This is my only concern for allowing them.
I'm talking Barbarian as a baseline for balanced. Hitting touch AC is what puts me off.
They hit a bit more often, and that's about it.
Compare them to an archer and you'll find they're roughly equivalent, or even inferior.
Restrict Double Barrel Pistol shenanigans though.
Also, ammo cost is part of the class balance. Don't handwave the cost per shot.
Accounting-finder is not exactly enticing.
|
Well, that all depends on what your definition of balance is and who your group is. I have a very different mindset than other DMs and I have a unique almost grognard playstyle.
In my group a few months back, we had a Paladin, Skald, and Gunslinger. The Gunslinger did very well in a few encounters (managing to crit a boss encounter and save the lives of the entire party in the process.) In the early levels, Ammo and misfires are a real concern. I was playing them in a heavily modified Kingmaker campaign at the time (it fell apart due to one of our players moving and the other getting into college finally.) I'd run them through several encounters back to back and there was no such thing as the "15 minute adventuring day" in my games. I should also mention I hardly ever GM characters over 7th level. This is due to campaigns falling apart, or me wrapping stories up naturally.
So with all those caveats in place about my playstyle, the group the gunslinger was with, and what was going on at the time:
I feel they are balanced as long as you pay attention to all firearms rules, from reload times to misfire chance. I'm sure some people could break gunslingers with all sorts of retraining rules and feat shenanigans, but then what class can't be broken with such things? I should also point out that in that group I didn't allow archetypes or alternate racial traits. I never did like alternate class features even in 3.0 D&D.
Also, ammo cost is part of the class balance. Don't handwave the cost per shot.Accounting-finder is not exactly enticing.
It doesn't need to be accountant-finder. The DM can offer that 50 rounds of ammunition lasts 6-8 encounters. Just keep a tally of encounters to know when to restock. If you run out, you are screwed. I agree tallying every billet is a bit crazy
|
Yeah the only thing is unbalanced is double pistol/musket combined with lvl 13 gunslinger (who ignores misfire), thats a fairly specific combination. DB firearms are balanced until you get to ignore misfires since they normally increase misfire. Misfires eat A LOT of dpr about 25% to 35% I may say, they are not usually included on dpr because its difficult to calculate.
I did the math on another thread, witouth double firearms damage doesnt go higher than a two handed Fighter even if you remove misfires. If you are concerned about balance just ban double firearms and be done with it.
Well, I am convinced.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Double-barreled weapons are fine as long as you remember that the person using them needs a free hand for reloading. Don't let them try to abuse tricks to dual-wield two double-barrel pistols and constantly reload them and you'll be fine.
Can somebody explain what the deal is with double barrel weapons?
Sure they have a sort of "alpha strike" advantage by having twice asmany bullets to fire the first turn, but then you have to also reload for twice as many actions. What am I missing?
A properly-built and -equipped gunslinger can reload as a free action.
Limiting a gunslinger to one free action between each attack pretty much nips the idea of them abusing it in the bud.
They are not overpowered, IMO... But they do add an considerable amount of extra work to the GM's load.
The GM now has to consider that pretty much every attack will hit. It's not a big deal, but it's annoying to have to calculate touch AC all the time...
I removed the "target touch AC" element from firearms in my games because it makes no sense and increases my workload for little to no gain (firearms suck anyway, unless you're a gunslinger, in which case they are still awesome anyway). To compensate for that, I increased their range and base damage, while reducing their cost.
IIRC the IRL equivalent of the Early Firearms could not actually penetrate plate or even chain mail effectively. Lead shot didn't have a ton of penetrating power as far as I know.
Yet for some reason armor all but disappeared from battlefields when firearms began taking hold.
@magus janus
With free action reloads i don't see how you even need the double barrels anymore.
Sure if there were such a limitation of 1 free action during a full attack, but as far as the combat rules go there isn't one.
Yet for some reason armor all but disappeared from battlefields when firearms began taking hold.
IIRC, they coexisted on battlefields for over a century.
Besides... I'm pretty sure that police officers and soldiers are using kevlar body armor for its capacity to stop bullets, rather than some mysterious dexterity-enhancing properties...
I banned guns in my home game because of the silliness with them.
Silliness: You can matrix dodge out of the path of bullets but being in a steel can is useless.
I understand why they made it this way (avoiding exploits with sneak attack and firearms) but it is still silly imo.
I do not understand how matrix dodging arrows is any better.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I banned guns in my home game because of the silliness with them.
Silliness: You can matrix dodge out of the path of bullets but being in a steel can is useless.
I understand why they made it this way (avoiding exploits with sneak attack and firearms) but it is still silly imo.
