Need Help! Gunslinger damage is insane.


Homebrew and House Rules

151 to 200 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Bandw2 wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:
Azih wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
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.
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.

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

...

And those types of players wouldn't be interested in playing a class with that mechanic. Unless they are stupid, in which case they'd stick anything into the sharpener anyways. Because they are stupid. That isn't a rules issue, or bad mechanic issue. It is being a stupid player making poor choices for their enjoyment possibilities.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

gamer-printer wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
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.

Again, the realism fallacy. I argued this already, but the realism argument doesn't hold because:

1) Pathfinder is a fantasy game where people can survive 100 foot falls without serious injury and winged creatures can weigh 2000 pounds and still fly. The game ignores these facts in order to make the game more fun. Misfires are not fun.

2) Pathfinder early firearms aren't realistic to begin with. Renaissance firearms did not have significantly more penetrating than a longbow. They would especially not have more penetrating power than a bow wielded by a character like Legolas. Bows became obsolete because of the ease of firearm training, not because of penetrating power. That kind of advantage didn't really become prevalent until the 1700s.

3) Yes, firearm misfires happened, but so did misfires for other ranged weapons. Crossbows have more moving parts and bows rely heavily on tension with a string easily slashed at. Why don't they have misfire rules? Oh, because they don't have an unrealistic, game-breaking touch attack mechanic. So to say that guns should have misfires because they historically did happen is a double standard.

gamer-printer wrote:
And I won't arbitrarily change the game to accommodate a whiney player.

Neither do I, but I at least take it into consideration. My player endured the firearm rules for over a year before he finally conveyed his frustration with me and how much he found the past year absolutely miserable.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i'm surprised this thread hasn't died yet... it's almost like this thread is being attacked by a gunslinger...


Cyrad wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
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.

Again, the realism fallacy. I argued this already, but the realism argument doesn't hold because:

1) Pathfinder is a fantasy game where people can survive 100 foot falls without serious injury and winged creatures can weigh 2000 pounds and still fly. The game ignores these facts in order to make the game more fun. Misfires are not fun.

2) Pathfinder early firearms aren't realistic to begin with. Renaissance firearms did not have significantly more penetrating than a longbow. They would especially not have more penetrating power than a bow wielded by a character like Legolas. Bows became obsolete because of the ease of firearm training, not because of penetrating power. That kind of advantage didn't really become prevalent until the 1700s.

3) Yes, firearm misfires happened, but so did misfires for other ranged weapons. Crossbows have more moving parts and bows rely heavily on tension with a string easily slashed at. Why don't they have misfire rules? Oh, because they don't have an unrealistic, game-breaking touch attack mechanic. So to say that guns should have misfires because they historically did happen is a double standard.

gamer-printer wrote:
And I won't arbitrarily change the
...

And all of that comes down to opinion. Which is why I stated earlier you are looking for a game other than what is published. It is only "broken" if you choose to look at it that way. Only a problem if you choose to decide it is and that the mechanic doesn't work the way you want it to. To believe that the benefit shouldn't have a drawback.

I'm all for making house rules for your table if they make the game more enjoyable, but I'm also going to say that way more often than not, the problem isn't the mechanics/rules. It is how you expect them to work due to your preferences. What you have issue with, works perfectly fine for others. That doesn't make it broke. It makes it not what you want.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Skylancer4 wrote:

And all of that comes down to opinion. Which is why I stated earlier you are looking for a game other than what is published. It is only "broken" if you choose to look at it that way. Only a problem if you choose to decide it is and that the mechanic doesn't work the way you want it to. To believe that the benefit shouldn't have a drawback.

I'm all for making house rules for your table if they make the game more enjoyable, but I'm also going to say that way more often than not, the problem isn't the mechanics/rules. It is how you expect them to work due to your preferences. What you have issue with, works perfectly fine for others. That doesn't make it broke. It makes it not what you want.

I approach this issue as a game designer. When I approach an issue while wearing my game designer hat, I look at it from multiple perspectives, not just a personal one. In fact, I liked UC firearms up until last summer and play a gunslinger in PFS. However, my analysis of UC firearms comes from looking at the math of touch attacks, the history of touch attacks, and the motivations behind the firearm rules. My analysis concluded touch attacks are a heavily flawed game mechanic due to completely contradicting the intended math of the game. It's also a fact that the UC firearm rules take a mechanic meant for limited use abilities on a low BAB class and give the mechanic to a high BAB class that can do them multiple times per round. Misfires were deliberately designed to offset this broken mechanic. So yes, I feel confident in say that this is a problem concerning rules and mechanics.


