I compare everything to casters. If it isn't broken compared to them, it isn't broken.
If it is broken compared to the rest of the TABLE however, yeah...
In any case, advanced firearms is the kind of thing I would allow only with a balanced party.
Don't nerf the gunslinger, improve the rest of the group. Let Mr. Shooty enjoy his shootiness.
What tends to happen in our games is the poor will save of the gunslinger ends up with confusion, a crit, and the bard ending up one-shotted...
I draw the attention back to above's: Deadly Aim doesn't work on Touch attacks?
also, cover, and long range spells
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I draw the attention back to above's: Deadly Aim doesn't work on Touch attacks?
You are correct that you normally can't use Deadly Aim with touch attacks, but firearms are exempt from that rule. I believe the exception is stated in the firearms rules in Ultimate Combat.
Coincidentally, Bolt Ace does not get that dispensation. I'm not sure how the Sharp Shoot deed works with Deadly Aim for bolt aces.
As to the original question... Well, I've had gunslingers at my table and I've never had an issue with them. While I would certainly expect his accuracy to be higher than average, I wouldn't expect a level 8 gunslinger who uses a rifle to outdamage anyone who genuinely cares about doing damage - gunslingers that want high damage usually go with the double-barreled TWF pistol builds Rynjin refers to. With that said, "insane damage" is a very relative term in Pathfinder - I'm guessing a lot of messageboard users would consider the gunslinger you describe as a fairly tame build. Ultimately that doesn't really matter, you're the one who has to decide if the character is genuinely causing a problem at your table. Personally I'd perhaps make some friendly suggestions to the other players at the table to bring them up a bit, and read up on some ways for smart and well-prepared enemies to soft counter the gunslinger.
The one thing to keep in mind is that gunslingers are massive one-trick ponies. Apart from being able to "shooting things gud" they bring very little to the table - they're essentially a hyper-specialized fighter. If you strongly impact his ability to shoot things, there's a very real chance that the character suddenly has no strong points.
Diversity is good. Broken game mechanics are not. In my house rules, I did try to keep firearms as having a good niche as high-powered, short-range weapons. I also introduced many different types of guns since I'm tired of the game having only a very small amount of viable ranged weapons.
Alchemists are much different. Bombs have a much shorter range than most firearms, have limited uses per day, don't have x4 critical modifier and are easily countered with monsters resistant to fire or other energy types (highly common). Alchemists also don't have a full BAB and can't do iterative attacks until 8th level.
Well I don't want to get into an alchemist touch AC vs gunslinger touch AC debate as that's not helpful to anybody as there are a fair bit of pros and cons on both sides of the two classes attacks. Targeting Touch just does not seem like a broken mechanic to me.
Monks (unchained or chained) seem to be designed to be perfect gunslinger counters which is weird since the monk is a much older class. Absurd Touch AC, easy access to Deflect Arrow, high mobility to get right in a gunslinger's face and exploit sunder/disarm as a part of a flurry to get the gun away.
Advanced Firearms are only the problem if you have no idea what the problem is. Everything problematic about Advanced Firearms is problematic with Early Firearms too...but Advanced ones are less annoying to use.Early firearms are annoying in order help compensate for the touch attacks. Taking away nearly all of the drawbacks is a really big deal, especially the ability to touch attack beyond 1st increment. When you let a broken mechanic go unhobbled, obviously you're going to have more problems with them.
Making something annoying to use is not balancing it.
None of those factors really affect how powerful guns really are in any meaningful capacity, they're just obnoxious to the player.
It's like suggesting we nerf the Wizard by having the player need to chant magic words and wave his hands around. It's ANNOYING, but it doesn't affect the power of the class any.
Disagree with that Rynjin.
Having far worse fumbles than other weapon types is a unique feature and a mechanical drawback completely unlike requiring Wizards having to chant IRL. Same for the clunkier reloading and more expensive ammo.
I like guns being a unique weapon subtype rather than just being another kind of bow or another kind of crossbow.
you know how you REALLY ignore misfires? quick draw and a s@&+ ton of guns.
Disagree with that Rynjin.
Having far worse fumbles than other weapon types is a unique feature and a mechanical drawback completely unlike requiring Wizards having to chant IRL. Same for the clunkier reloading and more expensive ammo.
I like guns being a unique weapon subtype rather than just being another kind of bow or another kind of crossbow.
"Unique feature" is not synonymous with "good feature".
