce to 0 by a number of means (though you still miss on a 1 of course). I highly recommend the house rule where you make firearms attack with penetration rating rather than against touch. They are still well worth using without making them so vastly superior to every other weapon in existence.
Oh, and paizo releases stuff this crazy all the time. You should look at the new sacred geometry rules. Three feats in one and spontaneously add 2 metamagic to a spell without increasing the spell level for what is effectively a full round cast after about level 7 when you nearly auto suceed.....
The thing that breaks it is being able to reload both barrels as a free action. I know this is fantasy, but reloading two barrels of a muzzle-loader in between two iterative attacks just strains my credulity too far.
IMHO, the fault lies with the rapid reload feat which is too much, even if it is RAW.
Yes it's unbalanced; yes it's unclear if Paizo originally intended it to be this powerful.
It's clear about how it works, except how it's intended to interact with certain feats like focused shot or sneak attacks.
If you don't like it, you can house rule it in your home games. I think it should be nerfed so you can only shoot one barrel per attack, mostly because of the way it hasn't been explained how it interacts with other rules.
The fact that it's "unclear if paizo intended it to be this powerful" is kind of proof that this needs a either a dev coming in to say "yeah this is intended" or an errata if it wasn't intended.
The only thing archery wins on is range. Firearms are built broken and use mechanics that don't make se. e. Remember touch ac is what wizards are supposed to attack, not fighters. Even the guy whow made the class has put down the gundlinger, because he wrote the class for a home brew that uses different rules.
Anyway by about level 10 the -4 to hit means....well you still only miss on a misfire, which you can reduce to 0 by a number of means (though you still miss on a 1 of course). I highly recommend the house rule where you make firearms attack with penetration rating rather than against touch. They are still well worth using without making them so vastly superior to every other weapon in existence.
Oh, and paizo releases stuff this crazy all the time. You should look at the new sacred geometry rules. Three feats in one and spontaneously add 2 metamagic to a spell without increasing the spell level for what is effectively a full round cast after about level 7 when you nearly auto suceed.....
Sacred Geometry isn't part of the "core series" of rules that the Double Barreled shotgun is part of and one can almost consider the Core team and the Campaign setting team to be completely separate.
In my experience regular Firearms are generally pretty balanced. Yes they're hitting all the time, but the Ranger's full attack routine does significantly more damage if it hits.
I guess I have a different experience, at least past low is levels. When I'm firing against a 35-45 and the gunslingers firing against a 7-12, my maximum damage doesn't really matter as I may land 2-3 hits versus the 9-10 the gunslinger will land. The free 3d6 damage for every hit every time after level 11 doesn't hurt either, and certainly helps bring their per hit damage closer to a rangers. And the gunslinger has a 95% chance to confirm a crit with his 10 shots per round (usually once a round) where as I have abut a 25-35% to confirm.
As I play an more heavily optimized archer with a less optimized gunslinger in a game, and I'm in that situation nearly every game I fail to see them as anything close to equal. And this is after the erratad the weapon cord, before that therected was even a wider discrepency.
No it's not balanced, but it does work exactly as you think it does OP.
Was it intentional....probably not. But I don't think Paizo has a good way of fixing it at this point, and it's easier for GMs just to say no to guns and gunslingers.
The other thing is to enforce the cost of ammunition on guns. In order for you to get free action reloads (without other shenanigans) requires rapid reload and the use of alchemical cartridges. Which are expensive, even when made by the gunslinger. At 6 gp per shot, they are literally shooting money at the enemy. Enforce this, and it becomes less of a problem.
I think if they had just made them use reg ac and kept the grit for touch ac, alot of complaints would have gone out the window.
The other thing is to enforce the cost of ammunition on guns. In order for you to get free action reloads (without other shenanigans) requires rapid reload and the use of alchemical cartridges. Which are expensive, even when made by the gunslinger. At 6 gp per shot, they are literally shooting money at the enemy. Enforce this, and it becomes less of a problem.
I find most people in a party just talk the spellcaster into memorizing it once each day, and buying them a few pearls of power. When you fire 10 times a round (level 11 + with haste and rapid) it pays for itself in about 17 rounds. Buy him 5 pearls and that will get you through most dungeons.
So it's in need of errata? Because I do not believe Paizo would ever intentionally print a weapon that literally doubles your full attack damage for a -4 penalty.