Cyrad wrote:

Again, the realism fallacy. I argued this already, but the realism argument doesn't hold because:

1) Pathfinder is a fantasy game where people can survive 100 foot falls without serious injury and winged creatures can weigh 2000 pounds and still fly. The game ignores these facts in order to make the game more fun. Misfires are not fun.

But in every fantasy book I've ever read, the magic part is for highlights in the story line, throughout most of fantasy, mundane aspects exist for most of the story. Magic isn't everywhere, nor constant - yet in those same fantasy stories, winged creatures weighing over a ton can still fly.

Why is realism allowed and even expected in every fantasy book, but not so in this discussion? That doesn't make sense.

If realism had no place in the game, there shouldn't be a requirement for a wizard to sleep for 8 hours. If its so magical, he shouldn't have to sleep at all. Afterall as you suggest realism has no part in the discussion (obviously you're wrong, though).

Cyrad wrote:
2) Pathfinder early firearms aren't realistic to begin with. Renaissance firearms did not have significantly more penetrating than a longbow. They would especially not have more penetrating power than a bow wielded by a character like Legolas. Bows became obsolete because of the ease of firearm training, not because of penetrating power. That kind of advantage didn't really become prevalent until the 1700s.

First of all why is Legolas in the discussion, that's Lord of the Rings which has absolutely nothing to do with PF/D&D. And I'd go as far as saying, having read the Lord of the Rings, Legolas wasn't firing bows machine-gun style, that was only in the movie, which is even a further interpretation, since as Legolas, has nothing to do with Pathfinder. You're using some movie director's interpretation of a character in a book, where no where in the book it stated that Legolas was even able to do that, and that example has nothing to do with Pathfinder. Nix Legolas from the discussion, he doesn't belong.

If firearms didn't have such an advantage until the 1700's, why did most armor go away three centuries before that. The 15th century (1400's) was the height of armor suit technology. If firearms were so inferior, why didn't armor continue to be used? (Obviously because firearms were a lot more superior than you're suggesting).

Cyrad wrote:
3) Yes, firearm misfires happened, but so did misfires for other ranged weapons. Crossbows have more moving parts and bows rely heavily on tension with a string easily slashed at. Why don't they have misfire rules? Oh, because they don't have an unrealistic, game-breaking touch attack mechanic. So to say that guns should have misfires because they historically did happen is a double standard.

I cannot guess why the Paizo designers do or do not do anything. If I were designing anything mechanical (weapons with significant moving parts like a crossbow) I'd definitely include misfire circumstance in their use. And not because they are unfun, nor a balancing factor, rather because instances of weapons not functioning properly is realistic - and I like some level of realism in my D&D/PF games.

Skylancer wrote:

And all of that comes down to opinion. Which is why I stated earlier you are looking for a game other than what is published. It is only "broken" if you choose to look at it that way. Only a problem if you choose to decide it is and that the mechanic doesn't work the way you want it to. To believe that the benefit shouldn't have a drawback.

I'm all for making house rules for your table if they make the game more enjoyable, but I'm also going to say that way more often than not, the problem isn't the mechanics/rules. It is how you expect them to work due to your preferences. What you have issue with, works perfectly fine for others. That doesn't make it broke. It makes it not what you want.

Don't be putting words in my mouth, no where in this discussion did I ever use the word "broken" about any rule in the game - you must not be talking about me. I didn't say any of that, and I don't appreciate you pigeon-holing me into a point of view that I don't agree with. My whole point is there's nothing broken about that rule, it's realistic. (If anything you're the one claiming something is broken, not me.)

I can honestly say, that except for starting hit points (we max them), my table doesn't use any houserules at all. We play RAW. We are using the mechanics as is, no change - where did you get the idea that I was changing any rules? So at our table, we don't approve of using any houserules.


1) I didn't quote you.
2) Despite your apparent attitude you aren't the center of the world, so reign that rage in. Or at least point it in another direction.


Cyrad wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:

And all of that comes down to opinion. Which is why I stated earlier you are looking for a game other than what is published. It is only "broken" if you choose to look at it that way. Only a problem if you choose to decide it is and that the mechanic doesn't work the way you want it to. To believe that the benefit shouldn't have a drawback.

I'm all for making house rules for your table if they make the game more enjoyable, but I'm also going to say that way more often than not, the problem isn't the mechanics/rules. It is how you expect them to work due to your preferences. What you have issue with, works perfectly fine for others. That doesn't make it broke. It makes it not what you want.