A 5% chance of your gun blowing up in your face is annoying, and doesn't really balance it since Gunslingers specifically get stuff to mitigate or eliminate Misfire entirely fairly early on.
All it does is make guns a non-option for people without levels in Gunslinger.
The downsides for gunslingers stretch from "minor annoyance" to "never make full attacks - ever" depending entirely on the guy building it though.
I once had a friend come to me for advice with his gunslinger build. They were starting off at level 12. The character fired one shot with his pistol each round. No one ever told my friend of alchemical rounds, so the best reload speed he'd been able to do was 1 move action a shot. He genuinely thought that was how firearms were meant to work, and was tearing his hair out trying to figure out how to make his character even remotely competent.
On the other hand you have the three-armed alchemist/gunslinger builds that gun twirl six double-barreled pistols to fire eighteen shots a round and reload them all with free actions*.
My issues with firearms are primarily tied to double-barreled weapons and the clumsiness of the system in general. Making firearms attack touch AC probably wasn't the best idea, but in my experience that is in itself not enough to make gunslingers broken.
One misfire only gets the weapon to a broken state, you need another misfire on top to have it explode.
Plus there's the Amateur Gunslinger feat to give non classes some of the gunslinger methods to take care of misfires.
The fix I use is making them work like guns in real life. If mud gets in them or water then they do not work, that is literally all you have to do to make guns less useful. Then he has to clean it in combat to unjam it.
You've never fired an AK-47. I've literally soaked one in mud for ten minutes and then let it dry before I started firing. Three magazines. No jams.
yeah gotta say, the Russians made their guns to last. their guns simple do not jam unless you stick something in the breech.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fix I use is making them work like guns in real life. If mud gets in them or water then they do not work, that is literally all you have to do to make guns less useful. Then he has to clean it in combat to unjam it.You've never fired an AK-47. I've literally soaked one in mud for ten minutes and then let it dry before I started firing. Three magazines. No jams.
Why do people keep bringing up the AK?
It has nothing to do with this discussion. Yes, you can soak your AK in mud and then fire it.
Try it with an old musket, or a Colt.
It ain't gonna fare well.
All it does is make guns a non-option for people without levels in Gunslinger.
For my 3PP Gothic Western setting, pretty much all classes (through archetypes) gain a battered firearm, amateur gunslinger and quick clear, or some combination similar to that, and there will be at least one archetype for every class. So the non-option goes away, and gunslingers just become one among a crowd a pistol packing characters. Some non-gunslingers will be better at firearms than other non-gunslinger classes, but everyone has their own non-firearm schtick to be concerned with.
Since the setting is an alternate US with some historic carry overs, the Civil War did occur and its over, which means there's a lot of firearms on the market, cheaper than they've ever been, so "guns everywhere" is that setting's norm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I compare everything to casters. If it isn't broken compared to them, it isn't broken.
The problem with that idea is that Pathfinder is balanced around the Challenge Rating (CR) metric. Full casters, especially wizards start to hit well above their level once the game gets to the mid levels. By the later levels, things get really skewed.
There are two ways to solve this.
1)Tone down full casters. This requires very little effort, and allows use of ~99% of game material with almost no alteration.
2)Bring everyone up to the level of the wizard. This requires rewriting most of the classes, as well as a complete reevaluation of the CR system.
Obviously it is much easier to use the CR system then rewrite all the classes up to a new power level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've never fired an AK-47. I've literally soaked one in mud for ten minutes and then let it dry before I started firing. Three magazines. No jams.Why do people keep bringing up the AK? It has nothing to do with this discussion. Yes, you can soak your AK in mud and then fire it. Try it with an old musket, or a Colt. It ain't gonna fare well.
Or an M-16, for that matter. There's a reason our guys in Vietnam were abandoning their service weapons as soon as they captured an enemy rifle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or an M-16, for that matter. There's a reason our guys in Vietnam were abandoning their service weapons as soon as they captured an enemy rifle.You've never fired an AK-47. I've literally soaked one in mud for ten minutes and then let it dry before I started firing. Three magazines. No jams.Why do people keep bringing up the AK? It has nothing to do with this discussion. Yes, you can soak your AK in mud and then fire it. Try it with an old musket, or a Colt. It ain't gonna fare well.