Designer citation. TWF shenanigans being a separate issue, yes, you really get double the shots provided you can keep the barrels loaded. That's a fairly big "provided" considering a lot of GMs don't even want to allow a gunslinger 20 to reload one single barrel enough times to get regular iteratives (but have no problem allowing a halfling sling expert to do the same).
The other thing is to enforce the cost of ammunition on guns. In order for you to get free action reloads (without other shenanigans) requires rapid reload and the use of alchemical cartridges. Which are expensive, even when made by the gunslinger. At 6 gp per shot, they are literally shooting money at the enemy. Enforce this, and it becomes less of a problem.I find most people in a party just talk the spellcaster into memorizing it once each day, and buying them a few pearls of power. When you fire 10 times a round (level 11 + with haste and rapid) it pays for itself in about 17 rounds. Buy him 5 pearls and that will get you through most dungeons.
You didn't specify which spell, but I'm assuming you mean Abundant Ammunition.
Which can help, if you have a the right class with you. For instance, I highly doubt you're going to convince the sorcerer, oracle, or bard to spend one of their spell known slots on it. Now, if you buy them a wand, maybe. But now you're spending action in combat to buff you not to spend your money....which other players probably aren't as worried about.
|
I guess I have a different experience, at least past low is levels. When I'm firing against a 35-45 and the gunslingers firing against a 7-12, my maximum damage doesn't really matter as I may land 2-3 hits versus the 9-10 the gunslinger will land. The free 3d6 damage for every hit every time after level 11 doesn't hurt either, and certainly helps bring their per hit damage closer to a rangers. And the gunslinger has a 95% chance to confirm a crit with his 10 shots per round (usually once a round) where as I have abut a 25-35% to confirm.
As I play an more heavily optimized archer with a less optimized gunslinger in a game, and I'm in that situation nearly every game I fail to see them as anything close to equal. And this is after the erratad the weapon cord, before that therected was even a wider discrepency.
Can someone explain this theory that bows deal more damage? Gunslingers get to use one stat for to-hit and damage, unlike traditional archers, have competitive damage die, better crit multiplier, same crit range, and numerous ways to reduce their misfire rating to non-existent. They get pretty much all the same feats other than Manyshot (which double-barrel is superior to), and they're targeting a defense that may be as much as 35 points lower than that being targeted by their counterparts.
I'm just curious where in that equation this assertion that archery does better damage came from...
|
If you have enough feats, you can still do the TWF double barreled pistol thing.
Thanks to gun twirling
But it might cut into your two weapon fighting feats. But it would look really, really cool. :)
|
|
If you have enough feats, you can still do the TWF double barreled pistol thing.
Thanks to gun twirling
But it might cut into your two weapon fighting feats. But it would look really, really cool. :)
You could do it anyway with a Glove of Storing.
|
|
You could do it anyway with a Glove of Storing.If you have enough feats, you can still do the TWF double barreled pistol thing.
Thanks to gun twirling
But it might cut into your two weapon fighting feats. But it would look really, really cool. :)
Yeah, except that mean that you have to:
Attack - rightAttack - left
store left
reload right
unstore left
switch left and right
store left
reload right
unstore left
If we are going to start letting people switch weapons back and forth during two weapon attacks, I want to have a +4 sword, and a mundane dagger, and make all my attacks with the +4 sword and just keep switching it back and forth between hands.
For that matter, why do I even need two guns or gauntlets of storing:
Attack right
reload right
shift weapon to left
attack left.
reload left.
etc...
I guess I have a different experience, at least past low is levels. When I'm firing against a 35-45 and the gunslingers firing against a 7-12, my maximum damage doesn't really matter as I may land 2-3 hits versus the 9-10 the gunslinger will land. The free 3d6 damage for every hit every time after level 11 doesn't hurt either, and certainly helps bring their per hit damage closer to a rangers. And the gunslinger has a 95% chance to confirm a crit with his 10 shots per round (usually once a round) where as I have abut a 25-35% to confirm.
As I play an more heavily optimized archer with a less optimized gunslinger in a game, and I'm in that situation nearly every game I fail to see them as anything close to equal. And this is after the erratad the weapon cord, before that therected was even a wider discrepency.