I approach this issue as a game designer. When I approach an issue while wearing my game designer hat, I look at it from multiple perspectives, not just a personal one. In fact, I liked UC firearms up until last summer and play a gunslinger in PFS. However, my analysis of UC firearms comes from looking at the math of touch attacks, the history of touch attacks, and the motivations behind the firearm rules. My analysis concluded touch attacks are a heavily flawed game mechanic due to completely contradicting the intended math of the game. It's also a fact that the UC firearm rules take a mechanic meant for limited use abilities on a low BAB class and give the mechanic to a high BAB class that can do them multiple times per round. Misfires were deliberately designed to offset this broken mechanic. So yes, I feel confident in say that this is a problem concerning rules and mechanics.

That doesn't mean anything besides being a fancy way of defending your opinion. You could have 20 different "anaylsis" done by 20 different groups and they come up with different results. It happens all the time with so called "experts" in their field coming up with contradictory results or theories.

It just means your results were skewed due to perceptions. Intentional or not.


If you didn't quote me, why am I in your quote? Fact is, most of my post was directed at Cyrad, not you, just the last part was for you.

No rage, I'm just clarifying my points. (I very seldom even get upset, but never rage).


gamer-printer wrote:

If you didn't quote me, why am I in your quote? Fact is, most of my post was directed at Cyrad, not you, just the last part was for you.

No rage, I'm just clarifying my points. (I very seldom even get upset, but never rage).

Because the person I quoted, quoted you?


Well it might help to do what I do, I remove parts of a quote that doesn't pertain to my response. I cannot tell where I wasn't the one being quoted, since you didn't do that.


And because I didn't do things the way you do, you took offense. Which amusingly enough touches on my points in some ways.

Liberty's Edge

Ok so, with what the OP said... is that initially and/ or originally the gunslinger wasn't so much of an issue. But some of the feats destroyed the mitigating factors of the gunslinger? Can you just house rule away some of the feats or make them require a higher BAB?

i.e. make cluster shot require level 12... like penetrating strike?

just trying to think of constructive things to impose...


Skylancer4 wrote:
And because I didn't do things the way you do, you took offense. Which amusingly enough touches on my points in some ways.

No offense taken, as already stated, I was only clarifying my points so that any conceived mistakes would be corrected and my points made more clear.

I was correcting you, with no implied emotion.

Liberty's Edge

Though what I have noticed with classes and levels causing some class/ race/ feat combinations to reach "maturity" faster and leaving other classes in the dust.

Level 11 with the rapid reload deed definitely helps the gunslinger. Combined with Cluster shot and some obvious others.

But Melee wont get a cluster shot until level 12 (penetrating strike)
So are you wanting to weaken the gunslinger? Or strengthen the Melee people? Perhaps imposing some kind of across the board melee buff instead of a gunslinger nerf?

Give 100% BAB melee people the pounce ability available at like 6th level? and/or penetrating strike.

It would go along way for making melee more viable and even would help the dual wielders that DR tends to rob.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Skylancer4 wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I approach this issue as a game designer. When I approach an issue while wearing my game designer hat, I look at it from multiple perspectives, not just a personal one. In fact, I liked UC firearms up until last summer and play a gunslinger in PFS. However, my analysis of UC firearms comes from looking at the math of touch attacks, the history of touch attacks, and the motivations behind the firearm rules. My analysis concluded touch attacks are a heavily flawed game mechanic due to completely contradicting the intended math of the game. It's also a fact that the UC firearm rules take a mechanic meant for limited use abilities on a low BAB class and give the mechanic to a high BAB class that can do them multiple times per round. Misfires were deliberately designed to offset this broken mechanic. So yes, I feel confident in say that this is a problem concerning rules and mechanics.

That doesn't mean anything besides being a fancy way of defending your opinion. You could have 20 different "anaylsis" done by 20 different groups and they come up with different results. It happens all the time with so called "experts" in their field coming up with contradictory results or theories.

It just means your results were skewed due to perceptions. Intentional or not.

You're postulating that my argument is invalid because I'm using inductive reasoning?


Cyrad wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I approach this issue as a game designer. When I approach an issue while wearing my game designer hat, I look at it from multiple perspectives, not just a personal one. In fact, I liked UC firearms up until last summer and play a gunslinger in PFS. However, my analysis of UC firearms comes from looking at the math of touch attacks, the history of touch attacks, and the motivations behind the firearm rules. My analysis concluded touch attacks are a heavily flawed game mechanic due to completely contradicting the intended math of the game. It's also a fact that the UC firearm rules take a mechanic meant for limited use abilities on a low BAB class and give the mechanic to a high BAB class that can do them multiple times per round. Misfires were deliberately designed to offset this broken mechanic. So yes, I feel confident in say that this is a problem concerning rules and mechanics.