Vicious lies spread by the M14 propaganda machine. As long as your M16A1 is meticulously cleaned, oiled, groomed, pampered, lovingly stroked and kept in a vacuum seal plastic bag it has an excellent chance of successfully firing off a round when first unwrapped.
|
Or an M-16, for that matter. There's a reason our guys in Vietnam were abandoning their service weapons as soon as they captured an enemy rifle.You've never fired an AK-47. I've literally soaked one in mud for ten minutes and then let it dry before I started firing. Three magazines. No jams.Why do people keep bringing up the AK? It has nothing to do with this discussion. Yes, you can soak your AK in mud and then fire it. Try it with an old musket, or a Colt. It ain't gonna fare well.
I'm told modern-day M16s/M4s have gone through decades of effort to work around this. It also didn't help that they told the soldiers in Vietnam that they never had to clean their guns, and then wondered why they never worked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure, since 'Advanced Firearms' are break-action shotguns, cap-and-ball revolvers and suchlike, that the AK-47, M16 - A1 or otherwise, and the M14 aren't particularly relevant to the thread, or the OP.
I would add 'not relevant to PF' but we've already had Russian Great Patriotic War hardware show up in a crossover, so, you never know.
I'd recommend being continuing to be rigorous with ammunition costs and cover/concealment rules, and having a talk with the player about trading down to a musket. But first, before talking to them, I'd recommend having them fight a whole lot of incorporeal creatures.
Advanced Firearms are only the problem if you have no idea what the problem is. Everything problematic about Advanced Firearms is problematic with Early Firearms too...but Advanced ones are less annoying to use.Early firearms are annoying in order help compensate for the touch attacks. Taking away nearly all of the drawbacks is a really big deal, especially the ability to touch attack beyond 1st increment. When you let a broken mechanic go unhobbled, obviously you're going to have more problems with them.Making something annoying to use is not balancing it.
None of those factors really affect how powerful guns really are in any meaningful capacity, they're just obnoxious to the player.
That being said, I never said it was a good way to balance them. Just a way you can do it. To some degree, it does hold back firearms. However, introducing an unfun game mechanic as a drawback is a pretty terrible idea.
One misfire only gets the weapon to a broken state, you need another misfire on top to have it explode.
Plus there's the Amateur Gunslinger feat to give non classes some of the gunslinger methods to take care of misfires.
Why do some people think that's trivial? If your gun breaks, you should stop shooting it until it gets repaired. Otherwise, you risk your expensive primary weapon blowing up in your face. And firearms are already pretty feat intensive even without Amateur Gunslinger. I don't understand the point you're making here.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Don't nerf his gun, just SECRETLY nerf his gun." :rolleyes:
|
5% in d20 is a 1, 10% is a 2. Working out the cumulative totals is a simple matter of number of shots taken in succession x the miss percentage (1 or 2) if the attacks are a point blank (or short range), use the 1x. At medium distance use 2x and longer distances invock a 3x miss potential. Firing 5 shots at long range is going be very inaccurate, as at that point, you are better for taking single, accurate shots, than hammer-spamming. Also if he's still being a problem, the is always the option of targeting his limbs. It's harder to fire a gun with a broken arm, yes?
|
Jesus so much people on the "lets nerf the gunslinger train". Dont do it you will be puporsely invalidating a player choice because he is playing it as intended and thats not good dming, if any just ban it and refluf any kind of normal weapons such as crossbows
For the record, I have already made calculations and a vanilla gunslinger does not have better dpr than a falchion fighter so no its not only that. Again i ask the op for the spcifics of said gunslinger.
Why do some people think that's trivial? If your gun breaks, you should stop shooting it until it gets repaired. Otherwise, you risk your expensive primary weapon blowing up in your face. And firearms are already pretty feat intensive even without Amateur Gunslinger. I don't understand the point you're making here.
The Quick Clear grit feature allows you to fix a gun that broke by misfire within one round to get back into the fight. It's not like you're stuck with a broken weapon until you can get back to town.
Why do some people think that's trivial? If your gun breaks, you should stop shooting it until it gets repaired. Otherwise, you risk your expensive primary weapon blowing up in your face. And firearms are already pretty feat intensive even without Amateur Gunslinger. I don't understand the point you're making here.The Quick Clear grit feature allows you to fix a gun that broke by misfire within one round to get back into the fight. It's not like you're stuck with a broken weapon until you can get back to town.
Have you ever played a gunslinger? This means your character is useless for two rounds of a combat -- one if you're lucky enough for the misfire to happen on your first attack. And the more attacks you make in a round, the more likely it will happen. I'm baffled why anyone would ever think this is no big deal.