Can someone explain this theory that bows deal more damage? Gunslingers get to use one stat for to-hit and damage, unlike traditional archers, have competitive damage die, better crit multiplier, same crit range, and numerous ways to reduce their misfire rating to non-existent. They get pretty much all the same feats other than Manyshot (which double-barrel is superior to), and they're targeting a defense that may be as much as 35 points lower than that being targeted by their counterparts.
I'm just curious where in that equation this assertion that archery does better damage came from...
So, assuming the gunslinger isn't using the broken and in need of errata double barrel gun the archer has
str+Multishot+class bonuses (fighter weapon training, Favored Enemy, smite, ect) and the same number of shots while the Gunslinger only has one stat being applied to his damage. The first arrow of an archers full attack should be approximately 2 bullets worth of damage then afterward a flurry of less accurate arrows.
So it's in need of errata? Because I do not believe Paizo would ever intentionally print a weapon that literally doubles your full attack damage for a -4 penalty.Designer citation. TWF shenanigans being a separate issue, yes, you really get double the shots provided you can keep the barrels loaded. That's a fairly big "provided" considering a lot of GMs don't even want to allow a gunslinger 20 to reload one single barrel enough times to get regular iteratives (but have no problem allowing a halfling sling expert to do the same).
That post by Stephen makes me incredibly sad and depressed that his first response to those questions was to help people understand how strong it was as opposed to saying "well that needs an errata"
|
|
I'm just curious where in that equation this assertion that archery does better damage came from...
You are confusing guns and class features. Without the gunslinger class feature they don't get dex to damage where as anyone can buy a bow with strength to damage irregardless of class features.
Few of the misfire mitigation abilities are class specific, and class bonuses apply equally to guns and bows. If I'm running a Paladin and making 18 (8 main hand, 6 off-hand, 2 Rapid Shot, 2 haste) pistol attacks with +20 smite compared to the bow's 7 (4 primary, 1 Rapid Shot, 1 Manyshot, 1 haste) with +20 Smite and +5 STR.... I still have a lead of 178 points of damage before calculating crits (where the firearm will stretch the lead by virtue of a greater multiplier). Even if I swap that down to "only" a 5 attack lead by switching over to a d.b. musket, I still have a damage lead of over 75 points pre-crit. Maybe this skews more towards the bow's favor at lower levels where you might still be working on misfire mitigation and your damage boosting class features are less reliable?
That is assuming you're using the double barrel rule. As is very obvious there should be no weapon in the game that doubles your full attack for such a cheap amount (5000 I believe).
|
|
That is assuming you're using the double barrel rule. As is very obvious there should be no weapon in the game that doubles your full attack for such a cheap amount (5000 I believe).
Well, yeah, but I figured it was relevant to the point we're discussing. If double-barrel isn't a thing then you really do end up with a reality where bows have greater damage while firearms have a much greater chance to hit, and that probably comes a little closer to balanced (though firearms will still deal much more damage against creatures like bulettes, dinosaurs, dragons, giants, golems, the Tarrasque, etc. since they're either practically or literally guaranteed to hit on anything but a natural 1 with all of their attacks).
The problem is that -4 means jack-all when you're targeting a defense that goes down as your BAB goes up. It might suck at levels 1-5, but during higher levels, particularly 12+, a character using a firearm can freely take a -12 penalty to his attack rolls and still have a better chance to hit than just about anyone else, sometimes by 20 points or more.
|
|
First, note that even the musket still has a huge leap, no dual wielding required.
Second, it doesn't matter what class feature we reference. As I was responding to Maezer, you can make that Favored Enemy, Weapon Training, Bane/Judgement, Challenge, Sneak Attack, whatever, and it comes out the same.
And the devs haven't actually done anything to prevent TWF with pistols. In fact, they released the Gun Twirling feat in a recent supplement that enables you to do it without any magical gear or extra limb shenanigans, and with the added benefit of letting Rogue's stack up Sneak Attack damage on every shot. Read that post again. He specifically says it's legal, just that he doesn't like it.
And if you think -8 to hit for a Gunslinger is "massive" at 20th level, I'm sorry, but you don't know anything about the game at that level. You're targeting an average AC of 11 with firearms against appropriate challenges. You can eat -8 without blinking and still more than twice the chance to hit of archers who are targeting an average AC of 39.
