|
I have been debating the pros and cons of running a campaign using the 'Guns common' option. This means guns are common enough that they are considered marital, not exotic, but they are still not advanced guns yet (although such weapons are in design and might become gear at higher levels). Armies are transitioning from traditional soldiers to musketeers, but some nations are still using bulk classic troops. Etc.
What my question is, has anyone run a campaign with either guns common or guns everywhere rules? If so, how did it change your game? Did everyone go the gun route? Or did some martial characters choose other paths?
I am obviously not a member of the 'guns don't belong in fantasy' club. I think a fantasy setting similar to the American Civil War, Victorian England or the Wild West could be fun. But if pathfinder falls apart when these rules are introduced, then I will probably not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've done it in other systems, but not D20. It can work quite well in GURPS.
Making them a martial weapon will cause a lot of people to look for that martial weapon familiarity. This doesn't have to be a bad thing.
Until you go Guns common, I don't think it should have much impact on prices.
Pathfinder doesn't have as much in the way of spells to take out guns as it probably should. Don't be surprised when your mages start targeting the black powder with fire spells. Transporting large amounts of black powder would be even more dangerous than it was in the real world.
I have been debating the pros and cons of running a campaign using the 'Guns common' option. This means guns are common enough that they are considered marital, not exotic, but they are still not advanced guns yet (although such weapons are in design and might become gear at higher levels). Armies are transitioning from traditional soldiers to musketeers, but some nations are still using bulk classic troops. Etc.
What my question is, has anyone run a campaign with either guns common or guns everywhere rules? If so, how did it change your game? Did everyone go the gun route? Or did some martial characters choose other paths?
From what I've seen, guns are powerful but not overpowering. An early pistol does 1d8 damage, the same as a longbow, with substantially less range and considerably more difficulty in reloading. A double-barrelled musket does only as much damage as a greataxe.
This means that the traditional D&D problem still exists : when you point a firearm at a sixth level fighter and tell him not to move, he walks over to you (eating the bullet along the way) and shoves the firearm up your $%^.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well for one, obviously armor becomes less a factor in defense than speed and dexterity, as does magic like mirror images. Heavy armor builds with 12 dex get auto-shot, and suddenly mobs of musket-wielders can be a real threat to that formerly invincible sword/board juggernaut with his 25 ac at level 2. Touch ac: 11 because of his 12 dex.
Gms may have to account for this by allowing better enchantments (+2, +3? 1 or more higher than the enchantment of the bullets?) on armor to ignore the touch ac rules for close range firearms, otherwise that heavy armor will get phased out, which might not be a bad thing.
It may require you to fudge with the rules, as most armor bonuses on critters and the like were intended for a world in which firearms are a rarity. But what would realistically (and I use that world lightly, as it pertains to pathfinder) occur is that the monsters of the world would either adapt or die off. Consider how those ogres and hillgiants would get hunted down by double-hackbut wielding, level 1 squads of guardsmen, blasting away in volleys of twenty bullets from hundreds of yards away.
Would the ogres evolve into grenade tossers? Or would they cower in their caves, unable to invent some means of deliverance from the humans and their strange gadgetry?
Would dragons consider retreat in the face of massive, enchanted cannon volleys? Perhaps consider expending some of their vast wealth to procure armies of their own? After all, humans might pose a threat after all, in such great numbers, when the most feared weapon of all - dragonfire - is rendered obsolete by artillery that might blast holes in its wings at 500 yards. But he still has magic; perhaps he'll have to try a new tactic for culling the villagers...
In terms of humanoid versus humanoid combat, it's not the end of the world: Mages can still use protection from arrows at level 2. It just changes the nature of combat when meleers become the oddity. Warfare in general became a matter of numbers rather than skill, historically: How does a level 10 meleer dodge 60 bullets fired in ranks simultaneously? The gm may decide that no matter what the attack roll, he's just getting hit for d6 bullets, rather than rolling out all 50 shots: d6 x d12 damage, period. Now if you survive that, you have to get to them before they reload... and hope their morale breaks.
Anyway, I've played a few games even in modern settings, and all I can say is, the more modern, the easier it is for your players to die. How do you save against explosive charges under your horse cart's seat? You don't even know it's there until you sit down. How do you swim to shore when your freighter is broadsided by a big old double decker sporting 16 heavy cannon and 40 light, on each side? Reflex saves are fine, but what do you do to dodge a wall of steel and a rain of flying wood?
gm: "Okay, everyone roll d20 reflex saves"
player: "You mean, use a d20 on our saves? Isn't that normal?"