That doesn't mean anything besides being a fancy way of defending your opinion. You could have 20 different "anaylsis" done by 20 different groups and they come up with different results. It happens all the time with so called "experts" in their field coming up with contradictory results or theories.

It just means your results were skewed due to perceptions. Intentional or not.

You're postulating that my argument is invalid because I'm using inductive reasoning?

No I'm stating that groups spend billions of dollars and years of time on research looking into things. Then come out with differing results because of how they did it and what their perceptions are.

I'm out right stating: your months of use in your particular group(s) aren't immune to the same shortfalls nor are they some how "conclusive" evidence that the rules are "game breaking" and "antifun/unfun". At its core it is your opinion dressed up pretty.

Liberty's Edge

So one person is arguing for the firearms...and one against it I take it.

Is this still about misfire?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Angry Ghost wrote:

So one person is arguing for the firearms...and one against it I take it.

Is this still about misfire?

Hello, Angry Ghost. In this thread, I made the argument that Pathfinder firearms have design issues because

1) Touch attacks use flawed math.
2) Touch attacks were designed to help low BAB characters hit with limited use abilities.
3) Firearms allow a high BAB character to resolve their attacks with touch attacks.
4) Misfires exist in order to offset the above problems by making firearm attacks randomly break the weapon, something that many players do not find fun.

However, Skylancer4 and game-printer like the firearm rules and challenge my argument. This admittedly puzzles me because I don't fault people for liking the rules. I'm just arguing they have design flaws which lead to many GMs and players to find them very frustrating.

Skylancer4 wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
You're postulating that my argument is invalid because I'm using inductive reasoning?

No I'm stating that groups spend billions of dollars and years of time on research looking into things. Then come out with differing results because of how they did it and what their perceptions are.

I'm out right stating: your months of use in your particular group(s) aren't immune to the same shortfalls nor are they some how "conclusive" evidence that the rules are "game breaking" and "antifun/unfun". At its core it is your opinion dressed up pretty.

I won't fault you for liking Ultimate Combat's firearm rules. However, casting doubt on a proposition without any substantiated refutation does not make for a good argument against it. Neither does disregarding an argument and all of its evidence simply because the conclusion is an "opinion."


Cyrad wrote:
I'm just arguing they have design flaws which lead to many GMs and players to find them very frustrating.

Understand, that I don't mean to refute your pointing out the design flaws that you consider that applies at your table, and apparently many others. Your argument is not invalid, it just doesn't apply to my table, and I don't need a consensus agreeing one way or the other by any majority (that doesn't mean anything to me). If the rules actually get changed to your point of view, I'll more than likely play that without complaint. It's just as stated, I don't have any complaints with the firearms rules now.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

gamer-printer wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
I'm just arguing they have design flaws which lead to many GMs and players to find them very frustrating.
Understand, that I don't mean to refute your pointing out the design flaws that you consider that applies at your table, and apparently many others. Your argument is not invalid, it just doesn't apply to my table, and I don't need a consensus agreeing one way or the other by any majority (that doesn't mean anything to me). If the rules actually get changed to your point of view, I'll more than likely play that without complaint. It's just as stated, I don't have any complaints with the firearms rules now.

Oh, my apologies! I'll respond to your earlier post tomorrow. (I'm getting so sleepy now that I can only keep one eye open.)


CWheezy wrote:
I think he is lying about the little to no effort part

Sir, I say sir, hold on there a minute!

I might be a liar, a cheat, and a thief, but whatever that other thing you said isn't true!

8 Simple ways to balance the classes.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

this... has to be the weirdest argument i've seen. people arguing against each other's opinions and even someone refuting another's opinion because it's an opinion when they have been discussing opinions...

anyway, my OPINION, is that the real shortcoming of the firearm rules is you need to be a class or archetype made for them or firearms are overpriced suck nuggets.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

hrmm... the way we usually tried to balance classes is we had a AAR after each session. (After Action Review)

we discuss what went good, with players and the GM... what went bad and what we can do better.

So if a character seems OP and is leaving the others behind, we review why, and brainstorm. If a character is so powerful and built in a fashion that the rest of the party is just along for the ride, we talk with the player and see what we can do to even the playing field. Usually bringing everyone up to that characters level isnt the option as that character is usually optimized and a party of optimized means that even at 4th level... they are taking down CR 8 and 9... so alot of times we ask them to change some things on their character alittle or build a new one and explain why.

It usually works for us as a group, we are all pretty close friends and the newer players we are getting are starting to get the hang of it as we are working together to have fun, not leave people out and not make it a DPS Olympic competition amongst us.