The Gunslinger will take -4 for TWF, -2 for Rapid Shot, -6 for Deadly Aim, and still have a to-hit advantage of 16 points. That means his last iterative, the one that's only at +5 BAB, still has a higher chance of hitting than the archer's very first attack.
The OP is also talking specifically about the Shotgun, which is an advanced gun. In a setting that would allow it, I assume the primitive ones would be even more common. It does cost quite a bit though! Not something you'd be starting with at lvl 1, that's for sure.
A lot of the "guns are broken" talk is focused on the Gunslinger. Well, obviously a class built around the weapon will be extremely devastating with it....what happens when it gets sundered, explodes, or is taken from them (disarmed, in prison for murder, etc)? How powerful are they then?
Guns, when used by any other class, say fighters, aren't nearly as powerful. They're actually ok weapons.
|
|
The OP is also talking specifically about the Shotgun, which is an advanced gun. In a setting that would allow it, I assume the primitive ones would be even more common. It does cost quite a bit though! Not something you'd be starting with at lvl 1, that's for sure.
A lot of the "guns are broken" talk is focused on the Gunslinger. Well, obviously a class built around the weapon will be extremely devastating with it....what happens when it gets sundered, explodes, or is taken from them (disarmed, in prison for murder, etc)? How powerful are they then?
Guns, when used by any other class, say fighters, aren't nearly as powerful. They're actually ok weapons.
As far as damage potential goes, the Fighter (especially if he grabs that Trench Fighter archetype, but even without) exceeds the Gunslinger. He just doesn't have the skill points or tricks, and can only mitigate misfires by spending wealth on magical options.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I have further realized the problem lies with the double barrel rule. That's the part that needs errata.
|
|
First, you cannot reload a musket as a free action without being a level 3 musket master gunslinger, so theres a large investment there. And I already said that the devs are fine with a single double-barreled weapon, so I am not gonna argue about that. You presented what is close to an unworkable character as a counter point, that I take issue with.
For gun twirling, so you add an extra 5 feats to the requirements I listed before. So the paladin you presented can start dual wielding effectively at level 15 (13 as a human) and eventually reach the attack sequence you talk about at 19, by spending 8 more feats than the bow wielder needs to make his 7.
You keep presenting false comparisons of vastly different investments of character resources.
I'm not presenting false comparisons, I'm telling you what the difference is. It doesn't matter if the archer has a 6 feat lead, there aren't 6 feats in the game that add up to an archer getting +28 to-hit and 75 - 178 extra points of damage.
You're just trying to defend something that really is beyond defense. The Paladin in question, and it doesn't have to be a Paladin, has numerous options for dual wielding well before level 15; he can buy a Glove of Storing by 9th level (at the latest) and be good to go for a few thousand gold. There are racial options, feat options, magic items, and all kinds of other goodies that can also facilitate dual-wielding. It's a thing, and if the devs didn't want it to be, they probably should have specifically prevented it instead of continuing to create options to facilitate it.
But this has been hashed out in dozens of threads already, and is just a click away. You might even see posters telling me the exact same thing a year or two ago when my gun-fu wasn't up to snuff and I thought they were just fine.
As far as damage potential goes, the Fighter (especially if he grabs that Trench Fighter archetype, but even without) exceeds the Gunslinger. He just doesn't have the skill points or tricks, and can only mitigate misfires by spending wealth on magical options.The OP is also talking specifically about the Shotgun, which is an advanced gun. In a setting that would allow it, I assume the primitive ones would be even more common. It does cost quite a bit though! Not something you'd be starting with at lvl 1, that's for sure.
A lot of the "guns are broken" talk is focused on the Gunslinger. Well, obviously a class built around the weapon will be extremely devastating with it....what happens when it gets sundered, explodes, or is taken from them (disarmed, in prison for murder, etc)? How powerful are they then?
Guns, when used by any other class, say fighters, aren't nearly as powerful. They're actually ok weapons.
That may be true, but a fighter won't be able to even afford a gun for the first few level, let alone a MW or magical one. Again, obviously an archetype based on guns makes it better. I'm thinking about normal, non archetype characters in a word with guns, surely someone would become fascinated with them and want to try using one. The non-gunslingers would also be hemorrhaging money on each shot.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, I have further realized the problem lies with the double barrel rule. That's the part that needs errata.