Gm: "No, roll a d20, then roll that many reflex saves"
How does a rogue somehow manage to survive that with evasion checks? Does he fly through the air in a matrix-esque pirouette, and land on the bow (which is the only piece left after the volley)?
Ultimately just remember that because huge numbers are possible in that world, do your best not to include them. The surest way to end the PC party is to point 50 guns at them just because that's the most realistic way to envision 18th century warfare. Spread the guns out, make it a common thing, but not exclusive. People still use melee, as magic has equally advanced. Common potions now include the custom level one spell some wizard thought up "minor bulletproofer" which gives 1/magic resist vs projectiles per caster level (max 5/magic), for 1 minute/caster level. If magic hasn't advanced, and armor hasn't advanced too, then those things will go by the wayside, and variety is the spice of life.
The biggest single issue is the value of armor and natural armor going down dramatically. This messes with alot of the fundamentals of the game, which is why i really didnt like that aspect of the firearms rules even if its historically accurate.
I dont really agree that modern tech is any more dangerous then magic, an explosive isnt much different then a fireball spell in the grand scheme of things. If you can dodge that, you can dodge the bomb. But the firearms and touch ac thing is a big deal. And adding spells and enchantments that repel it is sort of just a tug of war kind of thing and wont end up with a balanced game.
If you are going to have firearms be common, I think the best route is to simply assume everyone will be without armor. Talk to your players about it. If desired there are a few 3rd party options you can dig up to help with non-armored defense. So that everyone and there mother isnt attacking a perpetual 10AC or everyone doesn't have to be a monk or something similar.
It was alluded to above, but "common guns" hurts the players a lot more than the NPCs. The big problem with guns is the chance of misfire. An NPC can always have a working gun, as they only exist for a short time. The PC with a gun will likely have that gun become broken at least once per adventuring session.
Do bear in mind that many of those questions apply equally well to magic "How does the rogue evade the fireball in an enclosed room?". He does. Because that's what he does.
How do modern action heroes survive the explosions and hails of bullets?
And the dragons learn Protection from Arrows too. And Invisibility.
Yeah, I get it, because the rules say "evasion works" you just roll a dice and the magic happens. My point is that even protection from arrows has a limit when you get hit by a dozen cannonballs, or a massed volley by a city's musketeers. If your ship gets broadsided, your GM might decide, sure, why not roll evasion once, and let you off the hook. "You leap off the deck, realizing the boat's not going to survive that volley." Now you can swim to shore.
Or your gm could just say, "there's no evading a huge volley of wood/ steel and flames covering an 80' radius, from top and bottom like that." I've had it happen to me, in the exact same situation you described: I had a monk who went into an outhouse. Outhouse got hit by a fireball, GM ruled that I couldn't use evasion, because there was nowhere to evade to. I didn't argue, because - let's face it, where could I hide, below the outhouse, with all the methane gas and crap?
The point isn't just that 18th century warfare starts to bend the bounds of dice rolls and such, but that it's up to the GM to not provoke situations where it's constantly called into question. Additionally, that in a living breathing world, there are repercussions to technological advancement, and it may require some thought to reflect that. I am *not* saying "therefore all dragons would just die" or that rogues should never get to evade "'cuz f* rogues!"
Anyway, not trying to come across as flippant or snarky, just trying to express the importance of avoiding arguments among the players, which will happen more often as you play modernistic games. I've argued on both sides, won and lost those arguments, had to reroll a monk too (it wasn't the blast, it was the assassin that followed it).
Just, trust me... more guns = more lethality because more gunpowder, and other modern weaponry/tactics. But hey, it's fantasy game, and when reality intrudes, it's up to the GM to make the final call - but your players may take exception when their plot to detonate a huge bomb fails to kill BBEG X because he just made an evasion roll.
Player choice of classes will change, if they know what they're doing, and favour DEX builds.Yup. There's a reason none of the Musketeers wore plate armor, Don Quixote was crazy, and people quit using cavalry.