If a player is breaking your game, talk to them with the rest of the players present and explain your problem and ask them if they have any solutions?


Bandw2 wrote:
even someone refuting another's opinion because it's an opinion when they have been discussing opinions...

I'm not refuting anything (as I stated in my last post).

Bandw2 wrote:
anyway, my OPINION, is that the real shortcoming of the firearm rules is you need to be a class or archetype made for them or firearms are overpriced suck nuggets.

I don't need to create archetypes for gunslinging non-gunslingers, I just enjoy creating unique archetypes, especially for settings I intend to publish. Although its certainly true that I'm creating archetypes for almost every class, all including some level of firearms skill, but that's only one small part of each archetype's build, the rest of each cover more specific occupational necessities that fit the setting (fitting 19th century skillsets like Journalist, Pinkerton, Dog Soldier and Texas Ranger).

Gothic Western, the setting I'm currently building for publication is set in an alternate American Old West. Being post Civil War firearms are extremely cheap and fall under guns everywhere with advanced firearms for everyone.

And note, I don't allow firearms in most of my PF games, as it tends not to fit my fantasy. An Old West setting on the other hand, I cannot see anything else fitting better.

Liberty's Edge

Again I would like to iterate that there are way around touch Attacks and firearms. The faulty maths arguement is one thing, but what about the bullet proof vest. Arguing that something needs to be changed and creating something that helps deal with it. Misfire being a problem, then have gun tools to undo a misfire scenario, or if you want, just jam the gun and not have the explosive damage. Create firearms that are single shot pistols without the risk of misfire, like a derringer. For a gothic western setting, like what you would like, consider having a collection of guns that have slight differences. Like a quick loader revolver having a shorter reload time, but potentially poorer range. Speeding targets, cover, the correct type of bullets(silver for werewolfs, blessed or gold bullets for vampires, cold iron shards for fey etc). Reactions are an option, dodging is a thing, and bulletproof armour is almost part and parcel.

Also in that setting do you have any ideas about what kinds of foes/threats the players will have to contend with. I kind of like the idea of gunslinging antipaladins who sold their soul to the dark powers, supernatural types who mingle with and feed of the unwitting towns folk. Dragons might be a more dangerous breed (considering how powerful they are and how likely they will adapt to the threat of firearms). generally the main elements would be a mixture of steampunk industrialisation(with railway trains, some primative automobiles(though still for the very rich, and more like a horseless carriage than a extremely fast method of travel), and factories mass producing everything from swords to silverware(18th century style)), and the darker stories of gothic horror.

Science and magic are at odds, as various religions face increased pressure to coexist and cooperate with (potentialy) blasphemous inderviduals who use science to unlock the domains of magic and pilfer their secrets. Some people might believe less in the myths and legends of certain creatures, which is bad considering that they might thrive from the lack of being butchered. I imagine that adventures would be more like investigations, exploration (18th century style colonialist), bank robberies, train heists, hunting for specific inderviduals and bringing them to justice, and the interactions between the supernatural and the mundane. As well as saving the princess from the dragon, or stopping that evil cult. The normal with some pluses. Look to westerns, horror, and some comic book characters like Jonah hex, or the American vampire comics.

Liberty's Edge

Don't forget about the revolver rifle. That did exist. Have fun with that setting.

For Golorian, I think early firearms are fine, and in some cases advanced can be cool. In some cases(code for when it is appropriate for them to be there, and normally never otherwise). Firearms should stand alongside the other weapons, not overshadowing them nor being overshadows by them. They have faults much like the reach of a sword or the drop of a bows flight. A good gunslinger learns that the gun can only solve so many problems, and other problems need the use of other weapons, or the most versatile weapon of them all...their mind and voice. A bad gunslinger is normally a dead one, either literally or figuratively(dead to rights, dead man walking, emotionally dead, brain dead, dead on arrival etc).

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
gamer-printer wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
even someone refuting another's opinion because it's an opinion when they have been discussing opinions...

I'm not refuting anything (as I stated in my last post).

Bandw2 wrote:
anyway, my OPINION, is that the real shortcoming of the firearm rules is you need to be a class or archetype made for them or firearms are overpriced suck nuggets.

I don't need to create archetypes for gunslinging non-gunslingers, I just enjoy creating unique archetypes, especially for settings I intend to publish. Although its certainly true that I'm creating archetypes for almost every class, all including some level of firearms skill, but that's only one small part of each archetype's build, the rest of each cover more specific occupational necessities that fit the setting (fitting 19th century skillsets like Journalist, Pinkerton, Dog Soldier and Texas Ranger).