That's a big part of it, yeah. The problem is that there's no way to effectively balance the amplicative power of the double-barrel with piddly little -4's to hit when the Gunslinger and firearm wielders can afford to take a -27 to hit and still have greater accuracy than an archer. You need to either remove or substantially alter the touch mechanic, or the double-barrel mechanic.
|
|
That may be true, but a fighter won't be able to even afford a gun for the first few level, let alone a MW or magical one. Again, obviously an archetype based on guns makes it better. I'm thinking about normal, non archetype characters in a word with guns, surely someone would become fascinated with them and want to try using one. The non-gunslingers would also be hemorrhaging money on each shot.As far as damage potential goes, the Fighter (especially if he grabs that Trench Fighter archetype, but even without) exceeds the Gunslinger. He just doesn't have the skill points or tricks, and can only mitigate misfires by spending wealth on magical options.The OP is also talking specifically about the Shotgun, which is an advanced gun. In a setting that would allow it, I assume the primitive ones would be even more common. It does cost quite a bit though! Not something you'd be starting with at lvl 1, that's for sure.
A lot of the "guns are broken" talk is focused on the Gunslinger. Well, obviously a class built around the weapon will be extremely devastating with it....what happens when it gets sundered, explodes, or is taken from them (disarmed, in prison for murder, etc)? How powerful are they then?
Guns, when used by any other class, say fighters, aren't nearly as powerful. They're actually ok weapons.
Like I mentioned before, the hamfisted balancing attempts of high cost and misfire rates actually hold up pretty well during the first 5 levels of play or so. If you rarely leave the early levels of play and tend to wrap your campaigns around 10th level, it'll all more or less work out to be fairly balanced.
Sorry, I have further realized the problem lies with the double barrel rule. That's the part that needs errata.That's a big part of it, yeah. The problem is that there's no way to effectively balance the amplicative power of the double-barrel with piddly little -4's to hit when the Gunslinger and firearm wielders can afford to take a -27 to hit and still have greater accuracy than an archer. You need to either remove or substantially alter the touch mechanic, or the double-barrel mechanic.
So is it completely borked is is their any hope for errata? I would think Paizo knows of this, but this is the same company who left the majority of Witch Hexes missing important information in their entries, such as range.
|
|
So is it completely borked is is their any hope for errata? I would think Paizo knows of this, but this is the same company who left the majority of Witch Hexes missing important information in their entries, such as range.Sorry, I have further realized the problem lies with the double barrel rule. That's the part that needs errata.That's a big part of it, yeah. The problem is that there's no way to effectively balance the amplicative power of the double-barrel with piddly little -4's to hit when the Gunslinger and firearm wielders can afford to take a -27 to hit and still have greater accuracy than an archer. You need to either remove or substantially alter the touch mechanic, or the double-barrel mechanic.
You should have seen the look on Jason Buhlman's face when I saw someone mention the Gunslinger to him. They were talking about some mechanic and he was describing why it was a bad idea when the person was like "Well you did it with the Gunslinger". HIs whole face spasmed and he just said "Of course we did!" and changed the subject. I have a suspicion supported by circumstantial evidence that he probably wishes they'd never released the current version of firearms and the Gunslinger. I've seen a number of really good house-rule fixes and one or two campaign specific 3pp fixes, but I'm not sure how Paizo would correct this given the fact that it would require a fairly drastic change, and I'm not sure if it's something they'll see as worth fixing anymore than they already have with the weapon cord nerf since that pushes the problem out to about the level where PFS starts retiring characters. Probably the easiest small fix is to change it so that instead od an entire extra attack, you take the -4 penalty and add an extra damage die, kind of like a modified Vital Strike.
|
|
And please, show me an actual build that can reliably dual wield firearms (i.e. multiple turns in a row) at level nine. Gloves of storing do not cut it, as there is no way to reload the stored weapon. And do throw that comment about not being different than holding something in a shield hand. That is explicitly allowed for bucklers and light shields, and you need a house rule to do it with a heavy shield. Even then there is no rule that switching two weapons between hands is a free action, only taking a hand off and back on a single weapon. Gun Twirling shenanigans is also covered by the free action rule. The sequence you described would require 29 free actions, requiring 11 draws/holstering actions if I counted right.