I'm told modern-day M16s/M4s have gone through decades of effort to work around this. It also didn't help that they told the soldiers in Vietnam that they never had to clean their guns, and then wondered why they never worked.Or an M-16, for that matter. There's a reason our guys in Vietnam were abandoning their service weapons as soon as they captured an enemy rifle.You've never fired an AK-47. I've literally soaked one in mud for ten minutes and then let it dry before I started firing. Three magazines. No jams.Why do people keep bringing up the AK? It has nothing to do with this discussion. Yes, you can soak your AK in mud and then fire it. Try it with an old musket, or a Colt. It ain't gonna fare well.
Yeah, the AK was built with more loose tolerances than the AR/M16. The AK was not as accurate, but was far more reliable. The tight tolerances on the M16 meant it was a more accurate weapon, but suffered greatly when exposed to any sort of contamination.
The loose tolerances of the AK were really a result of their huge mass production of the guns which required less strict tolerances so that machining did not need to be as precise or accurate to have the weapon be functional.
it's funny the number of things the AK does right with it's poor construction. like it's bullets don't keep a straight path as much meaning bullets wobble in the air and they can hit their targets with a wider profile doing more damage to soft targets.
Have you ever played a gunslinger? This means your character is useless for two rounds of a combat -- one if you're lucky enough for the misfire to happen on your first attack. And the more attacks you make in a round, the more likely it will happen. I'm baffled why anyone would ever think this is no big deal.
I'm playing a Pistolero and a Musket Master. I'm not saying it's not a significant thing. My characters would love to be rid of it certainly. All I'm saying is that Quick Clear needs to be a part of the discussion when talking about misfires and it wasn't in this thread until I brought it up.
What'd you end up doing, out of curiosity?
All I'm saying is that Quick Clear needs to be a part of the discussion when talking about misfires and it wasn't in this thread until I brought it up.
Quick clear was always assumed. Otherwise, firearms would be borderline unplayable. Even when I house ruled quick clear as a swift action, the gunslinger in my campaign still had plenty of combats where he wound up useless for a whole fight.
I don't get why it was decided that the misfire had to explosively damage the firearm - the much more likely misfire with early firearms was a staggered or partial powder ignition - hence 'flash in the pan', where the pan is the priming powder that the trigger mechanism ignites in order to ignite the powder in the barrel - the propellant.
Having a misfire simply require the firearm to be cleared and reloaded, so that the firearm is more usable by non-gunslingers or by low-level gunslingers seems more reasonable to me. That being said, much about the firearm descriptions seems unreasonable to me.
Also, c'mon Deathmatch, tell us your solution.
|
|
Another option to solving the problem is the bullet proof vest. Basically armour that works against firearms touch ac Attacks. Why do you think we developed it on our world. Because we realised that we needed better protection against something that renders plate armour mostly useless.
Renown is also a double edged sword. The more people know about you, the more likely evil villains and other disruptive forces are going to recognise you and see you coming. At that point, no amount of bluff is going to get you out of a situation, unless you are riding on your reputation to sway people to your side. The same is true for all the variations of this type. A famous rogue is more likely to be noticed than a common theif, unless they are a known master of disguise. And the villains might not target the players...well known adventures might also have their families threatened, or even taken hostage by their enemies. Why? Because it gives them a way to hurt the heroes in their most vulnerable area. Their pillars of strength and support. How many heroes have been broken by this tactic...probably quite a few.
|
|
Have you ever played a gunslinger? This means your character is useless for two rounds of a combat -- one if you're lucky enough for the misfire to happen on your first attack. And the more attacks you make in a round, the more likely it will happen. I'm baffled why anyone would ever think this is no big deal.I'm playing a Pistolero and a Musket Master. I'm not saying it's not a significant thing. My characters would love to be rid of it certainly. All I'm saying is that Quick Clear needs to be a part of the discussion when talking about misfires and it wasn't in this thread until I brought it up.
Have you looked at the weapon proficenies of the gunslinger. All Simple and martial weapons plus firearms. A gunslinger still can bring a long sword, knifes, Bec de Corbin, longbow, sap etc, etc. A gunslinger with a damaged gun can still fight. They just don't have the use of their gun until they quick clear it or get it fixed. Which they can do when the heat is significantly reduced to them. A space to breath is all they need.