Gothic Western, the setting I'm currently building for publication is set in an alternate American Old West. Being post Civil War firearms are extremely cheap and fall under guns everywhere with advanced firearms for everyone.

Don't foget the desparado, swindler, hell slinger, hex shooter, rough rider, revolutionary, and others you might have missed. I wish you good luck with the setting, and hope it goes well for you.


Bandw2 wrote:

this... has to be the weirdest argument i've seen. people arguing against each other's opinions and even someone refuting another's opinion because it's an opinion when they have been discussing opinions...

anyway, my OPINION, is that the real shortcoming of the firearm rules is you need to be a class or archetype made for them or firearms are overpriced suck nuggets.

Indeed.

I haven't even seen them be a problem at my table, with misfire, cost and availability all being limiting factors...

Who cares if they attack touch AC when you spend 25% of your wealth on them.

It's like making a rogue who attacks with nothing but wands.

Ugh.


Cyrad wrote:
gamer-printer wrote:
Cyrad wrote:
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.

Again, the realism fallacy. I argued this already, but the realism argument doesn't hold because:

1) Pathfinder is a fantasy game where people can survive 100 foot falls without serious injury and winged creatures can weigh 2000 pounds and still fly. The game ignores these facts in order to make the game more fun. Misfires are not fun.

2) Pathfinder early firearms aren't realistic to begin with. Renaissance firearms did not have significantly more penetrating than a longbow. They would especially not have more penetrating power than a bow wielded by a character like Legolas. Bows became obsolete because of the ease of firearm training, not because of penetrating power. That kind of advantage didn't really become prevalent until the 1700s.

3) Yes, firearm misfires happened, but so did misfires for other ranged weapons. Crossbows have more moving parts and bows rely heavily on tension with a string easily slashed at. Why don't they have misfire rules? Oh, because they don't have an unrealistic, game-breaking touch attack mechanic. So to say that guns should have misfires because they historically did happen is a double standard.

gamer-printer wrote:
And I won't arbitrarily change the
...

Dragons existing and being able to fly ONLY means that dragons exist and are able to fly, it doesn't suddenly render any form of consistency or realism invalid for the entirety of the rest of the game. The fallacy, as such, is that any fantastical elements existing means that suddenly any attempts at realism or consistency must forthwith cease entirely.

Again. Dragons existing and being able to fly is a compartmentalized thing which only means what it says - dragons are able to fly.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Bandw2 wrote:
anyway, my OPINION, is that the real shortcoming of the firearm rules is you need to be a class or archetype made for them or firearms are overpriced suck nuggets.

In my experience as both a GM and a player, the price doesn't really hinder Ultimate Combat firearms. However, I completely agree that the price and availability of firearms is annoying. Even with my house rules, I feel that way. I considered changing the Dex-to-damage (innate feature of firearms in my rules) so it works more like composite bows. This would justify reducing their expense.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

okay, everyone latched onto the overpriced word... that's okay i guess >_>, i was pointing out that if you're not a gunslinger or a trench fighter or a pistelero or what have you, guns are pretty much useless.


Bandw2 wrote:
okay, everyone latched onto the overpriced word... that's okay i guess >_>, i was pointing out that if you're not a gunslinger or a trench fighter or a pistelero or what have you, guns are pretty much useless.

I'm inclined to agree.

I'm taking one for my Hunter (she's themed as a pirate) because it seems appropriate, I don't expect it to help my damage output AT ALL.

Sovereign Court

To the OP: remove Advanced Firearms from your games.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Bandw2 wrote:
okay, everyone latched onto the overpriced word... that's okay i guess >_>, i was pointing out that if you're not a gunslinger or a trench fighter or a pistelero or what have you, guns are pretty much useless.

Yeah, I agree with that, too. Rather lame if only one class can really make them feasible. That would be like if you made a class called Swordman that is the only class that can feasibly make swords worthwhile and yet most of the Swordman's class features just negate penalties and drawbacks of using swords.

Though, on the flip side, I am currently playing an inquisitor in PFS that dipped one level in gunslinger. He's level 4 now and has been one of the best damage dealers in several scenarios.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cyrad wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
okay, everyone latched onto the overpriced word... that's okay i guess >_>, i was pointing out that if you're not a gunslinger or a trench fighter or a pistelero or what have you, guns are pretty much useless.

Yeah, I agree with that, too. Rather lame if only one class can really make them feasible. That would be like if you made a class called Swordman that is the only class that can feasibly make swords worthwhile and yet most of the Swordman's class features just negate penalties and drawbacks of using swords.

so much this...


Bandw2 wrote:
okay, everyone latched onto the overpriced word... that's okay i guess >_>, i was pointing out that if you're not a gunslinger or a trench fighter or a pistelero or what have you, guns are pretty much useless.