"Dragons flying in dungeons is silly, i banned them in my games"
Yep, this is sillyI banned guns in my home game because of the silliness with them.
Silliness: You can matrix dodge out of the path of bullets but being in a steel can is useless.
Actually, Dafydd is right; it was quite rare for medieval firearms to be able to pierce plate armor. And typically a manufacturing defect if the armor was new. Gunpowder itself did not reach the point of being a serious threat to plate armor until, at the earliest, the very late 1400s to early 1500s, by which point most armor was beginning to be phased out due to other concerns anyway.
@magus janus
With free action reloads i don't see how you even need the double barrels anymore.Sure if there were such a limitation of 1 free action during a full attack, but as far as the combat rules go there isn't one.
To get two attacks on the first attack; it's mainly for maximizing damage output.
Actually, Dafydd is right; it was quite rare for medieval firearms to be able to pierce plate armor. And typically a manufacturing defect if the armor was new. Gunpowder itself did not reach the point of being a serious threat to plate armor until, at the earliest, the very late 1400s to early 1500s, by which point most armor was beginning to be phased out due to other concerns anyway.
This is something I'm curious about... I remember learning that firearms shared battlefields with armor for about a century, but I don't recall what exactly made armor be phased out (It's been quite a while since I last had any sort of history-related class :P).
Yet for some reason armor all but disappeared from battlefields when firearms began taking hold.IIRC, they coexisted on battlefields for over a century.
Besides... I'm pretty sure that police officers and soldiers are using kevlar body armor for its capacity to stop bullets, rather than some mysterious dexterity-enhancing properties...
Yes but kevlar and carbon fibre are a completely different deal than simple 14-15th century steel.
As for "dodging" bullets, I encourage people to think of it more as making yourself a difficult target, rather than moving out of the way after the bullet/bolt/arrow has already left the weapon shooting it behind.
Ask a hunter, they will tell you that a deer standing still is a lot easier to shoot than one bobbing and weaving as it runs away.
I banned guns in my home game because of the silliness with them.Silliness: You can matrix dodge out of the path of bullets but being in a steel can is useless.
One penetrated in the picture, one didn't.
They used to "proof" breastplates by firing an arquebus at them at close range in the late 1500s - 1600s. If it didn't penetrate they were "proof". As in bullet proof. Or ball proof at least :) They came with the dent to prove it. There was an arms / armor race over this and breastplates became increasingly heavy as time went on. So, yeah, all that metal is "useless". Well not really, of course the breastplate only covers about half the target. Still, an important half. This is not to say that it wouldn't knock you @ss over tea kettle if it hit you of course. And you might take a ball in another area, but the armor is still effective at providing some level of protection. I think the devs just wanted it kept as simple as possible and went with touch armor class. Imo, of course...
Anyway, it really depends on the time period as to how useful armor was vs. it's cost and weight and increasingly powerful firearms.
Yes but kevlar and carbon fibre are a completely different deal than simple 14-15th century steel.Yet for some reason armor all but disappeared from battlefields when firearms began taking hold.IIRC, they coexisted on battlefields for over a century.
Besides... I'm pretty sure that police officers and soldiers are using kevlar body armor for its capacity to stop bullets, rather than some mysterious dexterity-enhancing properties...
Doesn't matter, it's still armor. Firearms ignore all sorts of armor. Those little balls of lead are not just good at piercing armor... They can completely ignore it like a lightsaber going through butter.
Crossbows had more piercing power than any early firearm, but they don't ignore armor. Not even leather armor. In fact, not even a giant's axe ignores armor, despite the fact that it's twice the size of the target and the armor is made of leather.
Also, as I mentioned already, firearms coexisted with armor for quite a long time...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Dafydd is right; it was quite rare for medieval firearms to be able to pierce plate armor. And typically a manufacturing defect if the armor was new. Gunpowder itself did not reach the point of being a serious threat to plate armor until, at the earliest, the very late 1400s to early 1500s, by which point most armor was beginning to be phased out due to other concerns anyway.This is something I'm curious about... I remember learning that firearms shared battlefields with armor for about a century, but I don't recall what exactly made armor be phased out (It's been quite a while since I last had any sort of history-related class :P).
A combination of factors. Armor was having to get heavier and heavier just to keep up with the increasing invention of melee weapons that could pierce it, IIRC there was also a steel shortage going on that the constant weapons race created (I might be off), military tactics were evolving away from having a few elite soldiers in armor with a bunch of peasants towards having professional militia forces, and the long training period to use armor and swords in combat effectively was beginning to become a hindrance.
There's a few more considerations beyond that; firearms were really not one of them except that they were cheap to train soldiers on. It's not really until much later into firearm history that consistent ability to pierce armor becomes something common to firearms.