Have you looked at the weapon proficenies of the gunslinger. All Simple and martial weapons plus firearms. A gunslinger still can bring a long sword, knifes, Bec de Corbin, longbow, sap etc, etc. A gunslinger with a damaged gun can still fight. They just don't have the use of their gun until they quick clear it or get it fixed. Which they can do when the heat is significantly reduced to them. A space to breath is all they need.Have you ever played a gunslinger? This means your character is useless for two rounds of a combat -- one if you're lucky enough for the misfire to happen on your first attack. And the more attacks you make in a round, the more likely it will happen. I'm baffled why anyone would ever think this is no big deal.I'm playing a Pistolero and a Musket Master. I'm not saying it's not a significant thing. My characters would love to be rid of it certainly. All I'm saying is that Quick Clear needs to be a part of the discussion when talking about misfires and it wasn't in this thread until I brought it up.
That's not really a good argument at all. It still takes some action economy to switch weapons. More importantly, none of this excuses misfires as an antifun fumble mechanic designed to offset the broken touch attacks of Ultimate Combat firearms.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's not really a good argument at all. It still takes some action economy to switch weapons. More importantly, none of this excuses misfires as an antifun fumble mechanic designed to offset the broken touch attacks of Ultimate Combat firearms.Have you looked at the weapon proficenies of the gunslinger. All Simple and martial weapons plus firearms. A gunslinger still can bring a long sword, knifes, Bec de Corbin, longbow, sap etc, etc. A gunslinger with a damaged gun can still fight. They just don't have the use of their gun until they quick clear it or get it fixed. Which they can do when the heat is significantly reduced to them. A space to breath is all they need.Have you ever played a gunslinger? This means your character is useless for two rounds of a combat -- one if you're lucky enough for the misfire to happen on your first attack. And the more attacks you make in a round, the more likely it will happen. I'm baffled why anyone would ever think this is no big deal.I'm playing a Pistolero and a Musket Master. I'm not saying it's not a significant thing. My characters would love to be rid of it certainly. All I'm saying is that Quick Clear needs to be a part of the discussion when talking about misfires and it wasn't in this thread until I brought it up.
To be fair some people enjoy a game where winning isn't a foregone conclusion. A game where there is actually a chance of things going wrong and activities carry a possibility of failure. It is kind of like gambling, where you roll the dice and something doesn't go as planned. You don't like that something unfortunate could happen, where you might have to change your intended actions.
Mechanics like this aren't "unfun" or "antifun", you just dont like them. Just like so many others, you don't like the way the game was intended to be played. It just means you are looking for a game slightly different than what was published.
To be fair some people enjoy a game where winning isn't a foregone conclusion. A game where there is actually a chance of things going wrong and activities carry a possibility of failure. It is kind of like gambling, where you roll the dice and something doesn't go as planned. You don't like that something unfortunate could happen, where you might have to change your intended actions.
Mechanics like this aren't "unfun" or "antifun", you just dont like them. Just like so many others, you don't like the way the game was intended to be played. It just means you are looking for a game slightly different than what was published.
I once liked the firearm rules for the reason you described. However, I grew to dislike them because they made one of my players absolutely miserable. I did research and analyzed the firearm rules as well as the math behind touch attacks. If you like misfire, I don't fault you. However, I am confident when I say that misfires are an antifun mechanic.
Misfires weren't created to make firearms more fun. They were created to offset the broken touch attack mechanic on firearms. Misfires don't even work as a risk-reward construct because you can't opt out of it. You have no agency on how much you want to risk. If you want to play a gun-toting hero, you have live with the annoying misfires unless your GM makes a houserule or is insane enough to give you an advanced firearm. Now, a gunslinger ability that allows you to optionally increase your damage by raising the critical failure range might make for an exciting class feature. But that's not what we got. We got a mechanic deliberately designed as a punch in the face. That does not make for good game design.
And I've never met a gunslinger player that said they thought misfires made firearms fun. Yet, I met plenty that said to the contrary.
There are a few ways to tone down spellcasters, but I can only think of one that requires very little effort - using the Limited Magic subsystem from Unchained. It's a very uneven patch (blasting goes from being niche to god-awful while in-combat summoning is practically unscathed) but overall it's a fairly hefty nerf to spellcasters. You may have a hard time convincing your players to use it though.
I like my idea for game balance, leave the casters alone, add Rogue as a Gestalt to the non-caster classes.