Again, I point to the dev post, they are fine with a single double barreled firearm, they do not like dual wielding double-barreled firearms
You don't reload the gun while it's stored, you reload it while it's in your hand. "things you describe as cheesy" and "perfectly within the rules" are not mutually exclusive.
And it doesn't matter if the devs don't like dual wielding. I don't like bologna, that doesn't mean there aren't thousands of people out there eating it every day. The fact of the matter is that the rules necessary to allow dual wielding of firearms exist, Paizo's iconic Gunslinger is pictured with a pistol in each hand (and before there's any pedantry, yes I'm aware that her stat block doesn't actually include her TWF, that doesn't mean people aren't going to see her with her two pistols and try to find the most mechanically effective way to emulate it), and they haven't actually changed any rules to prevent dual wielding, though they did issue a FAQ to delay the level at which it was possible by nerfing weapon cords. What you would rule at your home table is fine, but not pertinent to the discussion. I can mitigate firearms just fine at my home table too, and do so. We're talking about the current clusterf*!~ that is the firearms RAW and how to fix it, and whether there is or should be any expectation for Paizo to repair it via errata or FAQ.
Gunslinger in our campaign built himself a double barrel shotgun and his average full attack damage was 90 at level 6. Dice could make his damage as low as 70 or as high as 110, but most of the time he did 90 damage a round consistently. This was a base Gunslinger with only a +1weapon mind you.
Double barrel is the problem. Guess who has actual touch AC? Monks and high level archers. Almost anything else from bestiary monsters to humanoids with class levels has easily reached touch AC.
|
|
And let me call this out:
Do not think I am defending Dual wielding double barreled pistols, I am not, I do not believe that is intended. I do believe, and have been supported by the devs, that the double-barreled rules by themselves are fine.
That quote didn't say "I think it's fine" it said "this is how it works". And rules don't exist in a vacuum. Saying "I think the double-barreled rules by themselves are fine" is like saying "I don't have any problem with the lance, as long there's no mounted combat". It's assinine. A mechanic either works or does not work within the total context of the game.
(Mounted Combat and the lance are fine, together, it was just the easiest parallel.)
With primitive firearms only hitting touch AC in the first range increment, it can still really cause problems, if they don't drop whatever it is, they'll obviously be a huge threat and attacked.
Now modern firearms, like the shotgun, are a whole different matter, they *are* more powerful! Hence the notes in the boom on being cautious in allowing them. To get to that level of weapon the more primitive ones would be more common and defences against guns would be much more common. That's a setting issue. It for primitive guns? They have a lot of negatives due to the mechanics. Then again, you're using guns, which is Awesome!
|
|
How are you reloading the weapon in the hand you have the glove of storing on while you have a gun in the other hand?
I start with two guns in hand, shoot you in the face, free action store my off-hand, reload, shoot you in the face, reload, shoot you in the face, reload, shoot you in the face, reload, summon up my stored gun, free action swap hands, free action store main-hand gun, free action swap back off-hand, shoot you in the face, reload, shoot you in the face, reload, shoot you in the face, reload.
And to address the two things you are about to say, because I've said them myself and they've been hashed out dozens of times:
1) No, you don't have to have two weapons in hand during the entire sequence. There's numerous examples of guys TWF with multiple thrown weapons, and feats written specifically assuming you will do so. Disallowing storing a gun during the attack sequence would also be disallowing TWF thrown combatants, which may be part of why Paizo hasn't addressed it and instead have targeted gear that facilitates it.
2) No, the attack sequence does not have to go main hand / off-hand /main hand / off-hand. The rules just say you have to take your primary iteratives in order from highest to lowest. Sean said there's nothing wrong with taking all your main hand and all your off-hand, or even going main hand/ off-hand / off-hand / off-hand / main hand / main hand. Jason Buhlman even stated that in his opinion a strict RAW reading of the rules required you to take all of your main hand attacks before taking your off-hand attacks. Either reference is easily located by searching their names and Two weapon fighting.
|
|
Second, to ssalarn, the more apt comparison is not I don't have a problem with lances, it's I dont have a problem with lances and mounted combat, I have an issue when the lance charge bonus applies to every attack on a pouncr. Guess what, that got changed.
I have no clue what point you think you're making. Are you pointing out the fact that the double-barrel rules really do need FAQ or errata since they have the exact same multiplicative damage properties as getting lance bonuses on every attack in a charging pounce? Thank you for underscoring my point.