D20 doesn't stop being playable - it's still a game with magic and unrealistic heroism (Note: any time a player says that something in the game is 'unrealistic,' you should throw your dice at them. Even if the situation is evasion in an outhouse. If a wizard can use a bit of bat poop to create a 40' wide explosion, then the monk can duck it.).
But the builds that are powerful will change. The monsters that are powerful will change. Dragons, ogres, and giants may be heading for extinction, but I'll bet those kobolds get a whole lot fiercer. Or imagine if the Licktoads found crates of firearms and ammo instead of bottle rockets.
Or if someone rallied the hill giants, and equipped them with huge Culverins and convinced them it was their time to shine... Or if those crazy goblins got to tinkering on a gatling gun... I really love the possibilities of stepping out of the mold, creating new homebrew settings. Golarion - where there's growing anti-magic fields/ or where there's been a rip in space/time, and critters with strange red-beam weapons are invading out of strange, purply-misted portals. No end to the possibilities.
@Aemesh
About the rogue evasion question: though I'm sure there is some situation where it doesn't work (Order of the Stick loves doing this as a sight gag), players and GMs should focus on coming up with creative ways of allowing the evasion. It's one of the best things Monks and Rogues get and cutting it off sucks.
You monk could have jumped up through the outhouse, breaking through the roof. His/her acrobatics and unarmed strike should have been more than enough to handle it.
My rogue managed to evade a fireball while grappled by black tentacles despite my GM's protestations. I and my party figured that my rogue managed to maneuver himself so that he was covered in the black tentacles which are indestructible to form an improvised armor around him. I would have gladly taken a negative to my escape artist roll afterwards as a penalty but the GM was too defeated to think of it.
The rest of your points were spot-on though.
I have been debating the pros and cons of running a campaign using the 'Guns common' option. This means guns are common enough that they are considered marital, not exotic, but they are still not advanced guns yet (although such weapons are in design and might become gear at higher levels). Armies are transitioning from traditional soldiers to musketeers, but some nations are still using bulk classic troops. Etc.
What my question is, has anyone run a campaign with either guns common or guns everywhere rules? If so, how did it change your game? Did everyone go the gun route? Or did some martial characters choose other paths?
I am obviously not a member of the 'guns don't belong in fantasy' club. I think a fantasy setting similar to the American Civil War, Victorian England or the Wild West could be fun. But if pathfinder falls apart when these rules are introduced, then I will probably not.
Well, Red Hand of Doom (Commonplace guns) I ran meant some of the foot soldiers used guns, but only a few places. Bows were still better (reloading, etc).
PCs didn't use guns despite possible/cheaper.
I did use a houserule to remove misfire and add penetration though.
Guns will use Penetrating rules instead of Touch AC and Misfire. Penetration bypasses the combination of armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 2nd increment (however, keep reading). One-handed firearms have a PR of 3, two handed firearms have a PR of 6, but this is ½ outside of 1st increment. Also PR automatically increases based on enhancementx2, so a character with a +5 musket bypasses 16 points of AC from armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 1st increment, but only 8 in 2nd increment.
Broken Condition: Penetration lowered by 4 (minimum 0).
Alchemy cartridge: Lowers Penetration by 1 or more when used (use misfire value)
If using Gunslinger, a few changes such as Deadeye Deed.
Or your gm could just say, "there's no evading a huge volley of wood/ steel and flames covering an 80' radius, from top and bottom like that." I've had it happen to me, in the exact same situation you described: I had a monk who went into an outhouse. Outhouse got hit by a fireball, GM ruled that I couldn't use evasion, because there was nowhere to evade to. I didn't argue, because - let's face it, where could I hide, below the outhouse, with all the methane gas and crap?
The point isn't just that 18th century warfare starts to bend the bounds of dice rolls and such, but that it's up to the GM to not provoke situations where it's constantly called into question. Additionally, that in a living breathing world, there are repercussions to technological advancement, and it may require some thought to reflect that. I am *not* saying "therefore all dragons would just die" or that rogues should never get to evade "'cuz f* rogues!"
Anyway, not trying to come across as flippant or snarky, just trying to express the importance of avoiding arguments among the players, which will happen more often as you play modernistic games. I've argued on both sides, won and lost those arguments, had to reroll a monk too...
Well, your DM was WRONG.
You get to roll evasion even if entangled or prone.At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.