Grant the ability to move and full attack at level 6 (or BAB +6, whatever).
Make all saves strong.
Grant fast heal 1 at level 12.
Gunslingers aren't broken. Neither are fighters. They should be boosted, not nerfed.
That's not really a good argument at all. It still takes some action economy to switch weapons. More importantly, none of this excuses misfires as an antifun fumble mechanic designed to offset the broken touch attacks of Ultimate Combat firearms.Have you looked at the weapon proficenies of the gunslinger. All Simple and martial weapons plus firearms. A gunslinger still can bring a long sword, knifes, Bec de Corbin, longbow, sap etc, etc. A gunslinger with a damaged gun can still fight. They just don't have the use of their gun until they quick clear it or get it fixed. Which they can do when the heat is significantly reduced to them. A space to breath is all they need.Have you ever played a gunslinger? This means your character is useless for two rounds of a combat -- one if you're lucky enough for the misfire to happen on your first attack. And the more attacks you make in a round, the more likely it will happen. I'm baffled why anyone would ever think this is no big deal.I'm playing a Pistolero and a Musket Master. I'm not saying it's not a significant thing. My characters would love to be rid of it certainly. All I'm saying is that Quick Clear needs to be a part of the discussion when talking about misfires and it wasn't in this thread until I brought it up.To be fair some people enjoy a game where winning isn't a foregone conclusion. A game where there is actually a chance of things going wrong and activities carry a possibility of failure. It is kind of like gambling, where you roll the dice and something doesn't go as planned. You don't like that something unfortunate could happen, where you might have to change your intended actions.
Mechanics like this aren't "unfun" or "antifun", you just dont like them. Just like so many others, you don't like the way the game was intended to be played. It just means you are looking for a game slightly different than what was published.
making something powerful because you can suck completely if it fails, is a HORRIBLE game mechanic. you don't try to support gambling types of gameplay because the player is going to be bored when he has to spend his turn fixing his gun.
I compare everything to casters. If it isn't broken compared to them, it isn't broken.
The problem with that idea is that Pathfinder is balanced around the Challenge Rating (CR) metric. Full casters, especially wizards start to hit well above their level once the game gets to the mid levels. By the later levels, things get really skewed.
There are two ways to solve this.
1)Tone down full casters. This requires very little effort, and allows use of ~99% of game material with almost no alteration.
2)Bring everyone up to the level of the wizard. This requires rewriting most of the classes, as well as a complete reevaluation of the CR system.
Obviously it is much easier to use the CR system then rewrite all the classes up to a new power level.Quick question on toning down full casters? How would you do it?
in my game i implemented limited magic, with the spell attack rolls, overclocking and esoteric materials, but I also gave them more spells per day and easier casting. so they can do more and are less likely to nova, it made a more consistent play.
making something powerful because you can suck completely if it fails, is a HORRIBLE game mechanic.
Objectively true, but beside the point. Some people might think that sticking their dick into a pencil sharpener would be fun. I don't recommend it as a hobby, and I wouldn't play a game that mandated it, but that's not to say that some people might not still think it was fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
making something powerful because you can suck completely if it fails, is a HORRIBLE game mechanic.Objectively true, but beside the point. Some people might think that sticking their dick into a pencil sharpener would be fun. I don't recommend it as a hobby, and I wouldn't play a game that mandated it, but that's not to say that some people might not still think it was fun.
Peter Griffin thought it was a good idea...
I once liked the firearm rules for the reason you described. However, I grew to dislike them because they made one of my players absolutely miserable. I did research and analyzed the firearm rules as well as the math behind touch attacks. If you like misfire, I don't fault you. However, I am confident when I say that misfires are an antifun mechanic.
While I won't disagree that is unfun to misfire, it's also realistic, as until firearm technology improved with cartridge ammo, real world guns did misfire often enough that it was a problem that one using a firearm should expect to happen sometime. While the reasons for using misfire wasn't to be more realistic, rather as a balancing factor to touch AC, because it is realistic, it doesn't feel out of place.
And I've never met a gunslinger player that said they thought misfires made firearms fun. Yet, I met plenty that said to the contrary.
I've only got one player that has ever run a gunslinger, and while he might agree that misfires are unfun, he doesn't see it as out of place, and despite it, he still enjoys playing a gunslinger. Both he and I can accept misfires as a built-in mechanic regarding firearms. Neither of us whine about it. And I won't arbitrarily change the game to accommodate a whiney player.