Actually, Dafydd is right; it was quite rare for medieval firearms to be able to pierce plate armor. And typically a manufacturing defect if the armor was new. Gunpowder itself did not reach the point of being a serious threat to plate armor until, at the earliest, the very late 1400s to early 1500s, by which point most armor was beginning to be phased out due to other concerns anyway.This is something I'm curious about... I remember learning that firearms shared battlefields with armor for about a century, but I don't recall what exactly made armor be phased out (It's been quite a while since I last had any sort of history-related class :P).A combination of factors. Armor was having to get heavier and heavier just to keep up with the increasing invention of melee weapons that could pierce it, IIRC there was also a steel shortage going on that the constant weapons race created (I might be off), military tactics were evolving away from having a few elite soldiers in armor with a bunch of peasants towards having professional militia forces, and the long training period to use armor and swords in combat effectively was beginning to become a hindrance.
There's a few more considerations beyond that; firearms were really not one of them except that they were cheap to train soldiers on. It's not really until much later into firearm history that consistent ability to pierce armor becomes something common to firearms.
I see. Thanks for the information.
|
|
Yes but kevlar and carbon fibre are a completely different deal than simple 14-15th century steel.Yet for some reason armor all but disappeared from battlefields when firearms began taking hold.IIRC, they coexisted on battlefields for over a century.
Besides... I'm pretty sure that police officers and soldiers are using kevlar body armor for its capacity to stop bullets, rather than some mysterious dexterity-enhancing properties...
Doesn't matter, it's still armor. Firearms ignore all sorts of armor. Those little balls of lead are not just good at piercing armor... They can completely ignore it like a lightsaber going through butter.
Crossbows had more piercing power than any early firearm, but they don't ignore armor. Not even leather armor. In fact, not even a giant's axe ignores armor, despite the fact that it's twice the size of the target and the armor is made of leather.
Also, as I mentioned already, firearms coexisted with armor for quite a long time...
Yeah but there is no kevlar in pathfinder. Pathfinder firearms are a result of selective realism in a game where weapon attacks are based on abstractions. Well thats what it is, if it were in my power i would completely rewrite firearms rules, first starting by removing the silly misfire rules
Yes they're balanced.
Don't forget cost of ammo and misfires. Or the time taken to reload.
Oh no! A martial class that's built to use a specific weapon group and use them well! What ever will we do?
Yeah but there is no kevlar in pathfinder.
True, but there is armor... And piercing armor is a firearm ability. In fact, because it's a property of the weapons, rather than the ammo's, an early firearm could shoot rubber bullets and still completely bypass any sort of armor. oO.
Pathfinder firearms are a result of selective realism in a game where weapon attacks are based on abstractions.
Well... Duh! Obviously. I do not disagree with that, I'm just saying firearm rules make no sense from either a realism perspective (which I don't really care about, to be honest) or from a balance perspective (firearms are by far the worst weapons in the game, unless you're a Gunslinger. Their little gimmick is balanced by a huge number of crippling weaknesses).
Firearms rules are one of the worst designed rules of Pathfinder, IMHO.
I agree with Lemmy about the Pathfinder Gun rules. Outside of Gunslingers and Trench Gunners...Guns are trash. Sure maybe you can come up with some kind of crazy shenanigans for a Picaroon/Musketeer/Blackpowder Inquisitor/Investigator...
But honestly they are worse than Crossbows. Unreliable, no way to get any stat to the damage output, prone to exploding, no way to fix them mid combat, expensive Ammunition, Expensive Weapons, exotic weapons, special ammo makes the gun more likely to explode...Sure crossbows don't get Dex to damage either but at least they are cheap, simple weapons, and can put out reliable damage each round.
And we all know that the only people capable of using Crossbows effectively are Alchemists (Explosive Shot+Grenadier), Luring Cavaliers (Level to Damage), Paladins (Level to Damage), and Bolt Aces (Dex to Damage) >_>
But at least anyone with Simple Weapon Proficiency can trick out a crossbow with some buffs and spend their excess gold on enchanted ammunition to make it a fallback weapon in combat. Do that to a Pistol and you've wasted a feat, 1000g, and all that extra cost per bullet.
Damnit, I want realism in my game where I can mumble jibberish, move my hands thus-ly, and throw bat poop at people until it turns into a ball of flame!
Damnit, I want realism in my game where I can mumble jibberish, move my hands thus-ly, and throw bat poop at people until it turns into a ball of flame!
To be fair... You can do that IRL as well... But since bat poop doesn't generally turn into fireballs, you're likely to spend the rest of your existence doing it. :P
Damnit, I want realism in my game where I can mumble jibberish, move my hands thus-ly, and throw bat poop at people until it turns into a ball of flame!