But isn't that the actual point? The firearm rules are published for Golorian. They aren't supposed to be effective or useful for all involved. The class is what makes them functional in the setting, as intended. They aren't widespread or advanced or any of that, and that makes the character "feel" different and set them apart.

Saying they should be some other way, is taking them out of context for the published rules and setting, for your own use. Which in turn goes back to my statement about wanting something from the rules which they aren't made for.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Skylancer4 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
okay, everyone latched onto the overpriced word... that's okay i guess >_>, i was pointing out that if you're not a gunslinger or a trench fighter or a pistelero or what have you, guns are pretty much useless.
But isn't that the actual point? The firearm rules are published for Golorian. They aren't supposed to be effective or useful for all involved. The class is what makes them functional in the setting, as intended. They aren't widespread or advanced or any of that, and that makes the character "feel" different and set them apart.

Firearms and the gunslinger were published in their setting neutral product line. Contrast with the Technology Guide. Yes, they were published first in ISWG, but they had a chance to introduce new rules.


Fergie wrote:
CWheezy wrote:
I think he is lying about the little to no effort part

Sir, I say sir, hold on there a minute!

I might be a liar, a cheat, and a thief, but whatever that other thing you said isn't true!

8 Simple ways to balance the classes.

most of these changes don't actually nerf casters at all

6) Remove or rewrite stupid s$#& like dazing spell meta-magic, witches slumber hex, and other obviously broken stuff.

Do you know how much work this is

7) I would sit down with the players and explain that I don't like to play with a lot of action denial techniques. RPG-Tag is not a fun way to play. This applies on both sides of the screen. I don't want to consistently take a player out of action with save-or-suck and for similar reasons, I don't want players using those tactics on my named NPC/monsters.

lol ok. These are not simple fixes with little effort. You have to go through hundreds of spells and rewrite them all


Cyrad wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
okay, everyone latched onto the overpriced word... that's okay i guess >_>, i was pointing out that if you're not a gunslinger or a trench fighter or a pistelero or what have you, guns are pretty much useless.
But isn't that the actual point? The firearm rules are published for Golorian. They aren't supposed to be effective or useful for all involved. The class is what makes them functional in the setting, as intended. They aren't widespread or advanced or any of that, and that makes the character "feel" different and set them apart.
Firearms and the gunslinger were published in their setting neutral product line. Contrast with the Technology Guide. Yes, they were published first in ISWG, but they had a chance to introduce new rules.

The vast majority of material is published in "neutral" product lines. That doesn't change that the material is made for and intended for use in the parent setting originally. You deciding to port it out and use in your campaign, means you are doing exactly that.

It's like saying that crowbar is a broken hammer because it came in the toolbox. Yeah you can use it that way, doesn't mean it is the scenario it was intended to be used in. It works as intended in the way it was meant to be used.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Skylancer4 wrote:
It's like saying that crowbar is a broken hammer because it came in the toolbox. Yeah you can use it that way, doesn't mean it is the scenario it was intended to be used in. It works as intended in the way it was meant to be used.

Actually, I can't even give that notion much credit because, originally, touch attack firearms were not meant to be full-attacked with. Alchemical cartridges and the Musket Master were not introduced until Ultimate Combat.


CWheezy wrote:
stuff.

Since this has zero to do with gunslingers, let's not derail this thread.

If you would like to discuss it, please use this thread.


DeathmatchFM wrote:

So I've come to a very sticky situation in my PF game regarding balance. It's the case where one combatant skews entire encounters and how I have to plan them. The player isn't doing this on purpose, but the issue still persists.

Simply put, his damage output with a Gunslinger is nuts. He has an advanced firearm and Rapid Reload to get off multiple attacks without worrying about ammunition constraints. There are two major issues:

He increases damage with Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim almost "freely". Those feats are designed to add extra damage at the expense of accuracy, but his attacks all go to touch AC and thus always hit monsters of their CR unless he rolls a 1.

Hmm, not sure if someone already pointed this out or if there is something about gunslingers I don't know but, deadly aim doesn't apply to touch attacks.

That help you any?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

Yrtalien wrote:
DeathmatchFM wrote:

So I've come to a very sticky situation in my PF game regarding balance. It's the case where one combatant skews entire encounters and how I have to plan them. The player isn't doing this on purpose, but the issue still persists.

Simply put, his damage output with a Gunslinger is nuts. He has an advanced firearm and Rapid Reload to get off multiple attacks without worrying about ammunition constraints. There are two major issues:

He increases damage with Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim almost "freely". Those feats are designed to add extra damage at the expense of accuracy, but his attacks all go to touch AC and thus always hit monsters of their CR unless he rolls a 1.