Unless you are ruled Helpless, you get Evasion! No arguement.
What that means: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier).
So if he rolled you get no Dex mod and -5 penalty to you roll as well then you were helpless.
Saying, "I don't see how you evade it". Doesn't make you helpless.
It's an old argument with a different face: the law vs. the spirit of the law. I find myself more concerned with the spirit of the law, and while gaming isn't a perfect simulation of reality in the form of skill points and dice rolls, that's what it's original purpose was. The most basic precept of roleplaying games is that you're trying to create a story - if that story stretches the boundaries of believability, that's fine. If it breaks it, it leads to arguments. If you're playing a game to have fun, arguments suck. And that's the point of it all - And that's why paizo itself states the ultimate rule : The GM is the ultimate authority of what is and is not allowed.
In this case, the monk was doin the doodie, so to speak, so the gm decided that he was "otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy."
Because how would he even have known that a fireball was descending?
Did his spider sense tingle? How's it different than a sneak attack? I can say the dm's wrong all I like, but I have to accept the ruling. Even if he decides that I don't even get a perception check to hear the fireball decending, or whatever circumstances might have been changed. Why? Because a 20 minute argument over what the rules are sucks for everyone at the table. And those happen often enough, and usually over things far less important than the death of a character (ahem, my monk).
So basically what I'm saying - and this should all probably just get moved to another thread, we're way off topic - is that declaring rules as immutable, evasion or otherwise, strips the system of its greatest asset, and that's creative license. You yourself did it, by making a homerule about firearm misfires. I'm not sayin you're wrong, just that sometimes you need to bend the law, to protect the spirit of the law.
Anyhow, apologies to the OP, in the words of Stephen King , "I have diarrhea of the typewriter." I can't seem to keep my posts below two paragraphs, nor stay on topic without profuse examples and tangents.
Good luck with the gunworld, sounds like a blast. No pun intended.
@Aemesh
About the rogue evasion question: though I'm sure there is some situation where it doesn't work (Order of the Stick loves doing this as a sight gag), players and GMs should focus on coming up with creative ways of allowing the evasion. It's one of the best things Monks and Rogues get and cutting it off sucks.
You monk could have jumped up through the outhouse, breaking through the roof. His/her acrobatics and unarmed strike should have been more than enough to handle it.
My rogue managed to evade a fireball while grappled by black tentacles despite my GM's protestations. I and my party figured that my rogue managed to maneuver himself so that he was covered in the black tentacles which are indestructible to form an improvised armor around him. I would have gladly taken a negative to my escape artist roll afterwards as a penalty but the GM was too defeated to think of it.
The rest of your points were spot-on though.
nice with the tentacles, lol, if I was gming, i'da totally bought that argument. *the monk manages to twist himself in such a way that the tentacles act like a cocoon, and take most of the blast, and the enemy wizard has to make a will check not to be affected with confusion for one round* And also order of the stick, I need to catch up on that, haven't read it in years.
So basically what I'm saying - and this should all probably just get moved to another thread, we're way off topic - is that declaring rules as immutable, evasion or otherwise, strips the system of its greatest asset, and that's creative license. You yourself did it, by making a homerule about firearm misfires. I'm not sayin you're wrong, just that sometimes you need to bend the law, to protect the spirit of the law.
Anyhow, apologies to the OP, in the words of Stephen King , "I have diarrhea of the typewriter." I can't seem to keep my posts below two paragraphs, nor stay on topic without profuse examples and tangents.
Good luck with the...
But see I houserule before the event.
Your DM houseruled during the event.
Prior consent is important for houserules. Especially when it causes a a death.
Heavy Armor was actually pretty good at blocking early bullets; full plate didn't stop being a factor in combat because of bullet penetration, it stopped being a factor in combat because the advent of crossbows and firearms meant that armies were made up not of wealthy landed knights but commoners who could barely afford a leather vest, let alone plate armor. Hell, just look at 21st century armies: many armed forces in modernized nations are made up of elite volunteer units with intense training and superior equipment. What is included in this expensive equipment? Bulletproof armor.
Starbuck II:
touche - I may be slightly more eloquent on a keyboard than your average bear, but when I'm standing at a gaming table all apoplectic about my monk getting scorched, I wish I coulda argued that point in words that weren't composed of four letters >.< I just had to cede to the gm ruling and step out for some air.