Blast it... Who told you about that? I was told that record was sealed!
And to think I spent all that time making that custom flamethrower activated by arm movement...
Yeah the only thing is unbalanced is double pistol/musket combined with lvl 13 gunslinger (who ignores misfire), thats a fairly specific combination. DB firearms are balanced until you get to ignore misfires since they normally increase misfire. Misfires eat A LOT of dpr about 25% to 35% I may say, they are not usually included on dpr because its difficult to calculate.
I did the math on another thread, witouth double firearms damage doesnt go higher than a two handed Fighter even if you remove misfires. If you are concerned about balance just ban double firearms and be done with it.
How do you ignore misfires with a musket?
A properly-built and -equipped gunslinger can reload as a free action.
Limiting a gunslinger to one free action between each attack pretty much nips the idea of them abusing it in the bud.
They can be reloaded without any shenanigans since there is an archetype that allows muskets to be treated as one handed firearms.
This is my only concern for allowing them.
I'm talking Barbarian as a baseline for balanced. Hitting touch AC is what puts me off.
Stick with "Emerging Guns" and "Early Firearms". Revolvers and double-barrel shotguns aren't balanced. Letting someone use a Tiefling tail or an Unseen Servant or undead to reload firearms isn't, either.
Frankly, I find the Gunslinger 1 / Fighter (Trench Fighter) X to be a bit more powerful but that's because I'm not a fan of the grit mechanic.
If you're playing low-level, they're a bit under-powered. If you're playing medium level (like 8-12) then they are quite good. If you're playing high level, well, everything high level sucks compared to the full casters.
They are not overpowered, IMO... But they do add an considerable amount of extra work to the GM's load.
The GM now has to consider that pretty much every attack will hit. It's not a big deal, but it's annoying to have to calculate touch AC all the time...
I removed the "target touch AC" element from firearms in my games because it makes no sense and increases my workload for little to no gain (firearms suck anyway, unless you're a gunslinger, in which case they are still awesome anyway). To compensate for that, I increased their range and base damage, while reducing their cost.
Why does it make no sense? Real-life firearms basically eliminated heavy armor from the battlefield because the easily penetrated them, particularly at close range. Armour vs. Musket
Magical enhancement bonus, sure, I get that, but there's no reason that ANY armor in Pathfinder should have even a remote chance at stopping a round from a musket. To me, what's ridiculous is that it's only touch-AC in the first range increment, but I think that's a matter of sacrificing realism for game balance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Damnit, I want realism in my game where I can mumble jibberish, move my hands thus-ly, and throw bat poop at people until it turns into a ball of flame!
Let's see... why not have no rules? Or none that reflect reality even vaguely? This makes as much sense as the magic eliminates any grounding in reality argument.
Magic has always been allowed to trump reality. Much of the rest of the rules establish a reality that is somewhat... realistic. It's the grounding for verisimilitude in the game. Magic is allowed to be magical because we have no reality to base it on. The rest is based, to a greater or lesser extent, on reality. It also saves you having to figure out how everything works. It works like real life.
The question is how much realism you need vs. magic stuff. That varies with different people. So why don't you play nicely with each other? Neither will get the last word or be "right". And since you've all done this dance before you should know it :)
I think guns are unbalanced because they screw over martials. Martials do not really get non AC defenses.
I also do not think martials need more screwing over.
I think guns are unbalanced because they screw over martials. Martials do not really get non AC defenses.
I also do not think martials need more screwing over.
Actually, it makes the defenses of Rogues and Monks better, and that's something.
Actually, it makes the defenses of Rogues and Monks better, and that's something.I think guns are unbalanced because they screw over martials. Martials do not really get non AC defenses.
I also do not think martials need more screwing over.
Not really. Rogues need all of their AC. Monks are sitting pretty, except the gunslinger is full BAB, so he might have to roll higher than a 1.
This is my only concern for allowing them.
I'm talking Barbarian as a baseline for balanced. Hitting touch AC is what puts me off.
Stick with "Emerging Guns" and "Early Firearms". Revolvers and double-barrel shotguns aren't balanced. Letting someone use a Tiefling tail or an Unseen Servant or undead to reload firearms isn't, either.
Frankly, I find the Gunslinger 1 / Fighter (Trench Fighter) X to be a bit more powerful but that's because I'm not a fan of the grit mechanic.
If you're playing low-level, they're a bit under-powered. If you're playing medium level (like 8-12) then they are quite good. If you're playing high level, well, everything high level sucks compared to the full casters.
Err...how are Revolvers not balanced again?
They're functionally identical to a Repeating Crossbow, save the Misfire chance and Touch AC thing.