Hmm, not sure if someone already pointed this out or if there is something about gunslingers I don't know but, deadly aim doesn't apply to touch attacks.

That help you any?

That has been discussed before. The firearm rules deliberately point out that Deadly Aim works with firearm touch attacks.

Liberty's Edge

Slumber hex is considered overpowered because it is essentially a free sleep spell, that is better than sleep. Then why not limit the hexes sleep effect to a daze at range and an actual sleep on touch. The Gm has the power to establish the rules of his games. That being said, would you rather have sleep, which can be knocked out of, or blindness/deafness which cannot be removed except through remove curses, both of which the which can do and worse at low levels. The witch is not neccesarily broken by design. Any witch will have trouble if the undead get involved, while a wizard has more options, and they still need the support of others to be at peak effectiveness.

All I am saying is, think about what you consider overpowered, because you might be surprised by the players simply being clever/dumb with thier tools and either making games enjoyable, or infuriating. And I like the witch class because I like playing a powerful nearly insane gal who makes foes wish for the swift and relatively quick death of the headsmans axe.

Gunslinger is not so bad either, since at low levels you bring more of a in case of emergency fighter set up. Sword, sap, daggers, kukuri, bow, arrows, Bec de Corbin and then the trusty sidearm. And trading out the relevent elements for magical weapons, a better gun, and of course a good supply of specialised bullets and black powder. As then have a keg of the stuff to deal with very stiff opposition, such as a big stone door, a big dungeon critter, or a room full of enemy assailants.

Liberty's Edge

Also, there is a reason why Golorian is an emerging firearms setting with no advanced firearms, save the numenara firearms(which are technically alien tech and require a very distinct focus to use effectivly). So that players cannot pull this kind of shenaniganry. The maximum any normal player can get off with early firearms is four, with 2x two barreled pistols, in both hands. Limiting rapid reload to 1 chamber/barrel per use(since it is intended for single shot pistols and rifles. And and you only get one standard action each turn. House rule that he can aim OR rapid shot, since he would probably be half blind and deaf if he actually did that.

And guns are LOUD. they are not pap pap, they are-and always have been- BANG, BANG. Have more prepared to face the gun man, by being in cover, ready to blast him when he walks through the door, or just alert as all hell. Remember that. Solders normally wear ear protection when firing their automatic weapons, and gunslingers in Golorian don't have that. They only get time to recover. Rapidly firing a revolver while using deadly aim should be VERY bad for your ears. You probably go deaf in a few days of action. The soldiers that actually fight with those weapons do get hearing problems after a while.

Liberty's Edge

In short, don't let him do both at the same time, and hit him with a big whopping penalty if he does. Deafness is kind of a bad thing, and medical deafness is near incurable in pathfinder. No wounds, no curse, no disease, just being deaf until someone gets a miracle or wish spent on them. And you don't get them very often, if ever.


Mystic_Snowfang wrote:
DR, DR shuts down Gunslingers fast

I'd have to disagree with that. Using the correct combination of their skills; Gunslingers are the ultimate DR by passers. DR doesn't mean much when you're dealing additional damage with out an enhancement bonus. Add on to that the ability to enhance a gun just as you would a bow and make your ammunition out of alternate materials and there isn't anything a Gunslinger can't hurt with their chosen firearm.

Especially a dual wielding pistolero.


ErisAcolyte-Chaos jester wrote:

House rule that he can aim OR rapid shot, since he would probably be half blind and deaf if he actually did that.

And guns are LOUD. Rapidly firing a revolver while using deadly aim should be VERY bad for your ears. You probably go deaf in a few days of action.

If you're going to introduce house rules intended solely to nerf a particular class, the time to do so is before the characters are rolled up. It's an unbelievable dick move to say to the wizard, mid-game, "Oh, by the way, you now take damage equal to 1d6 + 1d6/spell level every time you cast an enchantment spell, and casting illusions causes you to go insane." By the same token, introducing the recommended rules above, mid-game, will cause a lot of players to seriously think twice about staying with that DM -- who knows what's next?

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

I think it's okay to make changes to classes and content as long as you talk to your players. If I nerf something, I try to compensate in some other way. But saying your weapon deafens you when you use it is just a punch in the face.

Also, Cluster Shot pretty much makes DR irrelevant. I've actually grown to dislike that feat because it negates the need of carrying different types of ammo and melee fighters don't have a comparable feat.

151 to 200 of 229 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / Need Help! Gunslinger damage is insane. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.