Thejeff:
Not so much proving the opposite - in fact that's what I advised the OP to do: fudge with the rules, so that weird arguments don't crop up later.
And to throw in a cent from Starbuck, if the homerules aren't pointed out in advance of a game session, it's only gonna cause issues later.
So, for example, Starbuck's penetration/misfire ruling, totally makes sense for the OP's campaign: in a world where guns are becoming the norm, didn't anyone figure out a way in all those years to keep the guns from jamming or exploding 1 in 20 shots? More importantly, in a world where gaping wounds are sealed up instantly, perhaps someone could've come up with a cheap, efficient way (alchemically or otherwise) to prevent it? I like the penetration rules on the whole, as they don't just outright ignore armor, though I'd change it slightly, so that if the ammo/firearm isn't equal or superior in enchantment to the armor it's penetrating, it doesn't get the bonus at all. That way, for game balance/class options, the heavy armor classes aren't invalidated, and it doesn't break the setting: armor would be less viable on the low end, because not everyone can afford +1 platemail... but adventurers could. Prominent bodyguards could. It would allow for variant tactics, and still give that wild west flair of "ducking/dodging behind cover" gunfights.
It's an old argument with a different face: the law vs. the spirit of the law. I find myself more concerned with the spirit of the law, and while gaming isn't a perfect simulation of reality in the form of skill points and dice rolls, that's what it's original purpose was. The most basic precept of roleplaying games is that you're trying to create a story - if that story stretches the boundaries of believability, that's fine. If it breaks it, it leads to arguments. If you're playing a game to have fun, arguments suck. And that's the point of it all - And that's why paizo itself states the ultimate rule : The GM is the ultimate authority of what is and is not allowed.
In this case, the monk was doin the doodie, so to speak, so the gm decided that he was "otherwise completely at an opponent's mercy."
Because how would he even have known that a fireball was descending?
Did his spider sense tingle? How's it different than a sneak attack? I can say the dm's wrong all I like, but I have to accept the ruling. Even if he decides that I don't even get a perception check to hear the fireball decending, or whatever circumstances might have been changed. Why? Because a 20 minute argument over what the rules are sucks for everyone at the table. And those happen often enough, and usually over things far less important than the death of a character (ahem, my monk).So basically what I'm saying - and this should all probably just get moved to another thread, we're way off topic - is that declaring rules as immutable, evasion or otherwise, strips the system of its greatest asset, and that's creative license. You yourself did it, by making a homerule about firearm misfires. I'm not sayin you're wrong, just that sometimes you need to bend the law, to protect the spirit of the law.
Anyhow, apologies to the OP, in the words of Stephen King , "I have diarrhea of the typewriter." I can't seem to keep my posts below two paragraphs, nor stay on topic without profuse examples and tangents.
Good luck with the...
Your GM was not following the spirit of the rules either. The ability just works. He was trying to add his version of realism to the game. With that said as long as the group does not mind it is ok, but that is the type of thing that should be stated before the game begins IMO.
|
|
Not certain if I should put a stop to the evasion argument because it is off topic or let it keep going because it is an interesting read. XD
As for my opinion, people who argue about realism in games like this need to glance over to the dude in the dress who throws fire or the chick with antlers on her head that turns into a bear and then maybe rethink 'realism'. :D
Anyways, a lot of good points and a few things I hadn't yet considered. I would like to see some more examples people have had in their games, but what I decided to do is to propose the options to the players. See which they think is a better idea and let them decide. I will be like "Guns deal a lot of damage, hit often and look cool. But guess what... bad guys have them too." lol
|
Heavy Armor was actually pretty good at blocking early bullets; full plate didn't stop being a factor in combat because of bullet penetration, it stopped being a factor in combat because the advent of crossbows and firearms meant that armies were made up not of wealthy landed knights but commoners who could barely afford a leather vest, let alone plate armor. Hell, just look at 21st century armies: many armed forces in modernized nations are made up of elite volunteer units with intense training and superior equipment. What is included in this expensive equipment? Bulletproof armor.
no, even the earliest firearms could punch through full plate. later on, (1600-1700s) Firearms could reliably punch straight through the full plate. Many of the "bullet proof" armor suits were tested at a specific range, with a hand gun (pistol). In which the bullet dented the armor to an alarming amount.